Something Instead of Nothing

[promethean75]

Forrest Gump was a goddamn hero you sonofabitch. Don't you forget it.

[iambiguous]

I get that you get too agitated by being called out on your bullshit to be able to write. But Im not gonna listen to another one of your Forrest Gump emulations.

Forrest Gump aside, let's get this started: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=195495&start=25

[promethean75]

Forget about it biggs... we ain't doing the astrology debate again. It's such a no brainer we shouldn't have had to do it the first time.

[iambiguous]

Forget about it biggs... we ain't doing the astrology debate again. It's such a no brainer we shouldn't have had to do it the first time.

Still, it relaxes me to go back and forth with minds that baffle me. Or minds that think things that make absolutely no sense at all to me. But minds that don't seem to be afflicted with any, uh, "condition".

Besides, when you are waiting for godot -- to die, in other words -- nothing is really off the table.

[promethean75]

Which philosopher said life should be spent preparing to die? Was that a philosopher or one of those zen guys?

But thinking about my mortality still seizes me with the same indescribable feeling of absurdity. Really think about what that entails; dying, and never ever ever living again. Total annihilation. Like you were never even there. A cosmic blink of an eye. And it doesn't even matter that it didn't even matter.

This is so irrevocably fucked up you cant even call it good or bad. It's just an absurd fact. THE absurd fact. The great leveler of all other facts.

[iambiguous]

Which philosopher said life should be spent preparing to die? Was that a philosopher or one of those zen guys?

But thinking about my mortality still seizes me with the same indescribable feeling of absurdity. Really think about what that entails; dying, and never ever ever living again. Total annihilation. Like you were never even there. A cosmic blink of an eye. And it doesn't even matter that it didn't even matter.

This is so irrevocably fucked up you cant even call it good or bad. It's just an absurd fact. THE absurd fact. The great leveler of all other facts.

Being optimistic, sure.

[iambiguous]

Why Does the Universe Exist?
By Derek Parfit

Suppose that the observable Universe were only a fraction of reality. Suppose, most simply, that all possible Universes were actual. (See Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, Chapter Two.)...If ours is the only actual universe, it makes sense to ask, 'Why is the Universe the way it is?,' since we are then asking, 'Out of all the possibilities, why is this the one that is actual?' But, if all possibilities were actual, there would be no such question. Nor could we sensibly ask, 'Why is our Universe the one it is?' That would be like asking 'Why are we who we are?', or 'Why is it now the time that it is?' And it would not be surprising that our universe was one of those where life is possible.

Suppose we could actually answer questions like this? And, if you conclude [as I do] that, in our own lifetime, the odds that we ever will are staggeringly remote, why would you waste even a minute more of your time in pursuit of them?

Exactly: Because that is just one more example of the same sort of question.

We are endowed by nature with a brain able to ask them. Some do, some don't. And, to me, the rest is no more or no less the embodiment of dasein than the quandaries we confront in the is/ought world.

And, presuming some measure of autonomy, what can possibly be a greater mystery that minds can grapple with than these two: why something instead of nothing? why this something and not another something altogether?

If nothing else you can take some sort of comfort in knowing that until we have the answers to imponderables on this scale, the ones we pursue that are considerably more down to earth are not likely to produce answers not enveloped in that intellectual grand canyon between what we think we know about anything and all that would need to be known about everything in order to be sure of anything and everything at all.

You know, for those among us -- the objectivists -- foolish enough to actually believe that doesn't matter.

We could not causually explain either why God exists, or why there is anything rather than nothing. There might perhaps be a causal law, as some physicists suggest, which allowed something to arise from nothing. But there could not be a causal explanation of why this law held.

Of course aren't we all basically still in the same boat here? Because there does not appear to an explanation -- scientific, philosophical, theological -- for the existence of either God or of existence, this speculation in and of itself is just another manifestation of that. Especially given that we don't know beyond all doubt if even asking and answering the questions themselves are or are not but an inherent adjunct of this overarching "causal law".

[Dan~]

Suppose we could actually answer questions like this? And, if you conclude [as I do] that, in our own lifetime, the odds that we ever will are staggeringly remote, why would you waste even a minute more of your time in pursuit of them?

Just like a hedonist seeks pleasure and avoids pain,
a lover of truth seeks facts and avoids contradictions.
A lover of truth may spend his or her whole life seeking truths.
This can be fueled by the hope that it is not an act of futility.

[Ecmandu]

Suppose we could actually answer questions like this? And, if you conclude [as I do] that, in our own lifetime, the odds that we ever will are staggeringly remote, why would you waste even a minute more of your time in pursuit of them?

Just like a hedonist seeks pleasure and avoids pain,
a lover of truth seeks facts and avoids contradictions.
A lover of truth may spend his or her whole life seeking truths.
This can be fueled by the hope that it is not an act of futility.

I love that message dan~

Here’s the deal:

Unceremonious dedication to non contradiction...

This is the path of the smartest. Everything else bores them. Stupid people have rites, rituals and marriage — holy places (all that bullshit!)

Smart people rise above the trash for actual meaning.

[iambiguous]

Just like a hedonist seeks pleasure and avoids pain,
a lover of truth seeks facts and avoids contradictions.
A lover of truth may spend his or her whole life seeking truths.
This can be fueled by the hope that it is not an act of futility.

Of course in the is/ought world history is replete with the agonizing consequences of those who insisted, still insist and almost certainly will always insist that others were obligated to love the same truths that they do. Let's call them objectivists.

You know, until we can figure out why there is something instead of nothing, we seem to be stuck with the somethingness that we have.

[Ecmandu]

Just like a hedonist seeks pleasure and avoids pain,
a lover of truth seeks facts and avoids contradictions.
A lover of truth may spend his or her whole life seeking truths.
This can be fueled by the hope that it is not an act of futility.

Of course in the is/ought world history is replete with the agonizing consequences of those who insisted, still insist and almost certainly will always insist that others were obligated to love the same truths that they do. Let's call them objectivists.

You know, until we can figure out why there is something instead of nothing, we seem to be stuck with the somethingness that we have.

Shit iambiguous, I’ve explained this to you a million fucking times! I know you have me on ignore (some cowardly shit if I’ve ever seen)

Existence exists because of logic! Truth tables to be specific!

What is the existence of existence? (Existence when it’s itself) Existence... duh!

What is the non existence of non existence? (Non existence when it’s itself) Existence ... duh!

Nothing remotely metaphysical there, just the most basic logic!

I actually hate you iambiguous. I’ve posted some super-genius shit since you decided to put me on ignore and you’ll never have to respond to it to expand your own mind for once in your whole fucking life.

[Fixed Cross]

Nothing has no power to enforce itself.

(Simpler even than yours ec)

Promethazine, that you use your brain strictly for other things than thought does not mean thought is a no-brainer.

[Meno_]

Nothing has no power to enforce itself.

(Simpler even than yours ec)

Promethazine, that you use your brain strictly for other things than thought does not mean thought is a no-brainer.

Except if that nothing is really something

In that event they are more than merely logically related.

For that , more than a definitively nominal aspect needs to be experienced., to be understood.

[iambiguous]

Nothing has no power to enforce itself.

(Simpler even than yours ec)

Promethazine, that you use your brain strictly for other things than thought does not mean thought is a no-brainer.

Note to others: you tell me.

You know, after consulting with the stars.

[Fixed Cross]

Nothing has no power to enforce itself.

(Simpler even than yours ec)

Promethazine, that you use your brain strictly for other things than thought does not mean thought is a no-brainer.

Except if that nothing is really something

In that event they are more than merely logically related.

For that , more than a definitively nominal aspect needs to be experienced., to be understood.

Well if "nothing" is "something" then obviously logic is a ridiculously foolish thing no one should be using.

Considering that logic is pretty cool and works very well, nothing is everything but something and thus has no power to enforce itself, and thus doesn't exist.

[iambiguous]

Considering that logic is pretty cool and works very well, nothing is everything but something and thus has no power to enforce itself, and thus doesn't exist.

What he said. Only the other way around.

[Fixed Cross]

Both directions work fine.

[iambiguous]

Both directions work fine.

You know, going back to his own assessment of that and all that would need to be known in regard to assessing the existence of existence itself. As something instead of something else or nothing at all.

Hell, even astrologers are not exempt from mysteries this profound.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Well, if only "here and now".

[iambiguous]

Why Does the Universe Exist?
By Derek Parfit

On one view, God necessarily exists. This could be claimed, instead, of the Universe. If such a view made sense, and was true, there would be nothing that was unexplained. If something necessarily exists, there is no conceivable alternative. But there are well-known objections to this kind of view.

And then the well known objections to those well known objections. Regressing infinitely back to...to what? From my frame of mind the mind itself becomes by far one of the biggest mysteries of them all. Existence actually reaching the point where it is able to become aware of anything existing at all. Existence able to ponder why it does exist rather than not exist.

Come on, how on earth can the minds of any of us not be dumbfounded by questions of this sort? And not feel this spooky sense of reality being, well, spooky.

Einstein grappled with it as best he could: https://www.zmescience.com/other/featur ... -15102017/

According to another view, God exists because he ought to: because it is good that he exists. As before, this could be claimed directly of the Universe. Since this view does not claim that either God or the Universe necessarily exists, it may escape the objections to that claim.

How would one definitively distinguish a God and/or a universe that exists of necessity, as opposed to a God and/or a universe that exists because He and/or It ought to? That distinction is a bit ineffable from my frame of mind here and now.

Anyone care to take a crack at it?

Once the idea of something existing because it ought to exist...or because it's a good thing that it does...then the idea of teleology comes into place. As though existence has a meaning behind it or a purpose that it pursues over time. Then tumbling once again into the sheer inexplicable parameters of it all.

If this view were true, there would still be something that was unexplained. We could still ask why this view was true: why things exist because they ought to. But there would be less to be explained. As an answer to the question, 'Why do things exist?', 'Because they ought to' would be better than 'For no reason.'

Bottom line [one of them]: whatever conjecture might be put forth only elicits further conjectures regarding what brought that about.

Such a view once again raises the problem of evil. The Universe appears to be - - flawed. If things exist because they ought to, why are they not much better than they are?

Next up: dasein.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think one of the reasons the 'why is there something rather than nothing?' question lingers is because of parsimony, especially in science. It seems more likely, from a parsimonius viewpoint, that there never would have been something. In science you work with something like Occam's razor. Simpler solutions, with less parts necesary for the explanation, are considered better (for now, perhaps not later). We try not to assume things. Things are not (yet) considered real unless there is a great deal of evidence and no contradiction or better explanation. There is a whittle down procedurely, that I think also has a metaphysical edge. So it seems, metaphysically, more likely that there would be less, though this is perhaps confusing methology with ontology. Infinitely long existence eliminates parsimony in at least one way related to cause. Individual 'things' may have causes, but the whole shebang need not have a cause, it merely is. Science is all about causes (though it does have descriptive and modeling not focused on cause (the how and what and structure of things). But a great emphasis is on cause and all scientific experimentation (not all hypothesis formation) is based on working with causes and controlling them carefully. If the universe has always been here or suddenly appeared ex nihilo, then there is no cause. And that grates on the scientist or those influenced by them and also the primate grabby handed charaters we are who want to control things or at least understand who does and can we take control from them. There is very little in science where the explanation is 'It just is.' That satisfies no one in science. That's what you tell your kids when you are tired of a string of 'why' questions. But if the universe came from nothing, a true nothing without potential without qualities, or has always been here, then one enormous scientific answer is

It just is this way. No cause, no reason, no explanation. Period.

And I think it is obvious that that is the case. Something is without cause, even if it is mere potential or tendencies. Something just is. That's like the pit of a fruit in Science's mouth. It has to just spit it out. It has no teeth strong enough or better, metaphysically appropriate, to deal with 'just is'. it's heresy.

[von Rivers]

It is usually taken as intuitively obvious that everything has a cause of its existence. That is because every 'thing' around us had a cause of its existence. And then we can ask 'why' or 'how'. The carrot was a seed was a plant... and so on backwards to some particles in space... 6000 years ago. (--Just kidding).

Except, when you ask why 'something' exists rather than nothing, you are not asking about a particular 'thing'. You are asking about the universe. However, logically speaking, the universe is not a 'thing', it is the set of all things, and a set cannot be a member of itself.

'Things' are distinguishable from other objects. To think of the universe as a 'thing' is to presume a transcendent universe which contains our natural one. This creates a disanalogy. The universe is not an entry on the causal chain from carrots to seeds to particles in space. Just as, your geneaology does not go from your parents to your grandparents to 'humankind-as-a-whole'. Humankind-as-a-whole is not a person, it is the set of all people.

Here's the point: You have reason to challenge the intuitiveness obviousness you feel in thinking the universe had a cause, or a beginning---just because all 'things' do. --- And that was what you were asking about when you ask why 'something' exists (i.e., 'how' or 'why' is there a universe). This may point to some kind of category mistake, like asking about the size of a colour. (When you ask about the reason for existence-in-general). Perhaps.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It is usually taken as intuitively obvious that everything has a cause of its existence. That is because every 'thing' around us had a cause of its existence. And then we can ask 'why' or 'how'. The carrot was a seed was a plant... and so on backwards to some particles in space... 6000 years ago. (--Just kidding).

Except, when you ask why 'something' exists rather than nothing, you are not asking about a particular 'thing'. You are asking about the universe. However, logically speaking, the universe is not a 'thing', it is the set of all things, and a set cannot be a member of itself.

'Things' are distinguishable from other objects. To think of the universe as a 'thing' is to presume a transcendent universe which contains our natural one. This creates a disanalogy. The universe is not an entry on the causal chain from carrots to seeds to particles in space. Just as, your geneaology does not go from your parents to your grandparents to 'humankind-as-a-whole'. Humankind-as-a-whole is not a person, it is the set of all people.

Here's the point: You have reason to challenge the intuitiveness obviousness you feel in thinking the universe had a cause, or a beginning---just because all 'things' do. --- And that was what you were asking about when you ask why 'something' exists (i.e., 'how' or 'why' is there a universe). This may point to some kind of category mistake, like asking about the size of a colour. (When you ask about the reason for existence-in-general). Perhaps.

Sure. And I don't think the universe must have a cause. But different methodologies/ontologies have 'there's gotta be a reason' built in. Not just folk methodologies/ontologies but even sophisticated ones like science (or sciences since it is not a unified methodology/ontology ((yet, at least))). This is not a problem either. I mean, how wonderfully productive the metaphysical/methodological outlook of science has been. I think however people are not so instrumental. Hey, this has worked a lot, and it's better than what those _________have as an epistemology or ontology, but it need not cover everything. I think that's hard for people in all sorts of belief systems to really face. Even if a universe that has always been here cannot, by deduction, have a cause, one is left with a rather large question mark and one that cannot even be approached by science, for example, and is problematic for many theisms also. It just is sounds pretty anti-science. (and I am talking about to science in minds, not some Platonic perfect disembodied science). It would also be problematic for, say, most Christians. They can deal with 'we can't know why God made it that way' but will have a lot of trouble with 'It just is, not to please a deity or the result of His creative process'. That is also heretical. Most people are running on either a clearly dominant approach to understanding things or are eclectic and don't really want to notice all the contradictions in that. It's hard to meet something that (it seems) will never be explained or be understood by some scientist or at least is understood by some deity.

Not merely for us from our limited perspective it just is this way because we cannot know everything, but objectively it just is like this.

Which actually is psychologically interesting since much of what we encounter 'just is' (to us) but most of us find it hard to imagine that anything let alone something like a universe could be objectively 'yeah it's just like that, it's always been.'

[Meno_]

"it is the set of all things, and a set cannot be a member of itself"


What if the case is different. What if a universe os not a single universe. Then the one universe can belong to a set of universes, and the logic of classification fails.

Could a multi universe be actual numerical pluralism, or it may be mathematical fallacy, if, it is a fragmented transcendental universe posing in different quantum states?

Is this possible difference worthy to set the stage for a cosmic causative factor, and if so, does the logic succomb to an actual identity between the single and the multistate distinction.

In other words, a phenomenological plurality may actually be the equal of nominal singular universe, where singular and singularity are conceivable as arguably similar to identical processes.


What is implied is a quantum uncertainty of the cosmos, where the defining attributes become inconceivable, and anything possible has a set of inconceivable functional reality.

One good example is the idea that many of the farthest galaxies perceived do not exist, since they have died ages ago, by the time they appear on our telescopic imaginations.

Some of these appear no different then a single star, while containing maybe millions of stars!

There may actually be a linear expansion, defining a curved horizon, where , if the speed of light could be exceed light, where the greatest imaginable magnitude of extension could meet another like object ( an other universe- that may be a fragment of the same or another universe)


Incidentally, what certainty is there of a difference or identity of universes phasing within a mobius type phasing ?


In this highly embellished description, can even the identity and/or difference between some thing and nothing survive scrutiny?

Does possibility eat up actuality and all things subsumed into their cyclical opposites?

That makes more sense then the cosmically limited conception.

If this appears more fiction then fact,(science) then perhaps we still have a new copernican revolution ahead of us.

[von Rivers]

I'm not very clear on how multiverse ideas go. Is there a container universe for the multiverses? If so, I think what I said still applies. If there are just separate and distinct universes, then perhaps you can take a transcendent perspective and...do whatever, shift intuitions about origins back around. That's all I was talking about---shifting intuitions about what must have a first cause. But perhaps you could still say from within your universe that... well, whatever I said before.

Anyways, when I hear "multiple universes", I think of "possible worlds". ---It is a logical or semantic device, but nobody (or at least not many) are saying that possible worlds are also all actual worlds.

[von Rivers]

Even if a universe that has always been here cannot, by deduction, have a cause, one is left with a rather large question mark and one that cannot even be approached by science, for example, and is problematic for many theisms also. It just is sounds pretty anti-science.

I suppose, but I think any logically possible alternative is as well, unless an infinite regress causal chain is more sciencey. What do scientists stop at these days about the basic building blocks of everything else? It used to be atoms, or quarks, or whatever. Do they stop at anything these days? That seems to me like another "anti-science" example of, "well fellas, our work here is done". But really, what I was saying was not that you can only go so far---but more like, there's something sneaky or confusing about the question itself. In the words of Admiral Ackbar, "It's a trap!!!"

It would also be problematic for, say, most Christians. They can deal with 'we can't know why God made it that way' but will have a lot of trouble with 'It just is, not to please a deity or the result of His creative process'. That is also heretical.

Aren't they doing the same thing with 'God'? The first placeholder, instead of 'universe'.

I think however people are not so instrumental. Hey, this has worked a lot, and it's better than what those _________have as an epistemology or ontology, but it need not cover everything. I think that's hard for people in all sorts of belief systems to really face.

I don't know about this. I see cases where considerations of truth (in the sense of correspondence to external world facts) do not seem to get in the way of thinking things 'true'. Wasn't that a main argument for the existence of God at one point... believe it, just-in-case. I would give examples of wishful thinking.