Home > Uncategorized > relationship between existence, distinctness and energy

## relationship between existence, distinctness and energy

how can we define “existence” of something? If A and B are something in the same dimension or domain, how can we know if they are the same thing or different thing? And if A and B are the same thing then either A or B will not exist.

When we say something is exist, that means we can see that the thing is distinct from others. When it exists, then we can assume the boundary of the thing physically or virtually exist.

For example, there is an apple on a floor, we know the apple exists in our domain because we can percept the boundary of the apple and the boundary of the floor. That’s why we infer that the apple and the floor exist. If we cannot percept any boundary within the apple itself, then we would not claim any additional existence of any other thing in that space.

Yet hypothesis can be done. For example, there are some small boundaries on the apple but we could not observe or percept. Still we can make a hypothesis that there are something else on the apple but we could not observe it with our eyes (or some particular measurements), however there are some measurements that can reveal the boundary, then that thing, finally, exists in the space using those measurements.

we never find only 1 thing. If we find A, we will find ~A at the same time. –> 2 is a magic number here!

To exist –> to distinct from others is the key. To distinct for others –> Energy is the key!

Without energy, every thing is going to be the same.

Boundary is created by energy.

On the same time, boundary also produce energy! There are mutuality and causality here.

When talking about “distinctness”, we have to define the feature space we are observing.

Let’s ponder this:

I: Do love, goodness and all other abstract things exist?

Me: Of course, yes, ummmmm…. but where is the boundary then?

I: I cannot percept the boundar, but I know they all exist in my thought, in my-thought space at least.

Me: Then you know when it comes or when it goes?

I: Umm sort of. That’s true. I know when it comes because it is different from this second to another second, that’s why I know it comes.

Me: Then you basically can tell the boundary already. How about the energy?

I: This is obvious, when you think about something, when you feel something. What you have to pay is your energy. That’s why you are hungry when you think a lot.

Me: So I’m convinced love, goodness and all other feelings exist, at least, in “my-thought” space. How about in reality space?

I: Ummm…that’s a tough question. What do you mean by “reality”?

Me: I don’t know too. But somehow I think the reality “exists” and there will be only one reality.

I: Then how can you explain the parallel dimension or the reality in another dimension?

Me: I explain it as a joint reality such as (R1, R2, R3, R4) = (walk to school, run to school, swim to school, playing with friends). This is an example of 1 reality at different dimensions. Don’t think about the case that we have time machine! Now let’s get back to our discussion with assuming reality exists.

I: OK, then all kinds of feeling won’t exist in this reality space at all. I think their existences are created from the modifications and decisions and judgment from our mind. In other words, I think that if we don’t think, don’t modify, don’t interpret anything, then there will be no “feeling” at all.

Me: So did you mean “feeling” or “interpreting” is considered bad and not real?

I: No no, I’m not saying that feeling nor interpreting is bad at all, but I’m saying that it’s not the “true” form of the existence. You just your own energy to interpret, think and feel it based on your experience, state of mind, judgment by unintentionally denying to know th true form of the existence.

Me: Well, then it’s very difficult to “purely” know something in its true form existence according to what it is as it is.

I: Yes, I agree. For me, I think it’s much harder to know something than to think about the same thing. So I think knowing something without bias is the key. How can we do that?

Me: Well, for me that sounds paradoxical because before you know something, you will have to think about that thing properly. Plus when you think, you will have to come up with models, assumptions and interpretations. But those are what you called “bias”, aren’t they? And when the bias comes, the truth is unseen.

I: Well, but no pain, no gain, isn’t it? So sometimes we will have to guess, to model, or to interpret something, otherwise we could not learn anything. I think that is why we usually use the word “theory” a lot but not “truth”. For me “theory” is the human or mankind ambition to model the truth which is, of course, unknown to most of us.

Me: Umm…OK keep going…

I: It’s like a trade off. To know the truth is always good, but it’s almost impossible to know the “true” truth. It’s like a gambling that you will get everything or nothing. For example, if you won’t make any assumption to something, then you try to find out the truth. Then there are 2 possible ways; 1) With your wisdom, you know the truth or 2) Unfortunately, you know nothing after all. Is there any compromising here? Yes, make some possible assumptions!, the more realistic assumptions you got, the closer to the truth you are. In my opinion, theory is the more relax version of the truth. Be broad minded to trade the purity of the knowledge you would gain with the risk of not knowing anything at all. If you are not going to die now, then your knowledge can be improved later on! And hopefully, you will make it all to the truth one day before you die. hee hee hee.

Me: It seems like what we can do now is to make a wise assumption until the day wisdom comes to us, huh?

I: Ummm I don’t know but it seems like. And when the wisdom comes, then all assumptions are suddenly meaningless to us. But waiting the wisdom without doing anything is surely not the way hahahaha!

Me: Yeah, I guess we have to do something, just do it as good as we can, that’s the only choice.