[ 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: 574 KB, 3086x2475, YuFdF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9651485 No.9651485 [Reply] [Original]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

>> No.9651487

>>9651485
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
There isn't.

>> No.9651488

god is a shitposter

>> No.9651491

>>9651485
We don't know. Given that you only have one datum to look at, why do you assume there ought to be nothing?

>>9651487
Fuck off Zeno.

>> No.9651499

>>9651491
>We don't know. Given that you only have one datum to look at, why do you assume there ought to be nothing?
I didn't assume there "ought" to be nothing

I asked why there was something rather than nothing

>> No.9651512

>>9651485
That's the ultimate question.

2 options:

1) there is a deeper meaning behind it
1a) which we might be able to understand one day or not
1b) which we are unable to comprehend because it's outside our logic

2) no meaning but a random cause

>> No.9651518

>>9651512
>2) no meaning but a random cause
I don't think there has to be a "meaning" to it

but would it not be "easier" for absolutely nothing to exist? for there to be no energy matter or spacetime?

>> No.9651574

>>9651518
>but would it not be "easier" for absolutely nothing to exist? for there to be no energy matter or spacetime?

Yes, agree, but obviously this isn't the case, because there is something.

So, I think the existence of the universe has a reason. What it is, I don't know, just some vague ideas.

>> No.9651589

>>9651574
what are these vague ideas anon?
are they your own or someone elses?

>> No.9651590

>>9651485
>nothing

That's a fantasy word. "Nothing," ironically, does no exist in real life. There is always something occupying everything everywhere; be it matter or energy.

>> No.9651594

>>9651485
Because you couldn't ask the question if otherwise.

>> No.9651653

>>9651589
Own, but hey the world is so big, probably anything but unique, or a mix of things I heard and read.
What we can observe is a constant change, new life, death, good things happening, bad things happening, and so on.
But why, what's the point?
I guess the continuous growth of new, additional experiences must be related to the meaning of life. Every second the universe is filled with more information. You take a photo, meaningless position of electrons was changed to meaningful data. Maybe the goal of the existence of something is to grow and achieve a maximum of information.
I don't, very vague, maybe this post doesn't contribute to assumed growth :P

>> No.9651672

>>9651590
Why?

>> No.9651682

>>9651485
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Your question is answered only two words in.
Also not science or math.

>> No.9651730

Pseudo-science/atheism answer: There's no reason, it was an accident, you're insignificant, get over it.

Religious answer: You're here as a creation of a (cunt) God to worship and live by God's word. If you do, you will be rewarded with eternal pleasure, if you don't, you'll be punished with eternal damnation.

Eastern philosophical answer: There just "is". The "why" is up to you.

>> No.9651751

>>9651730
>There's no reason, it was an accident, you're insignificant, get over it.
>There just "is". The "why" is up to you.
These two seem like the same thing to me, the first answer is included in the second.

>> No.9651760

>>9651485
there's something because there's something
you are a retard if you don't understand this

>> No.9651769

>>9651485
Anthropic principle. You wouldn't be here to notice if there was nothing. There could be 10,000 universes with nothing in them for every 1 with something, but you could never experience the 10,000 nothingverses, only the 1 somethingverse.

>> No.9651774

>>9651485
God so willed it

>> No.9651802

>>9651653
its okay anon
at least you gave me what you really think and not some shitty meme response

>> No.9651812

>>9651485
there can't be nothing because nothing can't BE anything
only things can be

>> No.9651820
File: 69 KB, 1024x595, 0e8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9651820

Why is there nothing rather than something in OP's skull?

>> No.9651847

>>9651751
>These two seem like the same thing to me

You are mistaken then. Eastern philosophy says that you are God, whereas Atheism/pseudo-science says there is no God.

>> No.9651898

>>9651672
For the same reason why god doesn't exist, kid. Fantasy is fantasy.

>> No.9651921

>>9651485
prove it!

you can't!
Therefore --all conspiracies are TRUE!

>> No.9651932

>>9651921
wat

>> No.9652742

>>9651594
>Because you couldn't ask the question if otherwise.
That's not a good "because" that's like saying humans evolved because if humans didn't evolved you would not be human

that's not the reason humans evolved

>> No.9652747

There isn't. The total energy of the universe is zero.

>> No.9652922

>>9651485
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Your question assumes that existence in contingent, in the same sense as your life is contingent - it is entirely possible that might not have been born, so you think it might be possible that existence might not have happened.
This is incorrect - existence is necessary. Any particular arrangement or form of existence is contingent, including our own universe, but it is logically necessary that *something* exist. Here's why.
The idea of necessity vs contingency is generally thought of in terms of possible worlds. If there is a possible world in which some claim X does not hold, then X is contingent. If there is no possible world where X does not hold, then X is necessary.
Your life is contingent because there is a possible world in which you don't exist. There's nothing difficult to understand or accept about that. But can there be a possible world that does not exist? Not just a possible world in which nothing exists, because that might simply imply some empty vacuum, but a possible world which itself does not exist. On the face of it this question is absurd.
Therefore, we can conclude

>> No.9652929

>>9652922
That the question of why there is something rather than nothing is misleading. It is not logically possible for nothing to exist - there must always be something.

>> No.9652941

there's never not not nuttin

>> No.9653048

>>9651499
>We don't know.

>> No.9653080

>>9651485
>nothingness is all that exists
>no laws of physics exist to prevent existence from spontaneously emerging
>random blips of existence emerge by chance
>our universe is one of those blips of existence

>> No.9653120

>>9651485
Listen, dude.
I've been over with this.
The results of my 3 year long thinking is, that it's impossible for anything inside this system (e.g. humans) to determine the cause of the system.
Even if it's recursive, you won't be able to find the reason for the recursion.
>>9651512
> it's 1b or random
The real question that follows (after realizing there is only subjective perception and objectiveness doesn't exist) is, what to do with this knowledge (to know is to believe in something 100%; you can't "know" sth.)
Either a) fall into nihilism which will kill you (aka your genes) quite quickly
or b) learn about any religion, as they are the (rather encryted) results to these questions of 5000+ years of combined thinking of generations
Good luck, sorry for the spoilers but educate yourself and try to understand the reason why you even want to know the answer to the question you posed
Also sorry for bad english

>> No.9653352

>The real question that follows (after realizing there is only subjective perception and objectiveness doesn't exist) is, what to do with this knowledge

I'm just curious. Since, I think it's something beyond our comprehension, I won't know the answer anyway, but I might get a bit closer.

I don't think objectiveness doesn't exist. It could be that all subjective experiences combined are the true objectiveness.

>> No.9653358
File: 2.79 MB, 853x480, infinity_does_not_exist.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9653358

>>9651485
Nothing and infinity are fictional human concepts that do not manifest themselves in the real world.

So the same reason your anime waifu doesn't exist.

>> No.9653875

>>9653358
>Nothing and infinity are fictional human concepts that do not manifest themselves in the real world.
That's not true, there could be nothing at all, no universe no empty space, nothing

>> No.9653895
File: 55 KB, 596x557, 1522783020442.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9653895

The Will.

>> No.9653975

>>9651485
Under what possible hypothesis could the question "Why is there nothing instead of something?" be asked?

>> No.9653981

>>9651518
>>9651574
>Wouldn't it be easier...?

For whom?

More seriously, though, it may be impossible for "nothing to exist." We don't have even the slightest clue about that.

>> No.9653999
File: 85 KB, 600x399, 1452657697109.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9653999

Probably God or something. I'm sure there is a deeper meaning behind all of it, but it is so far beyond the capability of human understanding that it really is just easier to call this meaning "God" and realize that it is (for us) an abstraction that doesn't really affect our day-to-day lives in any way.

>> No.9654069

>>9651485
>tfw no monorail gf

>> No.9654079

>>9653999
but some people claim to know gods will and manipulate large hordes of people with this so called "knowledge". so what happened there?

>> No.9654081

because you exist you fucking brainlet, that there is something, that if you dwell on this question there will be nothing

>> No.9654090

>>9654081
>because you exist you fucking brainlet, that there is something, that if you dwell on this question there will be nothing
That makes no sense

The universe does not exist because my brain exists, my brain exists because the universe exists

>> No.9654091

>>9654090
>arguing with self righteous brainlets ever

>> No.9654096

only an athiest can be objective, they believe certainly that god's not gonna fuck with you either way. science is a subjective/objective experience in that one object can seem to be the exact same "type" as another but be very different. but you can break down this object and find out objectively what makes it the same and what makes it different. this is called science

>> No.9654098

>>9654090
i'm not going to explain it to you

>> No.9654107

>>9651898
Why?

>> No.9654128

tfw trying to get McKayla Mearny & your homosexual brother to have sex

>> No.9654130

>>9653875
Then it wouldn't be manifesting itself in the real world, would it, el stupido?

>> No.9654133

>>9654079
What do you mean what happened there? People are people, they often jump to conclusions and think they know more than they do. It's human nature.

>> No.9654344

>>9654130
>Then it wouldn't be manifesting itself in the real world, would it, el stupido?
OP is asking why there is a real world and not nothing

>> No.9654362

>Why is there something rather than nothing
Who even fucking cares

>> No.9654387

>>9654344
Why is there reality, and not anime waifu?

>> No.9654400

>>9653120
>learn about any religion
Or rather, subjective idealism. It's the one philosophy that offers way more metaphysical freedom than any other philospohy/religion. Buddhism is probably the closest religion to SI so maybe that.

>> No.9654446

>>9651485
Why is there something rather than nothing?

You could be asking two things. What caused something rather than nothing? Or: what was the intention of having something rather than nothing?

Either way you're asking about God.

>> No.9655171

>>9654446
That is not true. Asking why an apple falls to earth rather than flies into the air is not asking about god. Asking why the universe and matter and energy exist vs. nothing existing is not asking about god

telling someone they are asking about god when asking a simply question is a cop out

>> No.9655241

>>9655171
Asking about the first mover, the first cause, is askin about God.

What's your answer fuckface?

>> No.9655280

>>9655241
lol no it's not, it's simply a question that has been historically answered by "god did it"

There is for sure some reason or explanation that is explanatory and does not involve god, it's just not something we have discovered yet. Hell we didn't really have an explanation for gravity till 100 years ago

>> No.9655297

>>9651485
who is this qt and she no older than the age of 16?

>> No.9655426

>>9655297
a US gymnast that larry nasser raped

>> No.9655444

>>9654446
>>9655241
Why was there a first mover/cause instead of nothing?
You can't get around the fundamental question of existence just by adding one more link to the chain, however profound or self-evident you might think that link is.

>> No.9655499

>>9655297
she's a 22 year old olympic gold-medalist gymnast and outspoken victim of sex abuse.

these days she's super busy emulating the kartrashians and posting slutty videos of herself on social media.

>>9655426
he fingerbanged a lot of teenagers, but never p in v raped em. still legally "rape" i suppose.

>> No.9655552

unironically its because of tao:
>nothing and something are a duality where one can not be defined without the other

>> No.9655560

Existence has no 'holes' in it, anything that can exist, exists. In the same way, 'nothing' doesn't exist, therefore everything exists.

>> No.9655573

>>9654362
>Who even fucking cares
I... I care

>> No.9655577

>>9651485

It's even worse how existence seems so arbitrary. Who wrote the laws of physics?

>> No.9655592

>>9651769
You're just ignoring the question though. If this is the case, why are there those 10,000 universes with nothing? It's not about us

>> No.9655595

>>9655592
If there was nothing, would be we be asking why there is nothing rather than something?

>> No.9655599

>>9655595
No because we couldn't ask.

>> No.9655601

>>9655599
*ding*

>> No.9655614

>>9651485
pretty fucked up u putting this girl that was raped as a pic. disgusting.

>> No.9655629

>>9651485
>There are a gazzilion answers you could make up. Here are just a few:

The ideas of' 'nothing,' 'something' and 'existence' are flawed.

There being nothing and there being something are not mutually exclusive, or even nothing = something.

There are more ways for there to be something than there are ways for there to be nothing. Thank the dice.

-insert some deities- "The Great Shlombii and her many twins crafted the universe from the sperm of a giant plum tree monster in 7 hours while doing their finals."

>> No.9655771

>>9651518
>wouldn't it be easier for absolutely nothing to exist?

No. There is only one possible state of the universe that is completely empty and there are almost infinite non-empty states. Therefore it is much more likely for "something" to exist.

>> No.9655945

there’s an infinite number of realities comprised of absolutely nothing, it’s by far the most prevalent plane of reality

as manifestations of something, we are excluded from those realities and can only exist in the prime material plane

>> No.9655971

>>9655945
>there’s an infinite number of realities comprised of absolutely nothing
Name one, other than your imagination.

Nothing doesn't exist. It's a concept, not a reality.

>> No.9655972

>>9655971

that’s the point - these planes of reality are non-existent, that’s their defining characteristic

and they are abundant, in fact these realities occupy every piece of space that isn’t occupied by something else.

>> No.9655981

>>9651485
what are the odds of there being something rather than nothing? 1 in a million? 1 in a googleplex?
whatever they might be, in any scenario where there is something rather than nothing, nobody's there to make an observation about it. maybe there are plenty of examples of there being nothing rather than something, but by definition this is the only version someone is able to know of?
not everything has a deeper reason other than statistics, maybe this is one of those things. but heck if I know.

>> No.9655993 [DELETED] 

>>9651820
SNAPP XDDDDDD

>> No.9656006

>>9655972
Except space is occupied by space. Space is a weaving of fields that allow things to exist within it seething with continuously self canceling energies of its own. Again, nothing doesn't exist - it's merely a faulty concept derived from the limitations of human experience.

>> No.9656034

>>9656006

>nothing doesn't exist

Why do you feel the need to repeat these self evident truths?

>> No.9656039

>>9656034
Cuz OP's question, and the post that's responding to, suggests nothing could exist. It can't, or it would. Might as well be asking why Rainbow Dash doesn't exist.

>> No.9656044

>>9655560
In my language there's a clear distinction between
>nothing does not exist (everything exists)
>nothing doesn't exist (a "nothing" is non-existant)
amerifags fooling themselves with their own language
Nice word-play though

>> No.9656047

>>9651590
>fantasy word
in the same way that "infinity" is a fantasy word.
They're not fantasy words, they're concepts through which we attempt to percieve things that aren't allowed to happen due to the laws of physics

>> No.9656070

>>9651485
God did it.

>> No.9656076

>>9655771
>There is only one possible state of the universe that is completely empty
Isn't this only accurate if the "size" of all universes is taken to be infinite or expanding? (I suppose a universe that's expanding wouldn't be empty given our knowledge of the expansion of our universe). If the size of some universe were constant or infinite, and had nothing in it I would consider it empty. And if a universe of finite size were possible than there would be an infinite number of possible universes of that sort. Unless you don't consider vacuum to be emptiness; I would say that's being pedantic.

>> No.9656081

>>9651485
I don't know and it kind of scares me but oh well

>> No.9656095

>>9656076
>Unless you don't consider vacuum to be emptiness; I would say that's being pedantic.
It isn't - which is oddly part of the reason why the universe is expanding.

>> No.9656108

>>9656076
what is vacuum? if you're referring to a true vacuum, that idea is just as impossible as infinity. the closest we've got to an actual vacuum is intergalactic space

>> No.9656111

>>9651485
define "something" and "nothing"

>> No.9657370

>>9656111
Nothing means there no energy or matter or universe

>> No.9657377

>>9652929
>That the question of why there is something rather than nothing is misleading. It is not logically possible for nothing to exist - there must always be something.
lol no

>> No.9657387

>>9651485
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
because 1.57 != 1.62

>> No.9657395
File: 79 KB, 720x479, atheutist trying to explain first causes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9657395

>>9651485
Because the big bang ching chang chong

>> No.9657654

>>9651485
We don't even know what is what there is.

>> No.9657664
File: 129 KB, 950x1424, 1523139082483.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9657664

>>9651485
In all cases of probability equaling either something or nothing, if nothing is produced then there is no knowledge or awareness of it, hence no-thing. In the eventual probability of the values between something and nothing, when something does occur, naturally there would be awareness or knowledge of something, inevitably leading to the conclusion that in all cases under those values definitions you are unable to not be aware of something, or inversely be aware of nothing

>> No.9657716
File: 550 KB, 480x800, The_Living_God.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9657716

>>9657664

>> No.9657735

>>9651485
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
>is
>to be
>to exist

A "something" can exist but a "nothing" cannot.

>> No.9657755

>>9656108
That's actually pretty far from true vacuum and fairly energetic compared to most space. You get closest to true, rarified vacuum when you have solid charged objects very close together and the casimir effect as at its strongest, but that requires energy to maintain, and even then, it's never perfect.

On the other hand, most evidence points towards all the various energies and forces canceling one another out and adding up to zero, so maybe, in that sense, there really is nothing. Add everything up, and you get nothing.

>> No.9657768

Why is the common theory "the universe out of nothing" when it can be "the universe out of everything"? The latter also solves the paradox of "how come something can come out of nothing" since it assumes that everything already existed in the first place and is merely a deviation from that everything

>> No.9657974

>>9657377
>lol no
lol yes
Feel free to get back to me when you can prove there exists a possible world that does not exist.
If that sounds daunting it's because it's impossible.

>> No.9657976

>>9657370
>Why is there what we observe rather than the absence of what we observe?
Deep, bro

>> No.9658014

Weak anthropic principle. We only see something because we're made of something, thus there's something to see.
Basically, selection bias.

>> No.9658761

>>9651488
Rythm is a captcha!

>> No.9658764

>>9651485
currently reading this book, it comes up with a lot of great ideas on why there's somethin' rather than nothin'

https://www.amazon.de/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595

The author also did a TED Talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M&vl=de

>> No.9658769

>>9651512
> 3) Causa sui

>> No.9658781

>>9651653
interesting point though... after all we can only guess! I remember a quote, don't know the exact words but:
> "Even if one were to speak the utmost truth, he wouldn't even notice"

So just have fun pondering with the us other crazies... we got to spend our time on this planet either way... so why not use it for thinking of why we have to spend time in the first place? Why there is a place to spend time on? Why there is the human construct of time after all....

>> No.9658782
File: 85 KB, 600x443, 1512318087587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9658782

>>9651682
oh ffs... this is science at its best... moron!

>> No.9659065

>>9651485
why is there this semon demon rather than nothing?

>> No.9659068

>>9658014
>Weak anthropic principle. We only see something because we're made of something, thus there's something to see.
>Basically, selection bias.
That's not true, there is not something rather than nothing due to selection bias

>> No.9659181

>>9653120
You could find it, but never know it was.

Also objectivity exists, if understood as what is mind independent. It just happens that, since we are minds, we cannot get to it completely. Maybe nothing can.

>>9651485
OP, nobody knows, but I would say we are just nothing, but expressed in one of the many ways it can be expressed. From nothing, with empty sets within empty sets, you can bootstrap numbers into existence. I think Max Tegmark and Vlatko Vedral, or rather a combination from both perspectives, got it right.

>> No.9659183

>>9659068
Not the same anon, but you could say we know something rather than nothing due to señection bias, but it does not explain why something rather than nothing.

>> No.9659268

>>9651485
Because ''nothing" has quantum fluctuations, resulting in "something".

>> No.9659270

>>9659183
Yes that is true

>> No.9659272

>>9659268
Why are there quantum fluctuations rather than no quantum fluctuations

>> No.9659319

>>9653999
God doesn't answer this question cause then you'd ask why is there god instead of no gods?

>> No.9659366

>>9659319
>>9659272
See
>>9659181

Math itself, which we only deal with in approximations and representations of these approximations, is god.

>inb4 why math instead if no math
It can bootstrap itself from nothingness. Not quantum vacuum, but absolute nothingness.

>> No.9659581

>>9657377
They're right
Nothing is impossible

>> No.9659588

>>9659581
Why is nothing impossible vs nothing being possible?

>> No.9659591

>>9657755
Well even if it is a total of zero which I think is maybe correct, we are very much happening, it's a something. Could fundamentally be a nontangible hologram

>> No.9659601

>>9659588
Truly think if there was nothing, ever. It's just weird... Like if nothing ever existed, there would just be... Nothing. Which isn't logical because there has to be... some kind of existence or nonexistence because it's just weird. I don't have a better word. Something must exist that is beyond cause and effect too.

>> No.9659676

If you say "nothing matters"
"Thing" eytmology means meeting, or matter; coagulation.
And matter comes from mother, the female creative power.
So read as:
No matter matters
Or
No mother mothers
...
No condition is important because it is the source of all
And
That which is without cause (a mother of it's own) brings all into existence

>> No.9659695

>>9651485
This thread could be put into a folder and posted to any philosophy department for a free PhD

>> No.9659749

>>9659366
>It can bootstrap itself from nothingness. Not quantum vacuum, but absolute nothingness.
Why does math exist rather than nothing?

>> No.9659867

>>9659695
>implying the absolute brainletism and lack of arguments running through this whole thread would be acceptable outside of a first year Intro to Philosphy course

>>9659676
Fuck off Freud

>>9659366
>Math itself, which we only deal with in approximations and representations of these approximations
1+1=2
Show me what part of that mathematical statement is an approximation.

>> No.9659874

>>9655595
>>9655601
That still doesn't answer the question from the OP.
The anthropic principle is a nice retort to the fine-tuning argument but OPs question is rather of a different nature.

>> No.9659904

>>9659867
>Show me what part of that mathematical statement is an approximation.
That's nice, no go mathematically describe a singularity in some way to say something other than "yup, that's a singularity".

Nevermind the fact that you can mathematically describe Rainbow Dash and all her powers, yet she still isn't real. (I think that character's a she - don't quote me on that.)

Math is merely logic boiled down to the finest level the human mind can comprehend. Thankfully the universe seems to, thus far, be mostly logical and largely comprehensible, as one would expect given observation, but in the end, math doesn't help you discern fantasy from reality.

Just look at all those guys who were asked to reverse engineer a VIC-20 processor with no map, way back when. Nearly all their hundred-some solutions worked perfectly, mathematically, yet not a one reflected what was actually going on inside the CPU at all. This being among the reasons that the math looking right doesn't ultimately cut in science - you must also be able to test and reproduce. (Albeit, maybe a bad example, as you could do so with that Vic-20, provided you didn't examine the map.)

>> No.9660119

>>9659867
I think that your post represents your deep suppressed sexual fantasies of phallic desires to fuck shitty asshole

>> No.9660176

>>9651485
nothing is the absence of a thing. It is the negative of something, so that nothing = -f(x). To frame the idea that there could be nothing in language is to say f(-x), as the idea of nothing is an idea we imagine by its relation to something. We cannot possibly think of nothing without its relation to something.
To ask "Why is there something rather than nothing", then is to say why do things exist inside a logical plane as opposed to that logical plane being empty; but for there to be truly nothing the logical plane would have to not exist at all. To answer your question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" --because you can ask that question in the first place.

>> No.9660349

>>9651485
Nothing is a concept. It still represents something.

>> No.9660424

>>9651485
Larry Nasser certainly somethinged her nothing

if you catch my drift

>> No.9660430

>>9660176
>"Why is there something rather than nothing?" --because you can ask that question in the first place.
That's not the answer.

That's like saying the reason math exists is because a human brain can understand it

Math could exist without us understanding it, the universe could exist with no life in it, just stars and rocks

>> No.9660483

>>9659904
>ust look at all those guys who were asked to reverse engineer a VIC-20 processor with no map, way back when. Nearly all their hundred-some solutions worked perfectly, mathematically, yet not a one reflected what was actually going on inside the CPU at all.

care to drop in some links on that for an idiot like me?

>> No.9660529

>>9660430
Yes I made 2 logical errors in my post. I realised shortly after that my answer is circular in logic. I figure its a good practice to decipher my retardation though, theres a good point somewhere in there.

>> No.9660674

>>9660424
SCHAMOYGEN

>> No.9660677

because our programmer forgot to void the program

>> No.9660678

>>9660430
It could be just a dream, could be that when we go back to deep sleep it all disappears.

>> No.9660685

>>9660678
>It could be just a dream, could be that when we go back to deep sleep it all disappears.
that's real deep mang

>> No.9660736

>>9660685
It could be true, which is why i said it.

>> No.9660750

>>9660736
Then there is a dreamer

why a dreamer and not nothing

>> No.9660765

>>9651485
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Because if there was nothing you couldn't wax existential about it.

>> No.9660799

>>9660765
>Because if there was nothing you couldn't wax existential about it.
real deep

>> No.9660883

>>9660750
Because there is something, without cause, giving birth/dreaming/creating all from a quasi infinite potential. And it's possibly an awareness

>> No.9661490

>>9660883
"Why is there something without cause" answer "because there is something without cause"

woe dat's deep mang

>> No.9662718

Basically we don't know the answer and never will

>> No.9662769

>>9661490
Nearly as deep as your vacuous brain hole

>> No.9662779

>>9660677
That doesn't make any sense. You can't void a program. You have a large ego and your jokes are shit.

>> No.9663002

>>9662769
rude

>> No.9663700

>>9659068
There could be plenty of existences without something, but we only know of ONE, and that one we know of has something.

>> No.9663724

>>9659749
Because numbers can bootstrap themselves from empty sets within empty sets. I think Von Neumann talked about this.

>>9659867
It is not an approaximation, but it is a representation of math and not math itself. The approximation part I could have worded it better. I said that in order to leave room for a future and more precise understanding of math, not as in everything in math is a (in the mathematical sense) an apporximation. Unless we are being simulated, then yes, everything would be an approximation in a mathematical sense cuz shit be discrete yo.

>> No.9663743

>>9651898
>kid

>teleports behind you.

>> No.9664342

>>9663724
>Because numbers can bootstrap themselves from empty sets within empty sets. I think Von Neumann talked about this.
lol

"atoms exist because they exist"

this is you

>> No.9664458
File: 45 KB, 1138x852, wow so hard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9664458

>>9651485

>> No.9664776

>>9664458
that's illegal

>> No.9664786

>>9651485

Babbys first nihilism

>> No.9664821

>>9655280
We still don't have an explanation for gravity

>> No.9664839

>>9651485
What comes first the chicken or the egg? Well in this case it is the chicken. Consciousness must have always existed as it does not contain any information in the physical sense. Our consciousness is limited in that we can only manipulate information. God or Allah can actually create, in conclusion consciousness comes first which can create or manipulate matter. To falsify this statement some configuration of matter should result in a consciousness being. We should at some point be able to construct synthetic beings who can create information or matter. In other words unlock the limiting factor God put on us, but this is impossible by conservation laws. I'd love to be proved wrong tho let's see it.

>> No.9664844

>>9651485
Why isn't the nothing thinking why there is nothing rather than something?

>> No.9664959

>>9651485
there is nothing, it's just that we call it something

>> No.9664971

>>9651485
Does nothing actually exist?

>> No.9664987

>>9664959
>there is nothing, it's just that we call it something
deep

>> No.9664990
File: 173 KB, 372x500, 1cf07dd4-7cc6-4c31-910f-c8f794bceba0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9664990

>>9664839
>Consciousness must have always existed as it does not contain any information in the physical sense.

>> No.9665376

>>9651485
>something has always existed, absolute nothingness cannot exist
>that something fucked up for no reason a bajillion years ago
>here we are

>> No.9665866

>>9665376
agreed but the question was why something always existed rather than nothing

>> No.9666031

>>9664342
Not at all lol

>> No.9666205

>>9664839
>in conclusion: God
This is why no one takes you religious fags seriously.

>> No.9666270

>>9651485
How do we know what the fuck there is. It was you who built the temple, it was you who covered up my face.

>> No.9666299

>>9666270
Well, if any thread would cause Leonard Cohen to shitpost from the grave, it'd be this one.

>> No.9666404

>>9651485
if you have infinitely many 'nothings' you might end up with something

>> No.9666785

>>9666404
deep

>> No.9666827

>>9664971
If it did wouldn't it be something?

>> No.9666852

>>9651485
Why would there be a reason why?

>> No.9666904

>>9666852
>Why would there be a reason why?
super deep

Why would there be a reason objects with mass tend to be attracted to each other? Isn't "don't as why" one of the basic tenants of science?

>> No.9667103

>>9651485
you have to define nothing first, and that is a concept we can not grasp, like infinite

>> No.9667139

>>9667103
Speak for yourself brainlet.

>> No.9667148

>>9666904
The universe appears to precede intelligence. Thus there is no reason to ask for why the universe is the way it is. Reasons only apply to intelligent actions. We can ask *how* the universe is, which is what science answers. But how implies causality when we don't even know whether causality still applies before the big bang. So asking how the universe is the way it is might be equally nonsensical. Before asking a question we have to make sure the question makes sense. The problem here stems from the human instinct to fallaciously assume reason or causality behind everything.

>> No.9667478

>>9651518
Wellnthe given theory is that there is no net energy in the universe. So all this is because nothing has been.

>> No.9667533

>>9651485
because nothing is greater than something, and when something is that great as nothing, something ought to occur in it.