Essay 12-Eternity of Existence

Introduction

There are several essays to be used as the foundations of this essay, that is essay 4, essay 6, essay 8, essay 10, and essay 11. Essay 4 and essay 6 provides the foundations of existence, that there is such a thing as existence. Essay 8 provides the idea that existence is independent from conscious experience. Essay 10 provides the idea of change and essay 11 provides the essential definition of existence.

Previously we have established in essay 10 that observed change is merely actual and not existential. However, it does not in any way at all prove that existential change does not exist, that is actual changes of existence from existence to non-existence. As such, equipped with the idea of change and the definition of existence from essay 11, the question of existential change arises and confronts us to be answered. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to determine whether there is such a thing as existential change.

Beginning and End of Existence

The concept of existential change is related to the beginning and end of existence. As existential change is the change of existence from existence to non-existence or non-existence to existence, that means there is a beginning and end to existence. We ought to understand these concepts of beginning and end, and what it means for something to not exist, if we are to seek the answers of the question of existential change.

The beginning of existence might be defined as the process of non-existence becoming existence, while the end of existence as the process of existence becoming non-existence. We already understand the concept of existence as a presence which has the consequence of possessing property or an effect on the conscious experience. Now we must seek to understand the complete antithesis of it, that is non-existence.

Non-existence can simply be explained as a negation of the definitions of existence. When an object does not exist, it is not simply not present in reality, or absent. Its absence means there is no property which can affect other objects actually, nor can it affect us phenomenally. It is a state of nothingness in which all 3 definitions of existence are not fulfilled. It is not present, there is no property, and there is no experience.

Therefore, the beginning of existence is the process of this absolute nothingness turning into an existence. From having no property, no presence, and no experience, suddenly we have property, presence, and experience of that object. Then likewise the end of existence is when something we have completely disappears and we can never know of it disappearing as it vanishes completely from our minds and memories. Its effects too, are completely gone, and no trace of its presence can be tracked.

In full honesty it is actually impossible to prove that an object has vanished. As an object might be present without affecting our experience, it can simply be out of reach from actuality completely, isolated in a deep existential darkness. Furthermore, we can not speak of any object which is not within our experience, as such there is no way to say that an object does not exist. Simply through the act of thought or speech, the existence of that object has been proven definitively.

There is a second problem with the idea of a total nothingness. It is the fact that such a thing as nothingness is, a thing. It is imaginable and thus experienceable, meaning it is an existent object. As such, despite the fact that there is nothing in nothingness that can affect other objects, it still exists and any object which changes into it is still existent, just in a totally new form. Therefore, from a higher perspective, existence has been proven to be eternal, but there is another form of existence we seek to explore, that is the existence of particular forms.

Let us take the example of instant noodles, we first accept that the raw noodles and the cooked noodles are 2 different objects. Existence in general is eternal, so raw noodles technically can not be truly destroyed, it just evolves into nothingness. Yet on the other hand in such scenario we understand that the raw noodles are totally destroyed as it is no longer present. The question is, is such a process possible? To answer that question, we must analyse nothingness as an object.

Object of Nothingness

The object of nothingness is as the name suggests, an object which is totally nothing. However due to the fact that this special object is still an object, it retains what I describe as the existential properties and the phenomenal property. Existential properties are properties shared by every object. While the phenomenal property is the property of objects which we can consciously experience.

Existential properties include the dual property of existence, that the object exists meaning it is present in reality, and that it has property. It also includes the objective property, or the property of being an object. This can be further broken down into the properties of being a part of reality, limited, and unique. As such, the object of nothingness has a set of 4 or 7 basic properties shared by most objects of reality.

However, those are not the properties which forms the essence of the object of nothingness. The essence of the object of nothingness, which becomes the crux of this essay is the property of nothingness. This property states that the object of nothingness has no property other than the existential properties, phenomenal properties, and the properties related to those properties. Properties such as name, amount, and perhaps other properties related to phenomena exist, but is not mentioned as they are more advanced.

The property of nothingness implies that this object cannot be duplicated, there is no such thing as 3 nothingness or 2 nothingness, there is only 1 nothingness. Nothingness also has no power to act upon anything or do anything. Apart from the properties of existence, phenomena, and nothingness, there is totally nothing here. The only presence is here the absence of any other presence but the absence itself. This will be important in the next part, the actual proof of the eternity of existence.

Eternity of Existence

In order to prove the eternity of existence in the specific form, that each object’s existence is eternal, we must prove it from both sides. That is, we must prove that the object is continuous forwards or backwards, it has no beginning or end. The cases for the beginning and the end of existence is a bit different, and as such we must analyse them separately. In this analysis the property of nothingness of the object of nothingness will be used extensively.

In the case of the beginning of existence we remember that in essay 8 and essay 10, there is the concept of causality. This concept states that the effect is contained within the cause or the programming of the cause. So, any object if caused by anything, must have been present in the form of the cause of the object or the programming of the cause. As such it must have existed in the first place. This is the first argument to state that an object’s existence can have no beginning.

The second argument relates to the origin or the cause of the object. What is the cause of the object? It would not actually matter because whatever the cause is, it would stand that the object exists beforehand and as such there is no beginning of existence. However, it would be more fatal if we suggest that the cause of the object is nothingness. This is because it would form an association with nothingness and so nothingness would have a property other than the 3 groups of properties. This violates the definition and thus it is not actually nothingness, just a pseudo-nothingness.

Now we can examine the end of existence. The end of existence is a bit more straightforward as in a forward motion, existence would simply end into nothingness. There is no question of causation, and the effects are clear. As such at first glance it would seem that there is no relation with nothingness that is formed due to the elimination of objects. At least, this is in first glance. As there is no addition of nothingness, but what is there is the union of objects with nothingness into a single nothingness.

Unfortunately for the scenario, the facts of reality would record that a union has occurred and this does form an association between nothingness and the object. This again violates the definition of nothingness and so what we have is a pseudo-nothingness. Furthermore, the facts of reality do preserve the definite existence of that object. Nevertheless, existence has no end, no beginning and is by then, conclusively eternal in all respects.

One particular implication of this fact is related to the concept of change. We are all aware that observed change is the change of actuality instead of the change of existence, as described in essay 10. However, it does not yet disprove the existential change. With the idea of eternal existence of particular forms, any remaining possibility of an existential change shall be turned to dust and crushed and destroyed.

Existential change is the change of objects in the existential level, from A to B completely. This means when A is present, B is not present, and when B is present, A is not present. Instead of the actual concept of change where A and B is always present at the same time, just each in different forms. Now we think that existential change is simply A to B, but in truth as there is absence of A or B at any given point in time, there is a third object, nothingness.

Instead of A to B, the actual process is A to nothingness to B. As we identify that in the process of becoming B, A ceases to be. While prior to B’s presence, B is completely absent. This must be the case as this is by definition a change of existence. We cannot say that A simply morphs into B and there is a relationship between A and B as that would mean there is no change of existence. A and B are still present at the same time. For the change to be an existential change, then destruction and creation must be completely present.

Let us illustrate an abstract example to clarify what change constitutes as an existential change and what change does not. If A is a cube with labelled sides, and then one of its sides X is renamed Y and then B is the result of that relabelling, and that the transformation from A to B is a continuous B, then by the dynamic property A and B are contained within each other and are at any given point in time, present at the same time. Existential change requires that A is destroyed first, such that there is no presence of A within B, and B be created from nothingness to ensure that there is no presence of B within A.

Of course, we know that by the idea of destruction and creation itself existential change simply cannot be true. It creates prohibited relations with nothingness. Even worse, the moment we understand that there are relations with nothingness, then A and B are forever contained within nothingness. There might even be relations between them, as possibly the change is a single mechanism and A-nothing-B is part of a single dynamic property. Thus, A and B are still contained within each other, and there is no way to escape eternity.

This reinforces the idea of actual change, and now all change is actual. At the existential level, there is no change and change is practically an illusion. Of course, the properties of being actual and being phenomenal are part of the object, and so perhaps some properties are not completely eternal. However, such discussions are for another essay. For now, it is sufficient to understand that at the fundamental level, all objects have an eternal existence.

Conclusions

We obtain 1 philosophical statement from this essay that is, “Existence is eternal, it has no beginning or end.” In the next essay we shall explore deeper into the differences of objects, and discuss the concept of identity and category. For now, this essay is declared to be done.

This essay corresponds to the Indonesian version.