Existence holds no truly accepted definition, but then how can we even prove existence? Many questions fill this world and many left unanswered. Maybe the universe exists for one purpose, one reason, or even one individual. Just like any other idea, the meaning of existence is the meaning mankind accepts it as. Since the beginning, mankind has had thinkers who have questioned existence. Why are we here? How did the universe begin? What is the meaning of life? Even though science has come a long way with its laws and theories of nature and physics, we still have no idea why or how we came to be. The answer to life may be too complex to even dream about it. It could also be so simple that mankind might have overlooked it.
There is no universally accepted definition of existence. One view states that something can only prove its existence with a 3rd person acknowledgment. Another view states that first person acknowledgment is just as credible. A well known philosopher, René Descartes, coined the famous phrase, "I think, therefore I am." The two concepts of acknowledgment have no experimental way to be proven, which is why the question of existence and being is usually associated with philosophy. Theoretically both have been proven and disproved. The 3rd person view can be disproved because senses can lie. Perceptions can be deceiving. "I think, therefore I am," would mean only things capable of thought can exist. A rock doesn't think, but a rock does exist. People who support Descartes' idea state that disproving the statement would only work if denying the antecedent of the statement. "I don"t exist, therefore I don't think,' which of course makes perfect sense. The true definition of being is still a mystery.
Throughout history there have been countless brilliant theorists. Many of these thinkers created theories, usually made to try to define nature. Julian Barbour believes that time only exists with constant change present. If the universe stopped would time exist? Without time would the universe even exist? Anything that exists in this universe has structure and takes up volume. Some believe that time must exist because timelines are the structures. Barbour explains structure, but without assuming the existence of time. People have different opinions on the definitions of words. For example, sound may mean something caused by vibrations to some and to others it may mean something you hear. If a tree falls and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? To the people who believe sound is just something that is caused by vibrations, it does make a sound, but to the ones who believe you need to hear it for it to be a sound, it isn't (Barbour 1). In my opinion, time should not be defined as an entity but as constant action because time does not take up volume or hold a provable structure.
We live in a universe made of matter and space. Space is a hard concept to grasp. It is not nothing because it does exist. Space may not have mass but it does have volume. If it had no volume, how would anything move through it? Since the big bang, our universe has been expanding. The mass stays the same, but the space keeps growing. Time is still necessary for existence. Theoretically, the big bang started with one very dense point which was all matter compacted into one single area and that point exploded sending matter in different directions, which explains why galaxies are growing farther apart, but what was before that one point of everything? How could everything just appear out of nothing? Without time the universe would still be nothing or next to nothing. Time was needed for the expansion of the universe, but because time has no structure, the universe is very unpredictable. Professor Stephen Hawking, presents the Uncertainty Principle. In Quantum Mechanics, space-time is defined by its outcomes and probabilities. This would mean that not only does the universe have different possible futures, but also different possible histories. I believe this is impossible. If space-time existed then time-travel would be possible, which is impossible because if in the future a way to travel. I do believe time exists, just not in a structure where past, present, and future can happen in a different sequence.
Is matter absolute? Scientists have discovered that all matter is made of particles called atoms, but eventually the atom was broken down into even smaller particles like protons, electrons, and neutrons. Those particles were then broken down also into much smaller particles called quarks. Everyday a new particle is discovered. What are the smallest particles made of? If a person were to cut 1 in half infinite times, the answer would never reach zero. It would be an infinite fraction. That would mean that the smallest particle is made of an infinite amount of a part of matter. With the Law of Conservation of mass, this is impossible because matter is finite, but what could matter be made of. Louis Savain states that everything is made of nothing and nothing is made of everything. The universe is balanced. What Savain states makes sense logically because in mathematics all positive numbers plus all negative numbers equal zero. Everything equals nothing. Nothing equals everything. The compliments and opposites balance each other. The universe is one, as its name implies.
The universe does in fact exist. How can one prove his own existence? What if we only existed in one person's mind? “What if nothing exists and we're all in somebody's dream? Or what's worse only that fat guy in the third row exists?” Director Woody Allen stated. Fiction is Fiction and Reality is Reality. Do the people in our own dreams think? Do they feel? Do they exist because they exist in our minds? Existence cannot be proven by the thought of one person because mistakes are possible outcomes. People make mistakes.
I believe acknowledgment by another person is needed to justify existence and relevance. If one person was by himself, he could believe whatever he wanted and existence would be based his own thoughts, but with another person to disagree or agree with the other person, existence would solely be base on existence. With no perspective, existence would have no relevance because existence would have no meaning. With no importance, existence would mean nothing and being would be nothing. Nothing would exist. With no there to care, no one would BE there to care.
Nature is a very questionable thing that has too many parts to define and find. Human nature ignores the high odds of misunderstanding and continues to question everything. It is Human nature to seek new answers; to seek knowledge. The many questions asked my mankind may never be answered. Questions like: Why are we here? How did the universe begin? What is the meaning of life? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know. Some of these questions may not even have answers, but it is human nature to seek truth and knowledge. Mankind's existence cannot be based purely on thoughts and matter. Existence is a fact and facts can be misleading. I know therefore I am. Actions, Knowledge, and Feelings acknowledge the existence of one and the existence of all.
