Thread:Silver-Haired Seireitou/@comment-5651818-20151213023252/@comment-2089817-20151213025642

I'm not sure what you mean by opinion, but if you mean what I think when I hear "self-existence", I consider a certain quote spoken by John Wheeler.

"May the universe in some strange sense be brought into being by the participation of those who participate? The vital act is the act of participation. Participation is the incontrovertible new concept given by quantum mechanics. It strikes down the term "observer" of classical theory; the man who stands safely behind the thick glass wall and watches what goes on without taking part. It can't be done, quantum mechanics says."

We can actualize our self-existence by the participation we partake in. In other words, self-existence is relative and dependent on the existence of others. If I am the only human being in the entire universe, or in existence entirely, can I truly be called human? Upon what do you make this assertion? There is no standard for minimum level of intelligence, or morals, or expected etiquette or mannerisms, beyond that which I do myself. Therefore, human does not exist because only I exist. If me and you exist, then we can be called human, and human is what we identify the collection of qualities that we share together as a species.

Basically, self-existence is relative. If there is nothing to relate it to, then we, in truth, do not exist.