/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10321550
>something instead if nothing
prove it

>>10321550
>coniptions
I'm 56 years old, a native English speaker with a degree level education and I have never heard that word before. Fuck OP, I didn't come to /sci/ to learn stuff. Anyway, you spelled it wrong. Hurr durr.

>>10321552
cogito ergo sum

>>10321550
Yeah, it's almost like the /x/-level new age meme of 'god had to make creation in order to experience itself'' is true!

>>10321625
Not exactly sure what you mean

>>10321622
you do realize that Descartes' Discourse on Method was an ontological argument for the existence of God, right? and that basically every philosopher since his time has some sort of argument against cogito.

the main one being,
>i think therefore i am
>i therefore i
>presupposing the i exists before proving it

>>10321629
Which part?

Let me put it simply so that you understand. EVEN IF GOD EXISTS, he doesnt give a single flying fuck.

>>10321661
I'll have a go at it. We can't really conceptualise nothing existing. Our brains only work in dualities, something to compare it to. But with that limitation, the idea goes something like this. Imagine one thing exists. Call it god. If it is one thing, it can't know itself because that implies there being an observer to perceive something that is not itself. So the One became Two, which gives us dualities, but that's not that helpful so the duality became the Ten Thousand Things (Taoist for all the stuff in the world.) As creation plays out, god can come to know itself.

>>10321550
I got three completely different ways to handle that OP

1) prove the philosophical "nothing" isn't just an invention of your mind. You believe it to be real, and somehow a preferable, default state that doesn't require an explanation, unlike "something". Meanwhile, you have perfect evidence that "something" exists, it's not an assumption at all, yet "something" is the one that's worthy of scrutiny? Why?

2) Maybe something and nothing is a false dichotomy. Maybe the real dichotomy is everything or nothing. You may find the idea of "Everything" more balanced because then you don't have to ask "why these particular things"? And because you're not seeing the multiverse, "everything" just looks like "something"

3) Both something and nothing exist as a balanced equation, like 0 = 1 + -1

>>10321674
Sorry that should read 'which gives us duality,' not dualities.

>>10321550
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
"Something" is really, at a fundamental level, just information. The universe and everything around you is made of information. So we can rephrase the question as
>Why does information exist?
Information is just answers to questions. (Often its thought of as 1s and 0s, "yes" or "no" binary answers.) . To help answer the above question, let's consider another.
>Does information exist?
If we answer "no", then we contradict ourselves immediately, as the answer itself is information. So the answer logically has to be "yes". Therefore, information logically must exist, and there must be something instead of nothing.

...Now why that something takes the particular form that it does, our universe, I cannot explain. If you can, you will probably win a Nobel Prize.

NOTHING MAKES ANY FUCKING SENSE

I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS COSMIC JOKE ITS FUCKING CRUEL

>>10321713
>Information is just answers to questions
In our human world, maybe. But what about in a larger context? I'm not an expert on Indian philosophy but I believe it's from the Bhagavad Gita, the first expression of the godhead is said to be, "I Am." Is that the answer to a question? Or physically, was the big bang the answer to a question? If so, then by your logic you would prove the existence of a creator asking a question. Not sure it's that easy. Most likely scenario is that these concepts are not graspable by human minds.

>>10321550
>it horrifies me
Why?
If there was nothing but "Nothing" then you wouldn't exist to opine that nothing existed, by definition.

>>10321758
> "I Am." Is that the answer to a question?
Are you?

>Or physically, was the big bang the answer to a question?
I have no idea, that's much harder to answer. (I don't think my speculation reveals anything about the nature of the universe or its birth, it ONLY answers the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" and goes no further.) If I had to guess, I don't think anyone or anything posed a literal, voiced question that started the universe. But logic can still determine the answers to questions nobody is around to ask.

>>10321618
>I have never heard that word before
>coniptions
My midwestern grandmother used to say this.

>>10321618
>>10322034
i didnt recognize the word until i saw the correct spelling. im from the midwest and my mom used to say it i think. she has like 85 iq max so it must have been common in the midwest cos she doesnt use "big words" ever

>>10321550
Why not both

>>10321731
WRONG

YOU DONT MAKE SENSE

THE UNIVERSE MAKES ABSOLUTE PERFECT SENSE

ANYTHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT IS YOUR OWN FAILING

>>10321550
nothing is degenerative state. that there is nothing means up not down and then there’s something. if there’s only stuff there are things but unless we make sense to each other this will go nowhere. that may the state of melancholy you find yourself in and that also may mean you disregard meaning to allow yourself the opportunity to disregard faction as a mode of tolerance. women. can create degenerative stance like this by numeralizing where you stand in their lives. your hunches are predicate and you mean well but there is no scenario where you cannot possibly falter. there is essentially no meaning to becoming something out of nothing but unless the general mean is for solidarity the essential state of information, the act of progressing through a working thought process, we will not marginalize for errors by saying we are not physically capable. we will be saying that we are by definition required to ascertain a reality out of states of information and that if there is death we simply turn around and use that other part of our brains to make certain we do not lose any sense propriety in the situation because some claudio claim like life or death has claimed any ulteriorbprovince that we may astute a progression as a state of faculty. it means we can simply focus and this is our right as the people navigating these thoughts and this brain withoutbeñicidating that there are principles we do not suggest may criminalize our faltering into an obscurity that is not suggestive the means we acquire in mandplaining life and death.

>>10322764
What the dick did me mean by this

>>10321639
How exactly is this supposed to prove the existence of God? It clearly doesn't.

>>10324796
Ok, why are you telling me this for? Go to whine to Descartes, or at least read Discourse since it’s only like 50 pages and a seminal philosophical work even if it is retarded

>>10324824
>Go to whine to Descartes
I can't, he no longer thinks :(

>>10321639
how can one person be so wrong? Its fundamentally an argument that points out that its paradoxical to say experience is an illusion, because illusion itself is experience