>For this experiment, you must consider that a relationship is not proof of existence, but is existence itself. Existence is not a state; it is a measure of relationships. If you don't appreciate this, there's not much point in reading on. I tried. :)
But this is not the fundamental notion that we must accept to go along with your experiment. >To begin, imagine one particle and nothing else. Materialism is the fundamental assumption of your experiment. You implicitly assume that the world is material. As I wrote here http://science1.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/the-world-is/ the world depends on your initial assumption. You assume that the world is material and there exists absolutely indivisible particles. Yet, not only there are no experimental evidence for this Newtonian atomic materialism, but all observations suggest that we are living in a matterless world. Even physicists themselves slowly coming to this conclusion in their pathetically tortuous ways.
Maybe you can explain more what you mean by “existence is not a state” and “existence is a measure of relationships.” For instance, "There are no solids. There are no things. There are only interfering and noninterfering patterns operative in pure principle . . . (B. Fuller): http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/physical-semantics/
What I meant by "existence is not a state", is akin to what Buckminster Fuller was getting at, I think. However, what I want to then move to address, is rooted in what bothers me about BF's statement: 'non-interfering' and 'pure principle'. Are these just turtles below the turtle we have dispelled? I only have a moment, but I'll get back to this and provide a more in-depth answer to your question in a day or two. It's a good question, and I want to. Thanks!