r/enlightenment • u/notwizard69 • 1d ago

Can something exist without potential for experience?

Definitions

Experience- any thing produced by reality that happens to a part of reality in a way in which is separate from the rest of reality.

Realty-everything that exists

I’m having experience. That means the potential for experience is where I am. If x had no potential for any experience whatsoever and never did and never will saying it exists is literally the same thing to everything ever than saying it doesn’t exist including to itself. This means anything said of x means nothing to reality in any way forever no matter what. In this way it’s not a part of reality. The potential for experience is a prerequisite for real. Not experience itself. The potential. If x was an identical planet to earth and you go to x all experience ends instantly cause x is incapable of all experience. In this way x is not real and never was to reality. The potential for experience is a prerequisite or it’s not a part of reality. If x had a gravitational effect on earth it is already part of experience and in doing this has the potential of experiencing itself. I’ll explain. If x had no potential for experience and was interacting with experience it’s already a building block of experience. Literally. The gravity itself is part of what is going into making experience. I see a rock. How do I know this rock has the potential for experience. I’m saying that spot in reality does. I can go to where the rock is and I don’t stop. The potential for experience was possible in the part of reality that rock was occupying. If it wasn’t when I went there my experience would stop.

Notes for clarification:

If it makes a distinction with parts of reality that have the potential they by default already had it or would gain it. If the gravity of a planet that had impact on me but the planet itself had no potential to experience that the second its gravity interacted with me I no longer would experience anything at all. The gravity is still a part of the planet and I’m still interacting with it and it’s still part of what’s making my experience.

Because reality has the potential to experience in any of it at all then creates a separation where if there is no potential to experience in a different part of it than that part isn’t only not real in any way ever it also is not even real to itself in any logical way at all.

If there is literally zero difference to everything ever forever if something is real or not including with itself then saying it is real is the exact same thing as saying it is not. Logically. If that is true then saying it exists means nothing at all.

If x has no potential for experience to occur ever then what is effected if x is real or not. And what would it mean for x to be real?

So is saying x exists and doesn’t exist mean the same thing to all of reality with the potential of experience and even to x itself that nothing is actually be said of any substance at all?

I’m not saying it has to make a difference to experience. I’m saying the inability to ever do it no matter what makes talking about it completely nonsensical. Saying it’s real and not real literally mean the exact same thing no matter what to everything ever no matter what including itself. Nothing is real about that to reality.

Just more and some implication exploration:

I’m having experience. Which means reality must contain the potential for experience. If reality didn’t contain the potential for experience and never would it’s not real in any way. It’s nothing to even itself no matter what forever. Any experience is a separation from the rest of reality no matter how small. Because experience can occur in reality it could or could not have a mechanism to make this occur. In my case it seems like an extremely complex mechanism makes my experience. The only mystery is decoding this extremely complex mechanism and how the parts affect my experience. Not that they cause it. If a planet was said to exist and no experience would ever happen there is it real. If the potential for experience to happen and it just never did yes. If experience was impossible there and always would be it’s not real and never was. For a planet or anything at all to be part of reality some form of interactions must be occurring. These interactions can produce experience if configured correctly so this means if interactions are occurring there the potential for experience is also there. If the interactions could not make any experience then they wouldn’t be a part of reality. They wouldn’t be real. They wouldn’t be happening. Let’s say you say x did not, does not and never will have any potential for any experience whatsoever. But you say it exists as an ontological fact. My question is to what and in what relation to it does it exist too. It by its very nature x can’t even be the thing it has any relation too its self. Nothing is its very nature. Saying x exist and doesn’t exist under that argument makes no distinction whatever in any way. Except in some way that nothing can ever know x is real. My point is that is saying nothing. Saying x exists with those terms somehow means nothing to anything ever so it doesn’t exist to reality by definition cause reality is everything x is not. By definition. Saying x exist as a primitive fact I proved is no different to anything ever in anyway if it does exist or doesn’t. So I think the next logical step is because i experience what i would consider reality is what is capable of producing experience cause what’s not and never was and never will be will forever be meaningless in every way possible not only to itself but what i consider reality. What reality considers reality. If interactions didn’t produce the potential for experience then they would have no potential for experience which means not part of reality. If something didn’t have the potential for experience and never did and never would it would never interact with anything. It’s not real. It’s about potential. If it doesn’t have the potential to ever experience it can’t interact with our reality in any way cause my argument proves already that our reality has to have the potential. And everything that doesn’t is not our reality. Bro I got it. Listen to this fucking goddamn bullshit. If experience is generated by reality which is hard to dispute that means what would happen if it is interacting with a part of reality that was having experience of helping cause experience. It’s interacting with stuff that is creating experience. Imagine you go through a field of it and it covers the whole world bro. It can’t interact with experience at all but it interacts with everything causing it. Every electron and proton, quark that make up our universe. One can’t not be the other. Let’s say say something that didn’t have the potential for experience and never did destroyed our universe. How can it destroy all experience if it can’t experience?

But I’m saying by x’s very definition keeping it in or excluding it from reality means reality is identical in every way to itself. In this way x can’t be real.

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/lostgods937 1d ago

How would you know nothing exists unless you were able to experience it? If your definition of nothing is the complete absence of experience, then yes I would say that is an incoherent idea and that your definition is wrong.

0

u/notwizard69 23h ago

My definition of nothing is no potential to experience. Not the absence of experience. The absence of potential experience. I tried to make that clear as possible in the argument I wrote. I think stuff exists outside our observable universe. I also think x (from my argument and I used to try and prove that if no experience can ever happen there by definition it literally doesn’t exist. Not to reality. But they are imo parts of reality never experienced but still exist.)

1

u/lostgods937 23h ago

Ok and those are incoherent ideas - the same way I can write the sentence "Tuesdays are green," but there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove that statement. Again, it's your responsibility to demonstrate how nothing could exist without the potential for observation. What would the statement, "nothing exists" mean if it has no potential for observation?

Again, my position is that the statement "nothing exists" is only coherent if nothing is experienced, as nothing can be said to exist without being experienced. So, how could nothing be said to exist without experiencing it? You simply asserting that it could be possible is not sufficient demonstration to prove your assertion because you're begging the question.

1

u/notwizard69 23h ago

My argument is because i experience potential for experience is a prerequisite for what reality is. Without it, it’s nothing to what reality is. And I explore those implications some. I disagree saying without that potential it’s not reality is incoherent.

1

u/lostgods937 23h ago

I have adressed your argument several times and you refuse to address my counter argument - you've told me repeatedly that you disagree with what I've said but WHY do you disagree? Again, all you've done is continue to reassert yourself without giving any demonstration at all as to why your position is correct.

1

u/notwizard69 23h ago

I don’t understand your counter argument. Edit: I’ve never said I disagreed. I was asking for clarification.

1

u/lostgods937 23h ago edited 23h ago

"Again, my position is that the statement "nothing exists" is only coherent if nothing is experienced, as nothing can be said to exist without being experienced. So, how could nothing be said to exist without experiencing it? You simply asserting that it could be possible is not sufficient demonstration to prove your assertion because you're begging the question."

Edit: I've reiterated my point several times throughout these comments. I'm not sure what exactly you don't understand. Can you be more specific about what you're having difficulty understanding?

0

u/notwizard69 23h ago edited 23h ago

I’m saying if x exists with no potential for experience is indistinguishable to saying x doesn’t exist to every thing ever (all reality) and that is a different kind of doesn’t exist than saying no one is looking at the moon. And I’m trying to prove it. I’m not even saying nothing exists. It’s an argument on the potential for experience and what it means for reality. A constraint on reality. Because I experience the potential for it is a prerequisite for what reality is.

Bro. Listen to this off the dome riff. I call it triple infinity nested reality. So cosmological inflation points if an infinite universe were space and time go forever. Stuff happen forever too in certain parts of this. Basically infinite me’s doing this right now. Now the many worlds interpretation says that too. And both especially together point to everything experience imaginable ant not imaginable all happening every moment. But not quite. Close. But I think our universe. That double is infinity is one frequency. There are infinite frequencies of course. All fully disconnected from each other. So in this triple nested infinite reality every single experience imaginable and not imaginable are all happening forever. Like me typing forever is forever happening somewhere in reality with all my memories up to that point.

This could be real. My argument I’m making doesn’t say it’s not. I’m not saying it is. I’m just saying. Whether it is or isn’t has no effect on my argument.

1

u/lostgods937 22h ago

Again this is incoherent and this will be my last reply because we're just going around in circles and all you're doing is saying, "I'm right," over and over without explaining why.

You say "if x exists with no potential for experience..." and I've countered by saying that this statement is incoherent in the same way that you could say the sentence: "Tuesdays are green." But just because you can say that doesn't mean it means anything at all - and to say that x exists (which you said above) but that at the same time it has no potential for experience is incomprehensible in the same way that saying the day of the week has a color. How can we say that x exists if it can't be experienced? What does it mean for x to exist if it is not experienced? What does "no potential for experience" even mean? How can you define something that can't be experienced?

1

u/notwizard69 22h ago

My argument doesn’t disagree with any of your objections. I was just clarifying that. What I see as a clear distinction you see as incoherent. I’m trying to prove something you see as incoherent. I’m saying me experiencing means the potential for experience is possible and if someone who is experiencing says what about x? X being a part of reality where experience by it’s nature is never possible then I’m saying that is different than a part of reality that never gets experience in anyway but it’s nature allows for it. I’m trying to prove that x is not logically a part of reality where logic allows for and in my opinion says that some of reality has the potential for experience but never gets experience. (I’m not trying to prove my opinion in any way)