How to prove that a being does not exist, how to prove that a thing does not exist

"Diamond Sutra" cloud: "All appearances are false, if you see all the appearances that are not the same, that is, you see as they come." ”

Your state of mind determines whether things exist as you came.

The time, as when you go.

Hypothetical existence.

If this thing exists objectively, it will implicate many other things and change it as a result. And everything else is what it is now, and it hasn't changed. So this assumption does not hold. Because things don't exist.

Mathematically to prove that a fact does not exist, the common method is "counterproof", you also try.

Our brain thinks that our senses come from the brain, so the world we know is fed back to the brain through various organs, and then we know the world. So the question is, how do we prove that our senses are not generated by the brain itself? How can we prove that Newtonian mechanics is objective, and not a law of a subjective world constituted by the brains of all of us?

How does the brain make sense of the brain? We have been instilled from a young age that the world exists objectively, but no one has ever been able to prove that the world exists objectively. Idealism and materialism have been debated for thousands of years without a single outcome.

Proving existence and proving its non-existence are two ways and directions, not the same logic and way.

The basis for proving existence is example and formal logic, while the basis for proving its non-existence lies in rigorous theory and analysis of theory.

Many things don't exist, such as perpetual motion machines. While there are constant efforts on it, it is non-existent in nature. Because it violates the law of conservation of energy. By "not being able to prove its existence", it has actually been "proven that it does not exist".

Creature A, we can't prove that it's human, then it's really sure that it's not human.

Of course, this is the problem of formal logic, or the "law of contradiction" in classical logic, that is, "either a or not a". In modern logic, there is a similar three-value logic, that is, it does not necessarily conform to the law of contradiction, that is, there can be "either a, or not a, or neither a, this is not non-a".

"Existence" is about the state of human existence; Alive; Thus, "existence" refers to his actual state at the time of his self-introduction in the play. To "non-existent" is to consider non-existence: annihilation, that is, death.

Thus, he reflects on a choice due to his precarious situation and the moral bankruptcy around him.

His self-talk* also points to a kind of spiritual and moral self-doubt, the pain of one's own state of being. This question is a kind of self-introduction, no different from the inner dialogue that people reflect on in moments of contradiction. So he questions the choice between life and death, but in his monologue he waveres.

The fact that he seems to have chosen life over death suggests that Shakespeare used this speech to dramatize and show his inner struggle through his monologue, given the psychological condition in which he found himself. Shakespeare was a master of this new approach, which made his actors more realistic, rather than like cardboard cutouts, which many early medieval roles were required to play. Most, but not all, of the previous traits were based on "types", which were based on the four psychological traits that describe all human beings:

Bloody, mucus, irritable, melancholy. Hamlet exhibits several characteristics of these genres, which were relatively new concepts in the drama of the time.

Shakespeare gives Hamlet a deeper character. That's probably why, to this day, people are still curious about this extraordinary dialogue distilled from a play. The play is a profound stage technique and dramatic monologue that demonstrates Hamlet's state of mind beyond the simple "type".

Before this era, many monologues reflected the actor's intention to speak directly to the audience by raising a hand, mouth, and making them mentally state or intention of the actor (just as when we hold our hand to speak directly, but try to hide it from the opposite side of the other). In theater, until today, it is called "breaking the fourth wall", that is, the invisible wall between the actor and the audience, so when an actor directs his monologue of her (another male actor in a female role) to the audience, it is called breaking the fourth wall.

A soliloquy is a theatrical device in which a character stands alone on a stage and reveals his private thoughts to the audience, as if talking to himself.

1660 The first women to be allowed to legally ascend to power. William Shakespeare: born 1564, died 1616.

It can be said that we cannot give a proper definition of "existence" - after all, no matter how we define it, we cannot get out of the quagmire of "circular definition". After thinking about it, I can only say that existence is a collective term for all things that contain energy or the law of Tao (the nature that energy follows to maintain its own stability, equivalent to "spirit").

Existence is divided into objective and subjective - subjective existence refers to the existence of a specific Dao body (a general term for all existences, or a specific existence) that exists only in the Dao Law; Objective existence refers to the existence of a particular Dao body in both the law of Tao and the energy.

Existence is existence; In other words, everything that exists, must exist—if it is not objective, then it is subjective.

For example, "ghosts and gods" only exist in people's consciousness and do not appear in reality, which is a typical subjective existence.

It is important to know that "non-existence" is absolute nothingness, which does not exist in the universe – even in the mind.

The controversy between Zhuangzi and Huizi over the "joy of fish" (see Zhuangzi Qiushui for details) also contains a reflection on "existence": since Huizi said that "the child is not a fish, and the joy of the fish is known", he must know the "joy of fish".

It's like someone asking, "How do you know there's a ghost?" If the person concerned does not know the word "there is a ghost", it must not be expressed—that is, only by knowing the existence of "ghost" (subjective existence) can one think about whether it exists (objective existence).

Normally, unless otherwise specified, the "existence" we are talking about refers only to objective existence, not to subjective existence.

In fact, it refers to a thing, it may be the existence of your impression, but it is not really the actual existence, so sometimes there will be this reason, that is, existence or non-existence.

To exist is to have such a thing, and not to exist is to have no such thing.

Existence is a real thing, non-existence is a fictional thing, simple and straightforward.

Existence is what is in front of your eyes, and non-existence is something that is illusory.

Gods and ghosts are real, but they're not unusual! Nor is it superstition.

Dear, your question is like asking: Is there only life on Earth in the universe? The answer must be "impossible", right?

There must be life on other planets, and according to scientists' exploration and reasoning, there are at least 1 billion planets in the Milky Way that have life. Therefore, ghosts and gods are just beings of lower (ghosts) or higher (gods) than us, and there is nothing unusual. For ants, for example, man is their god, isn't it?

Ants can't see what God looks like, but they know that God's voice is like thunder, and a soak of urine can destroy the entire ant world, and I heard my grandfather say that God's lifespan is infinite (ants live for 5 years, and you are at least 75 years, that is, the 25th generation of ants has not seen the end of your lifespan, for ants, isn't that "eternal life"?) So the ants unanimously agree that you are their "god"; On the other hand, bacteria and viruses are wreathing, and ants know their existence, but they can't see or touch them but can feel them, so ants unanimously believe that they are "ghosts", and ants live in this world where gods and ghosts coexist, so they are always in awe, and therefore have faith. How similar is this to the human world, don't you think?

If you have similar thoughts, please seek advice.

However, after a long period of personal verification, I have the following opinion.

This question is a bit of a problem: but from the theory of parallel space (which I don't understand very well), we know that everything is possible, you are lost in one space but there may still be in another; At the same time, according to a theory of time and space (I don't know what it is), you can exist in the past time and space, so that the time machine can discover your existence. In fact, this question is both philosophically and scientifically, and philosophically your question can be grouped into the three ultimate questions (to put it bluntly:

I'm from **, I'm going to **, who am I) This question is unsolved, and science has been in modern times, Hawking seems to have a lot of arguments in this regard, but so far there are big differences, and it seems to be very dialectical, I can't understand it anyway.

As for the last question, it is easier to deal with: all new things are destined to be unacceptable at the beginning, but time will tell, the development of science is like this, there is no superstition, religion is also a kind of philosophy, superstition refers to the blind and crazy belief in something, as long as it is rational, it is not superstition.

Well, I hope it works for you after playing for so long, in fact, I'm also confusing similar questions.

After the Buddha became enlightened, he said that there are three Dharma seals, one is that all the laws have no self, so all the laws are empty, and naturally there is no existence of 'me'.

Needless to say, what will happen thousands of years later, just look for it now, 'I' am in**? Not in the head, not in the feet, not in the hands, not in the body, not in the internal organs, not in the skin surface, not in the blood and bones, there is no medical anatomy to find what 'I' is.

However, by combining the aforementioned torso, organs, flesh and blood, a living 'me' emerges spontaneously. All the ten thousand dharmas are the changes of the gathering and dispersion of causes and conditions, and the life and death of human beings, the survival and death of 'me', are inseparable from this principle, and this is what Buddhism calls dependent arising emptiness.

Buddhism says that this is so that we can get rid of our attachment to ourselves and even to all the Dharmas, and once we stop paying attention to our selfish desires, and understand the principle that we can use what we want, and that we will not leave anything behind, our troubles will disappear.

There is no Amitabha Buddha in the south!

Hearts together!

My existence is said by karma, there is her, there is you, that's why there is me, it is relative, it is separated, it is dependent and void, each of our cells is a living body, and the body is also composed of countless cells, it can also be said that our life is that these cells are in motion, and if the cells are good, people are comfortable, and if the cells are not good, people will get sick, for example, cancer is not life-threatening, so there is life and death, and if there is birth and death, it means that it does not exist, but spirituality is unchanging, it is immortal, it is not impure, it does not increase or decrease, it cannot prove my existence It's all delusion, so there's no self.

I have seen in the news newspaper about the scientific analysis of the theoretical formation of objects, which probably means that science can understand the composability of objects, that is, the composition of any object is composed of atoms or smaller media, and these atoms exist in the universe, under specific environments and conditions, combined into specific objects, but limited to the existing technology can not be completed, however, since you mentioned tens of millions of years from now, with the current scientific ladder development, You can be directly displayed at will, and there will be no superstition anymore.

If there is no "I", then who is asking this question? And who is answering? Buddhism Xitian 28 ancestor Bodhidharma master came to China to spread the Buddha's heart seal, which is just a "me", pointing directly to the hearts of the people, and nothing else.

Furthermore, don't think of the present physical body as "me", this physical body will eventually be broken, but "me" will not be broken. What is this "me"? In terms of understanding sentient beings, it is Buddha-nature.

For sentient beings who don't understand, it's the soul. About the soul, it's something that science can't prove now, so you can't get the answer you want.

Amitabha, if you have an in-depth understanding of the three Dharma seals, you will know the answer.

Otherwise, who can really believe that?

There is no self with me.

The three seals: impermanence, selflessness, and silence in Nirvana.

What you are talking about is the Diamond Sutra, "There is no self." bar.

Selfless. There is no Amitabha Buddha in the south! I wish you all good luck.

Great treasure vast pavilion good dharani dharani).

What cannot be scientifically observed, or in other words, cannot be observed repeatedly under the same conditions. What science can't observe, or can't prove, doesn't necessarily don't exist. It's a matter of two concepts.

1. Science cannot prove an object for the time beingexists, we cannot conclude that an object does not exist.

A philosopher once said: It is easy to say, but it is not difficult to say.

It is easy to say "there is", we only need to prove that it exists to say "there is"; It's hard to say "nothing" because your vision is limited after all, and you have to search for it before you can say "nothing".

There are many ways to prove the existence of things, the simplest is to point out the things that exist to people to see, hear, and so on; The most complex is the circumstantial proof of science.

2. Science can sometimes prove an objectdoes not exist

Proving that something doesn't exist makes logical reasoning using the laws of science. For example, perpetual motion machines are proved to be non-existent according to the law of conservation of energy.