Essay 18-Eternity, Change, and Objects which do not Exist

Opening

The principle of conscious experience states that conscious experience of an object X is proof of the existence of X. However, in previous essays we have discovered that it is possible for conscious experience to contradict each other. This contradiction will lead us to conclude that there are objects which exist and do not exist at the same time but in different senses. As such the problem arises of whether this non-existence violates the eternity of existence or not. The answer will determine the fate of this philosophical system.

Discussion

First, we must accept completely that the principle of conscious experience is true. That for any experience of X, X is guaranteed to be true. As such any statement of, “X does not exist,” is invalid. As the very mention of X proves the existence of X such that it can interact with our conscious experience. For X to not exist, it means that we cannot experience it at all through any means, and even then, we still cannot conclusively prove that it does not exist, only that it cannot be experienced.

Yet let us specify the X, now it is possible for X to exist independently of space-time properties, but commonly it exists within a world with spatial-temporal properties. Let us examine the example of a red car. If we say, “Red cars do not exist,” then yes, it is invalid. However, what if we specify, “The red car at the specific point of spacetime does not exist,” would the statement be valid or invalid? According to the principle of experience, it seems to be invalid, but let us understand it further.

The statement would be invalid if it is not specified if the car must be capable of being sensed or only to be imagined. If there is no requirement, then we can say that the statement is invalid. As we can at least imagine a red car at that specific point of spacetime. We may possibly say that the red car exists in a spiritual realm such that we can encounter it in imagination. Things become very different on the other hand, when we specify that the red car must be sensible.

As such it is possible for us to imagine a sensible car at a point of X but we do not actually experience it at X when we are at X. To eliminate any possibility of escape, we shall specify the world as well to be in the world of where we are, which we label Y. Therefore, the statement becomes, “The sensible red car at point X in world Y does not exist.” Let us ask again, is the statement valid or invalid?

On one hand it seems that it is still invalid as we can imagine such object. Then that object must certainly exist. However, we must remember what does it mean to exist. To exist means to be present, such that it has consequences for the rest of reality according to its properties. A sensible red car, if such exists, has the consequence of us actually sensing the red car with our senses. A condition contrary to such requirement would tell us one thing, the sensible red car at point X at world Y does not exist.

We can add to this by understanding that when we say, “Red car”, we almost always mean a sensible red car. As a red car necessarily has properties which can cause us to have a unique experience. Then we can say that the red car exists but only as a construct of the mental realm. It does not have corporeal form and we can say that the corporeal red car does not exist. Spiritually, abstractly, or mentally, the red car does exist. However, what matters here is the corporeal and sensible red car which apparently does not exist.

The reason that we can say the corporeal red car does not exist is that if the corporeal car does exist, we would have sensed the car. However, the reality of our consciousness shows that we do not sense the red car. As a result, we cannot validly say that the corporeal red car exists, rather the corporeal red car. As such, it does not matter whether we can imagine specifically “corporeal red car”, our imagination here stands below the sensory experience.

Yes, the corporeal red car does exist because of our imagination, but we can say that it exists in an inactive form, which is the same as saying that the car exists spiritually and mentally but not in corporeal form. In the end, to imagine the corporeal red car without actually having the corporeal red car will lead us to the same conclusion that the corporeal red car does not exist, without violating the principle of conscious experience.

The reason the principle is not being violated is because we must remember that the corporeal red car does exist, but it is not active. If we imagine the active corporeal red car, well that form is also inactive, and the inactive form of the active form is simply the inactive form of the corporeal red car and thus the mental form of the red car. We can keep imagining and result only in the non-existence of the corporeal red car. As such the corporeal red car does not exist, but at the same time it exists, simply in different realms. It is the same as to say that the red car exists in the abstract realm but not in the material realm.

Now I know this is getting repeated over and over, but it is for the sake of my own understanding. When we say red car, it is always assumed to be corporeal. As a red car is by nature corporeal. Then to say “corporeal red car” is actually the same as saying “red car”. Adding the label of corporeality does not add any meaning to the term. What adds meaning is the label of “incorporeality”. As then we mean a red car in the form which we cannot experience but we can imagine. So again, when we say “There is a corporeal red car,” we mean, “There is a red car.” As such the principle of experience is not violated as the corporeal red car does exist, the red car does exist, but not in corporeal form. As such in one understanding, the red car exists, but on the other, it does not exist, and both are compatible with our existent principles.

The next problem is whether the existence of non-existent objects violates the law of eternity. In short no. In elaboration, it is not violated as each object in different points of spacetime are different objects. Then we know that each point of spacetime is never repeated. So, it is impossible for a non-existent red car at X to be existent, as after X is Y and what we have is an existent red car at Y. This then supports the law of eternity as the non-existent red car at X is forever non-existent and the existent car at Y is forever existent. As there is only one chance to exist or not exist, there are no second chances.

Closing

According to our discussions, we have saved the principles of conscious experience and eternity from contradiction. The contradiction reveals to us that certain objects might not exist despite being imagined. It is by the fact that imagination is simply one form of conscious experience which if the other forms disagree with then the imagination is simply false. Then we acknowledge that all objects are different and as such it cannot violate the law of eternity. Our philosophical system is saved, and we seek further challenges.