[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 29 KB, 741x568, sadfrog question.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006135 No.10006135 [Reply] [Original]

Why does the universe exist?

>> No.10006144

So that people like you can post stupid questions like this.

>> No.10006177

>>10006144
What is stupid about it I wonder

>> No.10006184

Because you're experiencing it

>> No.10006200

>>10006135
it doesnt were living in a simulation

>> No.10006208

>>10006200
Then why and where does the simulation exist?

>> No.10006214

>>10006208
Yea why? Do my Sims chars experience life like me?

>> No.10006228

>>10006135
Because universe mom got drunk at a party.

>> No.10006263

>>10006135
Because nothing would be impossible

>> No.10006416
File: 109 KB, 826x630, the_laughing_Jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006416

>when /sci/ can't even answer a simple question like 'why is there something rather than nothing?'

>> No.10006448

>>10006263
why would nothing be impossible?

>> No.10006564

>>10006200
NPC detected

>> No.10006595

>>10006416
How is that a simple question?

>> No.10006597
File: 13 KB, 657x527, 1494486599769.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006597

>>10006135
to put penis vagina

>> No.10006630

>>10006135
one could imagine that there are branches in the multiverse where the initial singularity of space time never underwent the big bang

however, apparently our branch decohered with that branch

>> No.10006637

>>10006135
To enable the worship of God

>> No.10006640
File: 194 KB, 400x400, LG1KN-Q4_400x400.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006640

>>10006595
>How is that a simple question?

>> No.10006642

>>10006640
Thank you for explaining you thought out reason

>> No.10006651

>>10006448
The saying "nothing is impossible" isn't just some cliched quote that people post on their instagrams, it is actually a philosophically fundamental, logical truth.

The only way 'nothing' can exist is as 'something', that something being a concept. If 'something' exists, then that makes 'no thing' impossible.

>> No.10006661

>>10006651
the issue is, that this conundrum could very well just be a limitation of our language rather than an actual trait of existence.

>> No.10006672

>>9999999

>> No.10006742

>>10006661
It is beyond language, it is a self-evident, logical truth.

>> No.10006757

>>10006651
>The only way 'nothing' can exist is as 'something', that something being a concept.
that's just restating the claim
what's the argument for "nothing can't exist"?

>> No.10006761

>>10006135
Why implies some intelligence behind the universe, which there does not appear to be, so the question is invalid.

>> No.10006762

>>10006416
This

>> No.10006764

>>10006757
Read Parmenides argument

>> No.10006778

>>10006757
>what's the argument for "nothing can't exist"?
You've just made it. You're using 'nothing', or 'no thing' as a 'thing' that can 'exist', when it is the complete opposite of that.

>> No.10006782

>>10006778
but that argument depends on a specific unfortunate grammatical formulation ("nothing can't exist")
why couldn't there just not be anything?

>> No.10006788

>>10006778
This argument only works because of the English language being a clusterfuck.

>> No.10006793

>>10006135
So we can do maths

>> No.10006800

>>10006782
>but that argument depends on a specific unfortunate grammatical formulation ("nothing can't exist")
It is impossible for language to refer to 'no thing', because 'no thing' is impossible.

>why couldn't there just not be anything?
Because 'no thing' can't 'be' anything. You're asking why non-existence can't exist.

>> No.10006805

>>10006800
So if I have 0 apples, how many apples do I have?
Jean Paul Sartre walks into a coffee shop and asks for a black coffee. The waitress apologises and explains they have no cream. Sartre tells her 'Don't worry, I'll have it without milk instead'

>> No.10006812

>>10006788
Nope, all languages will have the same issue. It is deeper than language.

>> No.10006819

>>10006805
So we agree that apples and cream/milk exist as 'things' right?

Can you ask for a non-thing that does not exist physically, conceptually, or in your imagination?

>> No.10006821

>>10006800
>Because 'no thing' can't 'be' anything.
the question didn't use the phrase "no thing"

>> No.10006829

>>10006819
how about: the set of all sets which do not contain themselves
?

>> No.10006831

>>10006821
What difference does it make?

>> No.10006834

>>10006829
A set is a 'thing' I'm afraid.

>> No.10006842

>>10006651
>>10006661
>>10006742
Lol. This is why philosophy is a psuedointellectual field. It's stupid/a total joke.

>> No.10006844

>>10006831
your argument criticized the phrase "no thing," which was not a part of the question, so your argument did not attack the question that was asked
>why couldn't there just not be anything?

>> No.10006921

>>10006842
>philosophy is a pseudointellectual field because some people are bad at philosophy

>> No.10006933

>>10006842
>>10006921
>Makes a philosophical claim, unable to explain the philosophical reasoning behind it.

>> No.10006936

>>10006844
>why couldn't there just not be anything?
Because non-existence can't exist.

>> No.10006957

>>10006936
Why not? Why is there existence instead of non existence? We are back at the start

>> No.10006965

>>10006842
"the love of knowledge is psuedointellectual"

Spoken like a true sophist lotus-eater.

>>10006135
To be.

>> No.10006970

>>10006416
>Simple

>> No.10006981

>>10006936
>Because non-existence can't exist.
but that's false, because there are many things that don't exist, like unicorns
if non-existence can't exist, there can't be any non-existent things

>> No.10006982
File: 467 KB, 800x450, 1526499905784.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006982

>>10006965
>I fucking love knowledge!!1111

>> No.10006988
File: 115 KB, 2048x2040, apVXwGQ[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006988

>>10006982
>I fucking hate knowledge!!1111

>> No.10006999

>>10006135
there was nowhere else to put it

>> No.10007020

>>10006957
>Why is there existence instead of non existence?
Because they're two sides of the same coin. Can't have one without the other.

>> No.10007034

>>10006981
>but that's false, because there are many things that don't exist, like unicorns
So if unicorns don't exist, why do I know what you mean by that word? Unicorns don't exist in physical reality, but they do exist conceptually. By non-existence, there is no form of existence.

>> No.10007064

>>10006135
Because God created it

>> No.10007065

>>10007020
But why is that the case, instead of something else being the case?

>> No.10007078

>>10007065
Man, logic isn't that hard. Try using your head for once, you doofus.

>> No.10007086

>>10007078
'It's just logic dude' is not an answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Why is there logic instead of no logic? You're just kicking the can down the road

>> No.10007103

>>10006981
Unicorns do exist, they just don't subsist
>>10006782
>>10006757

Parmenides’ idea of the One was founded on a basic premise of “the same thing
is for thinking and for being.” Interpreted in a specific way, this means that what can be
thought or conceptualized has being. We could rewrite this as “something can be
thought of if and only if it has being.” If this is true, then if something has non-being, it
can’t be thought of. Likewise, if something cannot be thought of, then it cannot be.
Parmenides adds to this, asking the audience to contemplate non-being. As it cannot be
done without thinking of something (like darkness or emptiness, which Parmenides
argues to still have being,) it cannot exist. Therefore, through Parmenides’ argument,
non-being cannot be.
Parmenides then begins to argue for the existence of only one being. His
rationale against multiplicity is that if there are multiple objects of being, then one object
isn’t another. If one object isn’t another, then it cannot be that other object. But,
Parmenides argues, by not being that other object, the first object in question is
necessarily participating in non-being. The problem comes to light when, as shown by
his earlier argument, non-being cannot exist. If a multiplicity of objects absolutely needs
to participate in non-being in order to have that multiplicity, and non-being cannot exist,
then it is impossible for there to be a multiplicity of objects. By this argument, there then
can only be one object of being. Parmenides then uses this to show that the multiplicity
that we experience must then be an illusion.

So basically, if we want to disprove that nothing can't exist, then you need to disprove that first premise: the same thing is for thinking and for being.

>> No.10007106

>>10007086
That was someone else trolling you.

Can you have existence without non-existence? Can you have non-existence without existence?

>> No.10007126

>>10007106
>Can you have existence without non-existence? Can you have non-existence without existence?
Surely you can only have one or the other? Which is fine, but the question remains why we have one instead of the other

>> No.10007135

>>10007126
So you believe they are separate things that don't require the existence of each other to exist?

>> No.10007136

>>10007126
Be cause it's the case that there is, but we have no precedent for witnessing or thinking about what isn't.

>> No.10007144

>>10007135
Yeah. If there was non existence
then existence would not exist and visa versa, they are mutually exclusive. I think that's what I mean. It's very hard to abstract this stuff in your head. What we don't know is why it's one way rather than the other

>> No.10007158

>>10007144
>If there was non existence
But do you see the problem here? Non-existence can't be 'there', it is not a 'thing' that could 'be there' instead of something else.

Our idea of non-existence comes from the fact that things can exist and then exist as something else, so what it did exist as is now non-existent.

>> No.10007159

>>10006757
If there is something that made the statement, then it is logically impossible that nothing ever existed or will ever exist. This is a truth. Now you can ask "Can't there be a reality where there is nothing?" And the answer to that is no, because either a reality exists, then there is something, or not.

>> No.10007202

>>10007158
But non existence doesn't need to 'be there' as there will be no 'there' or 'being' to 'be there' in. It doesn't make logical sense, but if we say it has to then we're suggesting that logic predates and is the cause of the universe.

>> No.10007217

>>10007202
>But non existence doesn't need to 'be there' as there will be no 'there' or 'being' to 'be there' in.
Exactly, which is why we can't 'have' non-existence.

>we're suggesting that logic predates and is the cause of the universe
Logic proves that there was no "cause", it is eternal.

>> No.10007232

Inflation already answered this question

>> No.10007245

>>10007217
>it is eternal.
Infinite regress is an option I guess.

>> No.10007256

>>10007245
>regress
yikes

>> No.10007290
File: 1.85 MB, 340x205, giphy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10007290

>>10007217
>eternal
>mfw it really is turtles all the way down

>> No.10007318

>>10006214
Yes

>> No.10007326

>>10006135
The universe exists to give mankind an avenue to express compassion, love, kindness, forgiveness, etc.

>> No.10007332

>>10006842
Mathematics has similar problems by Godel's incompleteness theorem. But I wouldn't say maths is a psuedo field on that basis.

>> No.10007373

>>10007245
>>10007290

Eternal = no beginning/end. That is the only logical option, everything else is an infinite regress. It requires seeing our concept of 'beginning' and 'end' as an arbitrary distinction born out of our experience of reality (memory = past, imagination = future) and our indoctrination regarding the nature of reality through many means.

It really is as simple as: If something cannot come from nothing, and nothing cannot come from something, then a deterministic/cause and effect reality is impossible. The only way out is to reject the flawed concept of time and seeing energy as finite and separate.

The laws of thermodynamics cannot work in a cause and effect universe, energy cannot be created or destroyed, something you need for a deterministic universe with a beginning.

>> No.10007391

>>10007373
Energy can be 'created' if an equal amount of negative energy is also created, with zero being the average across the board.

>> No.10007427

>>10007373
It's a tricky one I suspect we will never solve. Our options seem to be a) infinite regress,b) causality a shit as you describe, or c) some prime mover not subject to the rules. Hume proves our understanding of cause and effect is flawed so b looks most likely at present

>> No.10007433

>>10007373
>rays aren't infinite
Get a load of this guy

>> No.10007450

>>10007391
>Energy can be 'created' if an equal amount of negative energy is also created
That doesn't mean anything, created by what?

>zero being the average across the board.
Zero = neutral infinity, therefore no beginning or end, further supporting an eternal reality.

>> No.10007465

>>10007373
You don’t understand anything you’re talking about
>>10007391
retarded
>>10007427
no, you’re fucking retarded
>>10007450
idiot, nigger

>> No.10007470

>>10007450
fuck you with your "neutral infinity" garbage.

cancer

>> No.10007487

>>10007450
>created by what?
Laws of physics

>> No.10007497

>>10007427
A 'prime mover' is logically wrong because it requires the creation to be separate to the creator, when the creator already is everything and cannot be separate. The concept of 'God' as we commonly know it makes it impossible for 'God' to create anything separate, because 'God' is supposed to be infinite, not separate to anything and never can be. All religions are false because of this.

>> No.10007501

>>10007497
more "infinite" bullshit

what breed of wacko are you BTW? new-ager?

>> No.10007516

Either the universe is deterministic, in which case it is infinitely old, or it is not, in which case it popped out of nothingness randomly. Pick your side.

>> No.10007519

>>10007516
or
>eternal and stochastic
>ephemeral and deterministic

>> No.10007523

>>10007433
Rays exist as a concept because of infinity, they are the simplest way to represent separation, or the illusion of it, and in doing so actually prove the opposite of separation.

>> No.10007530

>>10007519
No, because if it is eternal, there is always a prior cause, therefore it can only be deterministic. If it is ephemeral, as you call it, it came to be in a random, not-determined event, therefore the very nature of the universe itself has to be not-determined, too, because if randomness created the universe, it is not possible that randomness plays no role anymore in that universe.

>> No.10007539

>>10007465
I know you are but what am I?

>>10007470
>fuck you with your "neutral infinity" garbage.
Will you fuck off with your "positive" and "negative" infinity garbage as well?

>> No.10007544

>>10007530
You can't determine the nature of reality through bad attempts at logical deduction

>> No.10007549

>>10007487
>Laws of physics
What makes the "laws of physics" separate to energy?

>> No.10007554

>>10007539
positive and negative infinity appear in tens of thousands of real math books

"neutral infinity" is not a term used by mathematicians. it's some made-up bullshit that repeating over and over is obvious evidence that YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

>> No.10007558

>>10007549
What makes colors different from cars?

>> No.10007560

>>10007544
You don't seem to get it. Either there is randomness in the universe, or there isn't. If there is no randomness, it is determined, in which case it can have no beginning, because determination assumes a prior cause. If there is randomness, then a random end or beginning of the universe is inevitable. If it is random, it will just randomly end at some point, and then again randomly start again.

>> No.10007563

>>10007501
>what breed of wacko are you BTW?
I'm Quantum Gravitonian 4D Space-time specialist hoping to move into Dark Quantum Fabric Proton Energy with a bit of 12D worm-holes sprinkled on top.

>> No.10007578

>>10007560
>Either there is randomness in the universe, or there isn't
This question doesn't necessarily have a yes/no answer
>If it is random, it will just randomly end at some point, and then again randomly start again.
Doesn't have to, it could be a one time thing and never happen again if the conditions are different and will never be the same again as they were at the big bang.

>> No.10007580

>>10007554
>positive and negative infinity appear in tens of thousands of real math books
Appeal to majority.

>"neutral infinity" is not a term used by mathematicians. it's some made-up bullshit that repeating over and over is obvious evidence that YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT
I'm a 'philosopher', although it seems stupid to call it 'philosophy' when 'philosophical thought' is innate in all of us, as children we all asked 'why'? I should not be the one 'philosophising' or analysing what mathematics is and checking it remains logically consistent with the concepts it uses.

Mathematicians should be the ones doing this, not me, so fuck you, and fuck those who control "education" to make it as dumbed down and useless as possible.

>> No.10007582

>>10007558
Do cars create the light, or does light create the cars?

>> No.10007584

>>10007497
You don't understand the concept of God in this context. Think of God as 'thing which the rules don't apply to' and you'll see how silly your argument is

>> No.10007596

>>10007580
>I'm a 'philosopher'
bullshit. you're a wacko hack. there are plenty of real philosophers (like Bertrand Russel for example) who thought deeply about the foundations of math, and they continue to do so. Logicians think about this stuff all the time. not once has somebody found a logical inconsistency of math that forces us to throw away the countless volumes of real math just because they think 0 is a finite number.

honestly, think about how fucking retarded you sound. "0 is infinite". LEARN THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS

it's about rigorous, well-defined mathematical definitions, not you "philosophizing" in words using some sort of warped occultist nonsense cancer ideas

>> No.10007597

>>10007578
>This question doesn't necessarily have a yes/no answer.

It is a yes/no question. Randomness being there does not mean that chain of events are impossible. Just that these chain of events can also be caused randomly/be caused by a first random impulse. If these random impulses can exist, the universe can not live forever, because at some point, something random will happen that will end it. It will then randomly begin again.

>Doesn't have to, it could be a one time thing and never happen again if the conditions are different and will never be the same again as they were at the big bang.

If you play often enough, winning the lottery is a sure bet.

>> No.10007609

>>10007597
Maybe but the prize might not be the same one

>> No.10007611

>>10006135
That is more philosophical than anything, no?

>> No.10007614

>>10007597
>something random will happen that will end it
Unlikely considering it's expanding at over the speed of light

>> No.10007616

>>10006135
I ont know. Neither does anyone else. That's it.

>> No.10007618

>>10006200
How do you know that?

>> No.10007621

>>10006630
How do you know there is a multiverse?

>> No.10007625

>>10006742
No it's not. Try again.

>> No.10007630

>>10007584
>Think of God as 'thing which the rules don't apply to'
So God is separate to "the rules" that apply to us? How do you make this distinction?

>> No.10007633

"why" is not a scientific concept beyond soulless causality

>> No.10007672

>>10007596
>bullshit. you're a wacko hack. there are plenty of real philosophers (like Bertrand Russel for example) who thought deeply about the foundations of math, and they continue to do so. Logicians think about this stuff all the time. not once has somebody found a logical inconsistency of math that forces us to throw away the countless volumes of real math just because they think 0 is a finite number.
Tough shit, 0 is not a number. I don't give a shit about philosophers who are wrong. You have no argument. Prove you don't need neutral infinity.

>> No.10007709

>>10007326
what makes it the case that mankind needing a universe in order to express compassion, love, kindness, forgiveness, etc. would cause the universe to exist?

>> No.10007717

>>10007633
if you've gone that far already, why not take the last step and reject even causality as unscientific and focus on empirical correlation and prediction as the logical positivists did?
if taking your logic to its conclusion like that is too absurd, why not just accept that science can ask why-questions?

>> No.10007721

>>10007717
Good point. I wasn't originally going to include that exception until I imagined the possible responses

>> No.10008047

>>10006135
Because otherwise it would be pointless(!)

>> No.10008054

>>10007621
i don't, but compared to other interpretations of quantum mechanics, it seems to be the least problematic one

>> No.10008078

>>10006135
In the beginning there was the possibility. Possibility is a state of unfedinedness. Not even nothing is there, you dont even know what nothing is. In this state, bein, non being, reality, all these words dont have a meaning. They are all one.

Then came the perturbation. The state of possibility implies that there can be nothing and at the same time something can exist. But if it is possible for something to exist, how can we make it exist ?

Imagine a state of pure nothing, where not even nothing is there (what is nothing?). Now because we have the possibility of something being there, something will be created (and at the same time nothing).

This is the duality of nature. To simplify, lets call the things which exist, energy, and the thins which dont exist, the medium of energy.

From this follows that the nonexistance of energy and the possibility of energy are the same thing. The medium has the property of possibility(energy). Where does this medium come from ? From nowwhere, its just there (or not).

Now because we have the possibility, also something must arise (along with nothing), or else there would only be the impossibility of being. That is why the universe exists.

Suppose the possibility wasnt there, only impossibility. The being of an impossibility would imply that there is a possibility, which in turn invalidates the impossibility. Therefore being itself is a paradox. It is impossible. non existant. ethernally real. infinite.

>> No.10008087

>>10006135
Why shouldn't it?

>> No.10008098

>>10008087
because it being possible for the universe to exist implys that there is a possibility for the universe to be impossible to exist, which in turn implies that there is a possibility for it to exist. this is the inner "calculation" of the universe.

>> No.10008255

>>10008098
The universe exists necessarily, not possibly.

>> No.10008719

>>10007630
For the purposes of the thought experiment, 'God' means 'factor(s) hitherto unknown to us which can transcend what appear to be the rules governing causality and ontology'. It doesn't mean Jesus or Shiva whoever. Given our ignorance about the universe it seems a possibility

>> No.10008722

>>10008255
why is the universe necessary?

>> No.10009183

>>10008255
if it is necessary, that means its also possible. since if it wasnt possible, it couldnt be necessary because it would be impossible. since it is possible to exist, it can also be impossible for it to exist, but that would mean it there is the existance of a thing which is opposite to the state of existance being impossible, which means it can be possible to exist.

therefore it is possible that it is either possible or impossible for the universe to exist, which in turn means it could theoretically be impossible that it is possible or impossible for the universe to exist. this is a paradox.

it is solved by saying the universe is at the same time possible and impossible, or that it is neither possible nor impossible. But this would also mean it is not necessary for it to exist since it is not possible, or it is also impossible.

I call this the inner calculation of the universe.

>> No.10009190

>>10006135
Because it's lonely without you.

>> No.10010133

>>10009183
I meant that the existence of the universe isn't merely possible, as in there is no would by which it wouldn't exist, as if there were, then that is a self contradicting statement. When we say that it's necessary for the universe to exist, that means there is no possible world in which it's not the case that the universe exists, which makes it impossible for the universe to not exist. Possibility doesn't imply impossibility, or else that modal claim would be meaningless. It is impossible for the universe to not exist and necessary that the universe does exist.

>> No.10010140

>>10008722
Because there is no possible world in which the universe does not exist, thus in every possible world the universe exists, which makes it necessary. Saying that there is a possible world that the universe doesn't exist is like saying that there is a possible world in which there is no world, which is a contradiction.

>> No.10010154

>>10010133
>no possible world in which it's not the case that the universe exists
true
>which makes it impossible for the universe to not exist.
but what if it not existed in a place where it did exist.

Because for it to exist, there must be a state where it doesnt. therefore its possible that it doesnt exist. and also impossible that it doesnt exists since this is the universe im writing this sentence in.

This logical argument is even empirically proven since the universe expands.

>> No.10010159

>>10010140
But there is, since the universe is created out of nothing.

>> No.10010197

>>10010159
That assertation is unproven and still disputed.
>>10010154
>for it to exist, there must be a state where it doesn't
Rewritten as "if x exists in a possible world, then there is a possible world in which x doesn't exist". That would be true if x's existence is only possible. If it is necessary then it it is true in all possible worlds and thus there there is no "state" in which it can not exist. Basic modal logic. Existence does not imply nonexistence.
>but what if it not existed in a place where it did exist
This is a contradictory claim

>> No.10010206

>This is a contradictory claim
Its not though.
Asume you have a particle and shoot it throught a double slit. Before you measure it, it technically doesnt exist. and does exist AT THE SAME TIME in a given space at a given time. Therefore there are modes of existance where things at the same time exist and dont exist (superposition of states), probability. This is the nature of the world. Now the universe exists in a medium (possibility matrix, if you will), which has the property of both existing and nonexisting before you measure it. Only the measurement demands modal logic of the system. Also bells theorem shows there is no local element of reality.

>> No.10010208

>>10010206
sorry correcting
>in which the universe has the property of both existing and nonexisting before you measure it.

>> No.10010217

>>10007621
well this guy wasn't me
>>10008054
but he gets it pretty much right. the copenhagen interpretation is kinda wacky imo since it implies observers play a central role in the quantum nature of the universe, and that QM isn't unitary, and lots of other bad things

the pilot wave theory is also wacky because it still doesn't explain EPRB stuff

following Gell-Mann, who i quote below, it makes the most sense to interpret QM as being unitary and explaining "nonlocal correlations" by simply taking the perspective that branchings of the universal wavefunction occur when the phenomenon happens, not when it gets observed, and that decoherence of superposed quantum states due to interactions with measurement devices is what leads to the apparent "collapse" of the wavefunction. when I asked a big-time HEP theory prof about it, he admitted the many histories (some people call it "many worlds" but there's a slight difference -- many histories avoids any reference to observers inducing collapse) interpretation is really the dominant one among the pros

>Einstein's completeness would imply that both the circular and plane polarization of the second photon could then be assigned definite values. But the values of the circular polarization and the plane polarization of a photon cannot be exactly specified at the same time (any more than the position and momentum of a particle can be so specified). Consequently, the requirement of completeness is just as unreasonable in this case, from the point of view of quantum mechanics, as in the case discussed by Einstein and his colleagues. The two measurements, one of circular and the other of plane polarization, are alternatives; they take place on different branches of history and there is no reason for the results of both to be considered together.

>> No.10010231

>>10006208
In an other simulation? It's groundless.

>> No.10010235

>>10010231
if everything is in a simulation, why call it simulation instead of reality ?

Also why would anyone want to simulate this crap

>> No.10010246

>>10006416
I'm not sure the anthropic question has been satisfactorily answered.

>> No.10010251

>>10006416
By logic and reality, there cannot exist nothing, so by deduction, something must exist.

>> No.10010256

Why doesn't it exist?

>> No.10010257

>>10010251
>logic and reality
aha. so what if logic and reality didnt exist ?

>> No.10010260

>>10010251
also if nothing couldnt exist, that would imply that also something couldnt exist.

>> No.10010261

>>10010260
since nothing is the medium of something

>> No.10010267

>>10010260
>>10010261
There is nowhere in this universe, for which nothing exist. Everywhere we look, something exist.

By empirical data alone, nothingness does not exist in our universe.

>> No.10010271

>>10010257
?????????????

>> No.10010274

>>10006135
If the universe existed, it would exist. But it doesn't, so it can't. Therefore it is, checkmate. Atheists.

>> No.10010293

>>10010208
This is just Aristotle's ship battle problem- either there will be one tomorrow, or there won't be. There is indeterminacy in something existing, but the eventual value we give to it will be one or the other, not both. We can for the sake of analysis give it an indeterminate calue, but once observed it will be one or the other. Unless you are a constructivist in reference to truth, the value is still the same no matter where you are- the only thing that leaves the state a mystery is the lack of knowledge we are able to posess.

>> No.10010298

>>10010267
Nothing exists everywhere.
>By empirical data alone, nothingness does not exist in our universe.
wrong. it exists everywhere, in fact. it is the medium of everything. A particle is a superposition of nothing and the particle itself.

>>10010271
asume nothing exists. therefore not even logic and reality exist. if logic and reality wouldnt evist, you couldnt make that deduction.

therefore disproving the existance of nothinh with logic and so on is a circular argument.

>> No.10010300

>>10010293
>the only thing that leaves the state a mystery is the lack of knowledge we are able to posess.

not true. The state is in a superposition if states until you measure it, which means its both existant and nonexistant. thats quantum mechanics.

>> No.10010302

ITT: all the STEM larpers ignore the two or three scientific posts that are related, instead elect to go off on "logical arguments" and aristotle shit from 2000 years ago.

you guys suck -- if you don't know shit about physics then just admit that you're talking philosophy = talking out your ass

>> No.10010303

>>10006416
>'why is there something rather than nothing?'

that's like asking:
"Why am I a human and not a racoon?"

Well, you could just as well be a racoon. But then you wouldn't have this thought.

>> No.10010317

>>10010298
>Nothing exist everywhere

Point to it, reference it, IMAGINE IT, talk about nothing, anything.

Dumb shitter.

>> No.10010324

>>10006819
I could ask for their absence.

>> No.10010327

>>10010317
sure. imagine a particle as a dot. that is wrong. imagine it as a wave. that is wrong. imagine it as a superposition of a dot and nothing, smeared over space. that is right. So in a way, even a particle consists of nothing. this nothing is the medium in which it exists.

>> No.10010328

>>10006135
I can tell you, but you have to beg.

>> No.10010339

>>10010327
Nah, what are the properties of nothing. Since P(N) is different from P(M), the properties of the medium, then the two are not the same.

>> No.10010346

>>10010302
t. brainwavelet that doesn't realize that empirical truths are an illusion and that there is only One static being to the universe.

>> No.10010347

>>10010327
LMAO pop culture science as argument.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.10010351

>>10010339
>P(N) is different from P(M), the properties of the medium, then the two are not the same.
they are the same properties, only that nothing is the medium which is the medium of all mediums.

this means everything is inside of this nothing. in fact, it could also be that the medium is nothing, but id have to make some more thoughts and calculations in order to maybe show that there is not a medium which is different from nothing.

>> No.10010356

>>10010347
>LMAO pop culture science
>lmao experimental data

whats wrong with my argument boi

>> No.10010380

>>10010327
>imagine it
Wrong

From nothing comes nothing and I'm not doing any imaginative bullshit to come to this conclusion other than going with the false premise you've laid out already.

>Start with nothing ("Start" being the false premise along with "nothing")
>it remains nothing because it is NOTHING
>but wait! If we just imagine that something is there.
>but for something to be imagined there needs to be an "imaginer"
>This is still not nothing

See it doesn't work. You cannot state that everything just lies in "nothing" because for you to be an observer of such, YOU would also have to be nothing.
Are you nothing? No. You may not be "real" in the conventional sense, but you are not "nothing" and did not spawn from such an abstraction.

TL;DR,Your choices are as follows:
1. You are nothing and everything is nothing. No quality nor quantity, just nothing. (which is patently absurd)
2. For absolutely no reason whatsoever "nothing" turned into "something" (even more patently absurd)
3. Everything always was and will continue to be. One cannot be an observer of nothing because the statement is a self defeating one. (you being not nothing). It is already self-evident that you have at the very least some qualitative difference from other "things" which you observe.

What is the quality of nothing?
What is the quantity of nothing?

"Undefined" is the only true answer because we have never witnessed a "nothing" nor found any empirical evidence of such anywhere in nature.

>> No.10010382

Because Mazremel, the Black Rock in the Riverbed, stands eternally unworn. All else fades and erodes, all else dies.

Mazremel is That Which Must Remain, it is the stone on which all things rest. It is a self-sustaining paradox—alive and dead, being and unbeing, knowing and unknowing.

>> No.10010395

The better question would be, will we ever know why the universe exists?

>> No.10010404

>>10010380
>One cannot be an observer of nothing
You can. If you try to measure a particle, and there is none, nothing is there. Therefore you have measured nothing.

>What is the quality of nothing?
1) nothing is a state in which everything can exist
2) if you add nothing to anything, it is still anything
3) nothing does not interfere with anything

>What is the quantity of nothing?
0
since
lim x--> infty, y-->0(y*x)=const. is a valid equation,
you can build anything from nothing and infinity,

From this follows that there is an infinite amount of nothing in everything.

>"Undefined" is the only true answer because we have never witnessed a "nothing" nor found any empirical evidence of such anywhere in nature.
I have a different notion of nothing.

>> No.10010423

>>10010380

>From nothing comes nothing and I'm not doing any imaginative bullshit
its not imaginative bullshit. the wave function of a particle is the probability density.
psi(x,t) in one dimension at a given time t is not a dirac delta distribution if you havent taken a measurement of a particle, therefore the particle at position x is a superposition of nothing and the particle. for example if the probability at x is 50%, then the particle at x consists of 50% the particle and 50% nothing.

>> No.10010433
File: 833 KB, 1600x1024, apophysis_challenge_114_by_ffey-d4n4q5s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10010433

>>10006135
Path of least resistance.
Do you know how much effort it takes to keep a perfectly virgin universe devoid of existence, for zillions of years? Too much! This universe is a slut and you know it!

>> No.10010438

>>10010404
>If you try to measure a particle, and there is none, nothing is there. Therefore you have measured nothin

Wrong. You have measured "no particle". That isn't "nothing".

>1) nothing is a state in which everything can exist
"I exist in nothing", now reify the "nothing". You can't, you're just assuming at that point
>2) if you add nothing to anything, it is still anything
Because it doesn't exist
>3) nothing does not interfere with anything
Because it doesn't exist..

You gave meaning to something of which there is no empirical evidence. You may have well just said "nothing is mordor, Hogwartz" or some other made up shit.

>What is the quantity of nothing?
0

That's the absence of quantity, aka "not a thing". Now find me a 0 in nature.

>define nature
we're not playing that game, give me empirical evidence of "nothing". Not equations, not expressions. Evidence

>I have a different notion of nothing.

Thanks for playing

>>10010423
>Thinking the universe runs on measurements of motion
>conceptualized into magical bumping particles that we humans can understand easier in terms relative to our ability of observe them.

no it runs on the motion itself, idiot.

>> No.10010446

>>10010438

>no it runs on the motion itself, idiot.
exactly. and before a measurement, a point in space is in the superposition of particle and no particle aka nothing

>"I exist in nothing", now reify the "nothing". You can't, you're just assuming at that point
yeah thats called definition.
>Because it doesn't exist
it doesnt exist because it is nothing. thats what im saying.

>Because it doesn't exist..
now you get it.

>no empirical evidence
by definition, nothing is the abscence of something, so by not having some thing, you have nothing.

>hat's the absence of quantity, aka "not a thing". Now find me a 0 in nature.
nothing. EXACTLY what im saying.

>Thanks for playing
are you a philosopher ?

>> No.10010450

>>10010438
I think now you have understood that nothing is the absence of something and that it can be added everywhere so that you still have the same thing. You have now passed the nothing class.

>> No.10010490

>>10010446
>exactly. and before a measurement, a point in space
Contradiction. What point in space? You are, by definition signifying a cartesian locus with the word "point". "Point" where? You have to define a point to measure. If you define a point without measuring then you are essentially just conceptualizing something irrational that will never leave the realm of concepts. A concept is not nothing by the way, to conceptualize nothing is to essentially contradict the denotation of the word itself. You prove nothing does not exist by the very nature of talking about what it could or (or could not) be.

>yeah thats called definition.
That's great. You can define all you want, that doesn't mean the thing you are defining is something observable in reality nor does it explain anything happening in reality. For instance I can define the features that make a unicorn, but that doesn't make a unicorn exist.
Then you can define "nothing". Your definition is not "nothing", but merely one of the many definitions of nothing. The general consensus is that it means "not a thing". Can you please find me "not a thing" in reality? It cannot be done. It is unverifiable.

>it doesnt exist because it is nothing. thats what im saying.
Yeah yeah I get the game you're playing here. I guess what I should have said was:

"The idea that "nothing" exists has a much basis in reality as unicorns and the tooth fairy"

But I was trying to be nice.

>are you a philosopher ?
Everyone is

>>10010450

>absence of something
>is the same as nothing

Learn some English please.

>> No.10010507

>>10010438
heidenberg's uncertainty principle deals with this, p=dx*dm where they are proportional to each other

>> No.10010509

>>10010507
dx = change in distance
dm should be m which mass

>> No.10010517

>>10010507
kek

fyi to the 948 philosophyfags who jumped in this retard-fest of a thread, that's straight up wrong

heisenberg's uncertainty principle, written in english for brainlets, is

The uncertainty on any measurement of position along a certain dimension multiplied by the uncertainty of a simultaneous measurement of momentum along that same dimension is greater than or equal to the reduced Planck constant divided by two.

totally unrelated to this wrong definition of the momentum operator

>> No.10012167

>>10010490
>Can you please find me "not a thing" in reality?
no, by definition thats impossible.

>It is unverifiable.
the concept of nothing is already built into the peano axioms. it just makes sense to build your language like that, and if you dont have something, then you have nothing. Thus you have shown that there exists nothing in the real world. You can have a thing, and you can not have that thing, and you can not have any thing. Which is equivalent to saying you have nothing.

>"The idea that "nothing" exists has a much basis in reality as unicorns and the tooth fairy"
wrong. The Idea of nothing is a mathematical concept, the idea of unicorns and the tooth fairy is for childs play.

>Learn some English please.
well if i google translate the german word
"abwesenheit"
which means that something is not there
i get absence.
whats wrong here ?

>> No.10012186

>>10010490
what you dont understand is that something which does not exist is everywhere.

>> No.10012191

The answer lies with the true greats: Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Kraus and Nye.

>> No.10013469

Why doesn't the universe not exist?

>> No.10013478

>>10006135
Because it exists.

>> No.10013525

>>10012167
>and if you dont have something, then you have nothing
No, you don't have "IT".

>and you can not have that thing
Not having a particular thing does not equate to "nothing"

>and you can not have any thing.
Not true. Then you would be nothing, which does not exist.

>wrong. The Idea of nothing is a mathematical concept, the idea of unicorns and the tooth fairy is for childs play.
I could flog you with the irony coming from this post.

>The Idea of nothing is a mathematical concept
AKA "as much basis in reality as unicorns and the tooth fairy"

You think the universe understands human math? Math quantifies things that aren't even quantifiable for the purpose of recording and reproducing experiments from a human reference. It cannot explain how things came to be.

>i get absence whats wrong here ?

Absence=/=nothing
Absence=lack of= still exists somewhere just not in the absence

>>10012186
>what you don't understand is that something which does not exist is everywhere.

So it exists everywhere then?

>> No.10013541

>>10006135
>Why does the universe exist?
So everyone can laugh at what an enormous gaylord you are.

>> No.10013543

>>10006637
That’s kinda pathetic if you ask me.

>> No.10013558

The question isn't why, but when.

>> No.10014186

>>10013543
That's kind of edgy

>> No.10014291

>>10014186
Not him, but if "God" created us because it desires to be worshipped, then it isn't omnipotent. That which desires does not posess. That which is omnipotent possesses everything. Thus, if God is omnipotent, then it can't desire anything, even worship.

>> No.10014300

>>10006135
There is why. It just is. No matter how much conceptualising you all do you can't ever logically explain how something exists in spite of nothing.

>> No.10014312

>>10014291
>uses a retarded definition of omnipotent
>hurr durr it's retarded

>> No.10014345

>>10014312
That which is omnipotent is all powerful. That which is all powerful already has everything it would ever want and need. If God exists, it doesn't want us to worship it, we want to worship it and understand it because it's worth understanding it. Don't reply to my post again if you are going to strawman.

>> No.10014350

>>10006135
I think lord Buddha have better answer for this.

>> No.10014367

Change is endless, because if change itself tells us anything about change, it's that nothing has a beginning or an end. It just changes.

>> No.10014548

>>10006135
It is the complement of the non-existent set. We are in the existence set of the partition.

>> No.10015108

>>10006135
Because it can

>> No.10015146

>>10013525
why did we even have this conversation ?

>> No.10015147

>>10006651
concepts do not "exist"

it's just a trick of language, a consequence of having brains

>> No.10015157

>>10015147
so youre saying everything we can think of doesnt actually exist ?
does that mean that nothing exists ?

>> No.10015239

>>10015157
ideas are arrangements of matter

the nature of matter is ultimately unknown and perhaps unknowable, but if you take away the matter you also, to the extent of our actual knowledge, take away the idea

>> No.10015570

Nothingness is already known to philosophers as something that is impossible and cannot exist. Therefore something must exist. The better question would be why does what exists exist in the form that it does.

>> No.10015579

>>10015570
>>10015570
how is that so ? where is an argument for that ?

>> No.10016100

>>10014367
eternity probably exists in terms of there being unchanging facets of existence, things that are timeless, never changing. apart from that yeah, change is the only constant here!
>>10015570
because it could of happened, and due to the paths of time, it did.
>>10015579
logical deduction. really imagine if there was nothing. like being deep asleep. except there's not even a sleeper doing the sleeping, just nothing.
sounds impossible? yeah, cause nothing is. so something exists beyond time and space (here) which gave rise to here (time and space)
>>10014350
they would tell you to accept what is, love and enjoy the present moment xd

>> No.10016518

>>10006630
I read a couple of articles on that actually. Basically an infinite number of universes branched off of one another with each universe having their own event of rapid inflation, with the passages between each branch being wormholes. Also said how each universe could have different laws of physics than each other, so magic and that bullshit could exist. Thats what Stephen Hawking believed at least.

>> No.10016521

We don't really have absolute proof that existence is real. There's no real argument for anything basically

>> No.10016795

>>10016521
>We don't really have absolute proof that existence is real. There's no real argument for anything basically

on an infinite timeline implied by simulated or temporal non-causality time, the entire universe would have been retroactively wiped out before the earth existed.

>> No.10016808

>>10006742
>It is beyond language, it is a self-evident, logical truth
If you can't express it in language then its not something you can even discuss "logically".

Maybe learn the definition of logic first you double digit IQ brainlet.

>> No.10017002

>>10016100
>deduction. really imagine if there was nothing. like being deep asleep. except there's not even a sleeper doing the sleeping, just nothing.
sounds impossible? yeah, cause nothing is. so something exists beyond time and space (here) which gave rise to here (time and space)

sounds like an asumption to me

>> No.10017004
File: 45 KB, 352x395, 1507284067840.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10017004

Nothing can't exist. It's just how our reality is.

Stop thinking that causality is some fundamental aspect of our reality, it isn't,it's emergent.

Whatever geometry is at work behind the scenes, it's weird as fuck, that's for sure.

>> No.10017007
File: 26 KB, 367x411, 1508111291851.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10017007

>>10012191

Dawkins and Dennett are unironically greats and you know they dont belong on that list.

>> No.10018603

>>10017004
That fucking robin hood cartoon turned us all into furries as kids

>> No.10018616
File: 359 KB, 958x819, Screenshot_20180921-001950_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10018616

>>10016518
>Stephen Hawking believed
>tfw you keep forgetting he is gone

>> No.10018981

>>10006135

>>10018603
Real answer to the question