Pure Philosophy of Existentialism

By Camden Gregory

“ego sum, ego existo” – Rene’ Descartes (1641)

Without “life”, there would be nothing capable of observing. To observe must be the
ultimate objective of the universe’s existence. Otherwise if nothing could observe, who is there
to say anything exists at all? There would be no proof or certainty of the existence of anything!
But when I speak of existence, what does it mean? What do the words existence and observe
mean, and what do they have to do with each other?

An observation denotes the existence of an observer and some observed statement

(information). The ‘meaning’ of the observed statement is totally arbitrary and is based on the
observer’s perception, intuition, interpretation, etc. An observation validates the existence of the
observer and the information under observation. Even if the observer’s existence is false/invalid,
the consequent observation implies that the antecedent observation itself is valid. This is the
logic behind Rene Descartes’s famous philosophical proposition “I think, therefore I am”.

To summarize,

An observation validates the existence of an observer and what is observed

However, everything said about observations was dependent upon existentialism. One can’t
observe if there already isn’t this underlying principle of existence. Otherwise what is there to
observe if nothing exists already, and how can something which observes not exist? One cannot
observe if they do not exist and vis versa. In logic, this relation is called a ‘logical equivalence’.

(𝐸 ↔ 𝑂)

Existence implies an observation made by an observer.

Things exist if and only if they are observed and vis versa.
 Consider the statement “God created the earth in seven days” or “the universe came into
existence during the Big Bang”. These statements claim information existed outside of an
observer. This can’t be true according to my definitions, but of course my definition doesn’t
relate to reality. My definitions and words are merely other observations. However, from my
definition, existence and observations are meaningless when independent of each other. So, in
order to make sense of the modest and very much ‘proven’ Big Bang Theory, one must first
define something capable of both.

Ω, (omega) is a sentient being, (capable of observation), whose existence is validated

only by the observation of itself.

Like a mathematician, assume it to be true!

Then, anything Ω observes, exists and is thus contained in Ω since Ω is capable only of
viewing itself. Also, any observation made in Ω must be an observation made by Ω as well,
otherwise by definition the observation would be false.

The meanings of these definitions can be interpreted in any way, the reader need only to
choose their interpretations best fit for one’s way of thinking.