/lit/ - Literature

>>22919614
Darwin unironically

>>22919614

>>22919614
>something exists rather than nothing
What makes you think this?

>>22919614
Complete Works of Descartes

nothing and something are just words
reality is
nothing and something are illusory concepts when discussing reality

>>22919614
https://youtu.be/lbky8CzvKo8

If you google the book the pdf not far down the results

>>22919614
The Bible

nothing is something. zero is an even number

>>22920401
Metamorphoses by Ovid.
>>22919617
I mean, he wasn't wrong, but I wonder if there was something that just looked at us and said, >these are the creatures we want, we like 'em
and helped us evolve into what we are now.
>>22919620
Basic rundown?

>>22919614
Here is an essay I found on possible explanations for why reality exists:

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

>>22919614
Zero Ontology is one proposed explanation. The idea is that the universe at the highest levels is something like the Library of Babel, and reality adds up to containing zero information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU

>>22919620
The problem with Tegmark's MUH is that you still need to deal with the objective measure problem. It could me that some form of modal realism is true, but you would still need to explain why some realities are more common/have higher objective measure than others. Otherwise, you can't have a coherent model of reality at all.

https://reducing-suffering.org/why-does-physics-exist/

>The view described here implies a radical degree of epistemic relativism. For instance, fundamentalist Christians are not wrong (except insofar as their beliefs are logically contradictory); they just care more than non-Christians about the subset of universes in the multiverse in which copies of us exist on a planet created and overseen by the God described in the Bible. Science-minded people reject Christianity because the universes consistent with it have high Kolmogorov complexity, but this only reflects a prejudice by science-minded people to care more about simpler universes. The presuppositionalists are right: "there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian." The two sides in the debate just hold different preferences about which universes in the modal-realist multiverse are more important. By the same token, Muslims, Raëlians, and Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents are not wrong either—they just care most about their own favored types of universes. All logically consistent religions—or beliefs of any kind—are correct somewhere (and infinitely often) in the modal-realist multiverse.

Why would that need to be explained? That there is something is the ultimate given.