WHY does anything exist?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by lightgigantic, May 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    What do you physically mean when you say "nothing"? Vacuum fluctuation out of "the singularity"? Your pile lit itself? Or it came from some kind of magical inverse electrostatic potential raining lightning towards a central location in the universe. Say one side would be our positive nothing, and the other our negative. The light expands the universe infinitely in all directions and assimilates in the middle to make our first particles.

    Is this what your saying when you type "nothing"?

    What we consider to be "nothing" was in fact something, but I'm not interested in what it looked like back then. I'm interested in what it looks like now.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    Nothing.

    No. I don't resort to word salad.

    In fact it wasn't.

    Then why raise the question?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Not that it is the OP's fault.

    It would be good though to sum up why that question is meaningless.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    so. nothing, nothing, nothing, boom. That's a horrible explanation of high energy physics.
    I'm just giving you quick easy options to run through, but that's a process you would know nothing about.

    Now you agree light is nothing considering it is a necessary part of nucleosynthesis.

    So that we can see it now and work our way back to what it actually was. Did you think we could just make an object and immediately see into the past? Do you expect every presumption we have made thus far to be "absolutely" true or just relative guidelines?
     
  8. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Can you state any other possible source?
     
  9. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Well, the problem is a common one: people think that, just because they can compose a question, it must therefore be answerable.
    That's simply not the case..
     
  10. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    What you mean though is "nothing" (something) has always existed. Right?
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    We can turn the question back on its asker and ask them why they think their question is meaningful.
     
  12. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    'Nothing' is the source but it is not as if there was nothing for a good part of eternity and it suddenly turned into everything. It's that 'nothing' ever had to jiggle and fluctuate into the balance of pair production of opposites that we see, even via an experiment with a vacuum cylinder that had everything pumped out of it.

    Practically, it can't remain to exist anywhere, which is why we find it nowhere, all being filled with field.

    But as an eternal basis, 'nothing' always was. No other basis is possible that fits the bill of the causeless prime mover.
     
  13. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Existence has a reason and the all-consuming question of all time is the why, how, and what of it. We continue to narrow it down.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    It's not an "explanation of high energy physics".

    Er no. You're spouting nonsense. And I'm used options being viable options, not examples of randomly strung-together words from this week's favourite science subject.

    Please don't put words in my mouth. I agree nothing of the sort.

    Doesn't that contradict this:
    No. But I'm still (futilely) expecting you to be coherent at some time.
     
  15. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I think the description:
    -does have a purposeful intention behind its premise, though the phrasing leaves a lot to be desired. It does feel like he is asking for a purpose/design behind reality, which is itself a contentious issue outside of the "Religion" board? It seems to be a question that doesn't require an answer unless the answerer wishes to: 1, agree with its premise; or 2, answer it; or 3, flirt with imaginative conjecture, not in itself a hanging offense, and possibly one to be explored here through god-free philosophical outlook?

    I have a feeling the meaning behind the question is theist in its bias/loaded question? How is the "WHY" justified in its demand, within a logical, philosophical debate? Does this thread brush too close to god-belief?


    No intro has been made, and no firm-enough question been asked.

    All told Glaucon makes a meaningful point; though possibly assuming there is no intention behind existence is itself biased also?

    Lightgigantic would appear to have the floor?
     
  16. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I just noticed that this thread is really old. Brought back from 08 by this one-off post:

    You need to talk to Sciwriter. Are you his twin?
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Conversely, some ask "Why does God exist?" or "Why is the sky blue?"
    People simply like to ask why-questions, apparently.
     
  18. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Then what is your intention? Disprove the usefulness of high energy physics. Note that humans have developed enough information concerning the subject? Purposefully misinterpret something original as something old?

    The elements are not nonsense and my point concerning is valid. I also said to string them together in a specific fashion.

    Alright which came first light or hydrogen?

    No.


    I'm still expecting you to realize something is missing from reality.
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    Pardon? I have no intention of "disproving" high energy physics.

    Which subject?

    WTF are you talking about?

    I didn't claim that the elements are nonsense, only that your "statements" are. What "specific fashion" exactly?

    Huh?

    I see. So what did you mean? On the one hand you're not interested in what it "looked like back then" and on the other you want to see what it is now and work back... :shrug:

    Such as? Your brain?
     
  20. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    yet you have no words for it either.

    high energy physics

    apparently something that you know doesn't exist. Could be why you find what I say to be incomprehensible, But you don't really think all that much now do you.

    one of each so we can prove to the elements themselves their brethren exist.

    simple enough question on which you believe came first.

    can I not be interested in both yet differentiate between the two?

    yes my brain is missing can you please find it. It is made out of every element from hydrogen to unobtanium.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    For what? High energy physics?

    Assuming again...

    Nonsense.

    One more time:
    You aren't M00se1989 come back to haunt me, are you?
     
  22. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    ehyem.... no the other type of environment that allows for the creation of tangible matter.:bugeye:

    I take it I hit some kind of nerve.

    anything truly advance would have to seem somewhat nonsensical. Otherwise we would have had everything figured out completely by now. Quit being so un-objective and negative all the time.

    NOT CONFLICTING INFORMATION


    People haunt you? Now I feel kinda bad for you.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    Only the one you hit when you make stupid assumptions.

    Granted. But so also does anything that is truly nonsensical.

    I see. You're not interested but you are interested. And this isn't conflicted?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page