Proof of Existence

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.