WHY does anything exist?

[Rav]

Whilst it is hard to disagree with you, Rav, in so far as physical existence is the only state of affairs with which we are familiar

I am of the firm belief that anything that is not nothing must be physical because it must have substance. If something doesn't have substance how can one say that it is anything? All you need to do in order to appreciate this is to take any conceivable reality, compare it to nothing, and think about what's different. Something (no matter how abstract or seemingly unphysical it might be) will always be different from nothing in the sense that something is "there", but nothing is not. If something is "there" then how can it not be a "substance" of sorts? All we need to do is embrace more sophisticated notions of physicality which science has already taught us is necessary anyway.

surely this simply begs the question of existence and provides no answer to it.

The answer is, as far as I am concerned, that something exists because nothing is an impossibility. As I alluded to earlier, I believe that presupposing an either-or scenario (I did this myself for many years) is an error which stems from our natural tendency to think of everything as a thing. You don't have to look very far to find people trying to describe or quantify nothing somehow (a vacuum, a void, the pure emptiness that the universe is expanding into etc) but it's all hopelessly incorrect and ultimately futile. It's not useful (or logical) to try to understand what nothing "is". Instead we simply need to understand everything that nothing is "not". All that should be left in ones mind after doing this is a "marker" of some sort that serves to remind you that nothing can't (and shouldn't be) conceptualized at all so you don't fall back into the trap of thinking of it as something.

Again, if nothing is an impossibility, then something must exist, always. And because nothing can not exist anywhere, ever, something must exist everywhere, forever. This doesn't mean that the universe as we know it didn't have a beginning, only that there could never have been a time when all of it's fundamental constituent elements (including the ones we don't know about, yet) weren't somewhere (still everywhere in fact), in one form or another.

I know this all sounds highly speculative (and I'm obliged to concede that it is) but it all flows naturally from the simplest and most logical idea: that nothing is an impossibility. I'd like to see anyone demonstrate otherwise. Honestly I would. I've got the soul of a scientist in the sense that I love to be wrong about stuff like this because then there's something new to explore.

 

[SciWriter]

The BBC recently released two TV programs referred to as "Everything and Nothing". The show on Nothing may answer a few questions.

Yes, this was good, and somewhere in the series they showed a large metal cylinder that they that had pumped everything out of, and yet they could show that the vacuum of nothing still turned into something.

Since this happens in any vacuum anywhere, it can be said that stuff was around forever; it's just that it isn't the same exact stuff. This completes the idea that there is nothing to make anything of.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

What does that have to do with anything?

The difference is assimilation.

Really? How dense is a black hole? Take a guess. In fact take three.

Are you alluding to black holes being the "essence of creation". If not I would put my money on what it consumes for that myth.

And you persist in this "light" business. Why are you ignoring everything else that resulted?

Well there are undoubtedly pieces to the puzzle. The question is who is going to fit them in correctly to be approved "universally".

Very poetic. And nothing to do with science.

I try to keep in touch with pleasing aesthetics for an audience. Glad philosophy still cares for beauty and simplicity.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The difference is assimilation.

And?

Are you alluding to black holes being the "essence of creation". If not I would put my money on what it consumes for that myth.

No. And what?

Well there are undoubtedly pieces to the puzzle. The question is who is going to fit them in correctly to be approved "universally".

Well one thing looks pretty certain: it's not going to be you.

I try to keep in touch with pleasing aesthetics for an audience. Glad philosophy still cares for beauty and simplicity.

Yet you manage to achieve neither. Unless by "simplicity" you're claiming that you yourself are simple.

 

[wynn]

Yes, this was good, and somewhere in the series they showed a large metal cylinder that they that had pumped everything out of, and yet they could show that the vacuum of nothing still turned into something.

Do you have a PhD or something?

What you describe above is not nothing. To begin with, iIt is a vacuum maintained by a cylinder and machinery, not by nothing.

There is a categorical difference between the vacuums humans can create, and something that actually is nothing.

 

[Rav]

What you describe above is not nothing. To begin with, iIt is a vacuum maintained by a cylinder and machinery, not by nothing.

There is a categorical difference between the vacuums humans can create, and something that actually is nothing.

If you'd watched the show yourself you would realize that Sci is simply referencing the fact that before science taught us otherwise, people really did think that such a vacuum was nothing because they didn't have any way of knowing about vacuum fluctuations. The first part of the show was something of a brief history of nothing and our previous misconceptions about it.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Yet you manage to achieve neither. Unless by "simplicity" you're claiming that you yourself are simple.

Yes very much so. Mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, a little nitrogen, with a spot every now and again of iron.

But the universe itself is very simple. Honestly I think you make it out to be harder to understand than it is in reality. Those little small things appeared before anything "infinitely dense" and that is just logic. Without light there would be nothing to keep time. Time is an aspect of reality based on the movement of light through the material and immaterial present within the universe. The material includes the overall assimilated elements within reach in the universe. (those made in the BB and in the subsequent bangs after.) The immaterial includes what would ultimately surround and encapsulate everything, absolutely nothing at all.

Yes so very simple indeed. What could we ever use to replicate the universe?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Those little small things appeared before anything "infinitely dense" and that is just logic.

Except that you have also shown that you have a poor grasp of logic.

Without light there would be nothing to keep time. Time is an aspect of reality based on the movement of light through the material and immaterial present within the universe.

No.

The immaterial includes what would ultimately surround and encapsulate everything, absolutely nothing at all.

Supposition. Unsubstantiable.

 

[wynn]

If you'd watched the show yourself you would realize that Sci is simply referencing the fact that before science taught us otherwise, people really did think that such a vacuum was nothing because they didn't have any way of knowing about vacuum fluctuations. The first part of the show was something of a brief history of nothing and our previous misconceptions about it.

And you do have a PhD?

 

[Rav]

And you do have a PhD?

No.

 

[wynn]

Would you like to have one?

 

[Rav]

Would you like to have one?

If you're asking me if I would like to have all the knowledge that I would gain by legitimately obtaining one, then sure. But I wouldn't be prepared to make the sacrifices that would be necessary to undertake that kind of formal study. We all have our own individual priorities. I am content to study such things informally.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Except that you have also shown that you have a poor grasp of logic.

If that is your only complaint to me having the ability to say, "hey! them little bitty thingies in the universe came before the bigger ones" and call it assimilation, then fine.

No.

So if "irradiation" decided in some place to run in the complete opposite direction it would not alter time in any way? Light would go back into the electrons they came from and like clockwork rewind every object into its preconditioned status. Light and matter would flood back out of the black hole like Santa giving presents with his magical bag. (gulp) note: metaphor made mock the supposition that "black holes" are "infinitely" dense. Though they might be dense.

Supposition. Unsubstantiable.

Implying our universe is trapped in a jar or boundary of some sort?

 

[Dywyddyr]

If that is your only complaint to me

I take you don't bother actually reading my replies to you then? Since I have pointed out several areas of contention.

So if "irradiation" decided in some place to run in the complete opposite direction it would not alter time in any way? Light would go back into the electrons they came from and like clockwork rewind every object into its preconditioned status. Light and matter would flood back out of the black hole like Santa giving presents with his magical bag.

What makes you think time is based on light? Or that light "irradiates"?

note: metaphor made mock the supposition that "black holes" are "infinitely" dense. Though they might be dense.

Or that black holes aren't infinitely dense?

Implying our universe is trapped in a jar or boundary of some sort?

Nope. Try reading what you wrote, and then try reading my replies.

 

[wellwisher]

What makes you think time is based on light?

If you look at a photon, it has wavelength and frequency. Since distance is a passive variable the potential energy of the photon is contained in its frequency (angular momentum), which has a time connection.

Another way to look at it; we can measure distance with a meter stick which is a passive device. Time, on the other hand, needs a dynamic device to be measured, such as clocks, etc. Or, time needs energy to be measured since time has a connection to energy.

 

[Michael]

Yes, this was good, and somewhere in the series they showed a large metal cylinder that they that had pumped everything out of, and yet they could show that the vacuum of nothing still turned into something.

Since this happens in any vacuum anywhere, it can be said that stuff was around forever; it's just that it isn't the same exact stuff. This completes the idea that there is nothing to make anything of.

I did like that episode as well

The idea that you can pump out everything and yet electrons and anti-electrons continue to pop into existence and back out again is very fascinating.

Something weird is going on...

 

[NietzscheHimself]

I take you don't bother actually reading my replies to you then? Since I have pointed out several areas of contention.

Why should I when you have given me previous validation of my "overall" point concerning the creation of the universe on a different thread? Try to make your areas of "contention" more elaborate so I can infer specifically what you refer to.

What makes you think time is based on light?

Basically what Wellwisher said. Isn't it more fun when we work together?.. First particle out the box defines the laws. Light measures the time interval from the beginning of the universe till now. The parts of the universe that have never seen light are not of this time.

Or that light "irradiates"?

What's the opposite of assimilation? Entropy?

Or that black holes aren't infinitely dense?

Because the only thing we have to support that particular notion is the fact information gets lost there. And our Sun orbits this giant object in the middle of the galaxy, hence we make it by just fine. And The black hole doesn't account for anywhere near half the mass of its respective galaxy.

Nope. Try reading what you wrote, and then try reading my replies.

You dislike the word encapsulate as I end my "vision" of the infinite nothingness as an outside observer? You dislike "surrounds" as nothing and everything are "heterogeneous" in reality? Open or closed universe pick one for our presumptions. I prefer open ones.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why should I when you have given me previous validation of my "overall" point concerning the creation of the universe on a different thread?

Validation? As in pointing out that every single supposition you put forward was based on a fallacy or nothing at all? And you call that "validation"?

Try to make your areas of "contention" more elaborate so I can infer specifically what you refer to.

Since I post one line of yours at a time and reply how can ask for "specifics"?

Basically what Wellwisher said.

Wellwisher too is a crank.

First particle out the box defines the laws.

Supposition.

Light measures the time interval from the beginning of the universe till now. The parts of the universe that have never seen light are not of this time.

Nonsense.

What's the opposite of assimilation? Entropy?

No.

Because the only thing we have to support that particular notion is the fact information gets lost there.

Wrong. It's because of the extremely high mass and zero size of the singularity.

And our Sun orbits this giant object in the middle of the galaxy, hence we make it by just fine.

So what?

You dislike the word encapsulate as I end my "vision" of the infinite nothingness as an outside observer? You dislike "surrounds" as nothing and everything are "heterogeneous" in reality? Open or closed universe pick one for our presumptions. I prefer open ones.

And you misread my objections. They're nothing to do with individual words you choose , but the concept as a whole.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Validation? As in pointing out that every single supposition you put forward was based on a fallacy or nothing at all? And you call that "validation"?

To destroy an improper fallacy resulting from ignorance possibly all we need to do is "assimilate" the elements into a singular box. Call it an experiment. You have already said undeniably so that no person has seen them all at once. So the fallacy I will hold is that "no person has seen the mold for the universe". The stone that can be destroyed and nevertheless retains value as building material has never been seen by human eyes. Why is it a fallacy? Two reasons: one because we have all seen the universe or glanced into the night sky and felt humble by the shear size, two we were all in one way or another a small part of what initially came to happen. We obviously weren't cognitive an infinite amount of years ago, but logically all the pieces were still there. The logical fallacy is in your head that needs overcoming. It could only help our evolution. Let's build something for the universe we can all see. We have nothing to loose but time.

Since I post one line of yours at a time and reply how can ask for "specifics"?

No... specifics mean details... provide me with a more "detailed" side of your complaint. If I can't see where the missunderstanding occurs... Then just one might happen and I will have to find a presumption that predates the error.

Wellwisher too is a crank.

What does that mean? He works on machines all the time?

Supposition.

Got a better one?

Nonsense.

True nonsense.

No.

The opposite of something random is not something orderly?

Wrong. It's because of the extremely high mass and zero size of the singularity.

supposition. So under your logic it is infinitely dense because the volume is zero? Something with an actual zero value for volume would not exist. It would actually be nothing. Note: does not affect the current understanding of the word "singularity", Just defines the black hole ones as obviously not being infinitely dense. Tho Relatively speaking we can say infinitely dense. Still if we were the size of the universe. It would be us and not the black whole who is infinitely dense.

So what?

A little trail leading away from the conversation never hurts anything. You should know what perspective you or your audience is focusing at even if you force it on them.

And you misread my objections. They're nothing to do with individual words you choose , but the concept as a whole.

What concept? I'm still stuck laying out the laws before anything resembling a concept begins to appear. But I'm sure you will catch up eventually.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Still working from nonsense I see.