WHY does anything exist?

[NietzscheHimself]

Again, incorrect. It has been shown that one possible cause was actually nothing. As stated.

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What do you physically mean when you say "nothing"?

Nothing.

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

No. I don't resort to word salad.

What we consider to be "nothing" was in fact something

In fact it wasn't.

but I'm not interested in what it looked like back then. I'm interested in what it looks like now.

Then why raise the question?

 

[wynn]

So, would it be fair to say by now that we all agree that the question the OP poses is meaningless?

Not that it is the OP's fault.

It would be good though to sum up why that question is meaningless.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Nothing.

so. nothing, nothing, nothing, boom. That's a horrible explanation of high energy physics.

No. I don't resort to word salad.

I'm just giving you quick easy options to run through, but that's a process you would know nothing about.

In fact it wasn't.

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

Then why raise the question?

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?

 

[SciWriter]

so. nothing, nothing, nothing, boom. That's a horrible explanation of high energy physics.

Can you state any other possible source?

 

[glaucon]

Not that it is the OP's fault.

It would be good though to sum up why that question is meaningless.

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..

 

[Big Chiller]

Can you state any other possible source?

What you mean though is "nothing" (something) has always existed. Right?

 

[wynn]

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..

We can turn the question back on its asker and ask them why they think their question is meaningful.

 

[SciWriter]

What you mean though is "nothing" (something) has always existed. Right?

'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.

 

[SciWriter]

We can turn the question back on its asker and ask them why they think their question is meaningful.

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

so. nothing, nothing, nothing, boom. That's a horrible explanation of high energy physics.

It's not an "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.

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.

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

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

So that we can see it now and work our way back to what it actually was.

Doesn't that contradict this:

but I'm not interested in what it looked like back then. I'm interested in what it looks like now.

Do you expect every presumption we have made thus far to be "absolutely" true or just relative guidelines?

No. But I'm still (futilely) expecting you to be coherent at some time.

 

[universaldistress]

Oh that goes without saying, but I did specify that I was referring to the OP itself...

I think the description:

Thread description (lightgigantic): WHY does anything exist?

-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?

We can turn the question back on its asker and ask them why they think their question is meaningful.

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?

OP (lightgigantic): An intro to metaphysics I guess ... so shoot.

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?

 

[universaldistress]

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

This is a good question which has a good answer. I don't know the answer myself, but I do know a math trick. What do you get when you add every number in existence, all infinity of them, both negative and positive? Zero of course. This applies to all the energy of the universe as well. By bringing into existence everything imaginable, nothing will simultaneously exist, the corollary is also true. Yin and Yang. It's all about balancing infinity.

You need to talk to Sciwriter. Are you his twin?

 

[wynn]

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?

Conversely, some ask "Why does God exist?" or "Why is the sky blue?"
People simply like to ask why-questions, apparently.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

It's not an "explanation of high energy physics".

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?

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.

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

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

Alright which came first light or hydrogen?

Doesn't that contradict this:

No.

No. But I'm still (futilely) expecting you to be coherent at some time.

I'm still expecting you to realize something is missing from reality.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Disprove the usefulness of high energy physics.

Pardon? I have no intention of "disproving" high energy physics.

Note that humans have developed enough information concerning the subject?

Which subject?

Purposefully misinterpret something original as something old?

WTF are you talking about?

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

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

Alright which came first light or hydrogen?

Huh?

No.

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:

I'm still expecting you to realize something is missing from reality.

Such as? Your brain?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Pardon? I have no intention of "disproving" high energy physics.

yet you have no words for it either.

Which subject?

high energy physics

WTF are you talking about?

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.

What "specific fashion" exactly?

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

Huh?

simple enough question on which you believe came first.

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:

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

Such as? Your brain?

yes my brain is missing can you please find it. It is made out of every element from hydrogen to unobtanium.

 

[Dywyddyr]

yet you have no words for it either.

For what? 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.

Assuming again...

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

Nonsense.

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

One more time:

On the one hand you're not interested

yes my brain is missing can you please find it. It is made out of every element from hydrogen to unobtanium.

You aren't M00se1989 come back to haunt me, are you?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

For what? High energy physics?

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

Assuming again...

I take it I hit some kind of nerve.

Nonsense.

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.

One more time:

NOT CONFLICTING INFORMATION

You aren't M00se1989 come back to haunt me, are you?

People haunt you? Now I feel kinda bad for you.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I take it I hit some kind of nerve.

Only the one you hit when you make stupid assumptions.

anything truly advance would have to seem somewhat nonsensical.

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

NOT CONFLICTING INFORMATION

I see. You're not interested but you are interested. And this isn't conflicted?