WHY does anything exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's take a rock for example. We understand that rock is present at a particular location when sufficient light is able to illumine it and we have a capable set of eyes to see it. Other than that - if light is not sufficient or we are blind - we can only conceptually understand a rock - but never verify its existence.
Blind people can't verify the existence of a rock?
I wonder if they know that?
Does the same hold for pencils? People? Their guide dog? Or is it just rocks?

Coming back to the rock - how do we know it really exists - even if we hold it in our hands and can see it etc. Because our connection with the rock is through the image that's formed in the back of our heads (retina). The same goes for every tangible object including our own bodies. If that image is not being formed - the "reality" of a lot of things would come into question.
Right. Here's an experiment: throw a rock at a blind person and a sighted person*. Check and compare the reactions/ effects when they are hit.
As a control throw a rock at a sighted person from behind. Check and compare reaction/ effect.

* Of course you'll need volunteers with pretty good control over their reflexes, so that they don't dodge. But, hey... tell them it's for science.
 
Basically, something exists because the lack of anything could not, obviously, for that state is not the state here, which it still would have been if such a state were stable, assuming that it was even possible
 
In other words any categorisation is as valid as any other?

No. Not every categorization would be as valid as any other. Categorization simply for the sake of it achieves only that much - another categorization.

Accepting something to be "true" (or even stating it to be true) for the purposes of discussion is one thing. It's another to proclaim it as true without also saying that only it's for discussion purposes (or declaring that it IS true, discussion or no).

I never said what I am saying IS the truth. We are all in *discussion* mode here.


Any act of perceiving requires a perceiver. In the context of seer seen relationship - seen is the object and seer is the subject. In any subject object relationship - the truth of the subject will necessarily have to be admitted because without a subject - the presence or absence of any object would be irrelevant. You may counter that the object exists regardless of the subject: and that's my point. It still needs a *subject* to proclaim so.


It's your contention, show how it works.

We can discuss more elaborately if you so please. But if you don't agree to any of the foregoing - future discussion would lead no where.

This is my humble submission.

Regards
 
No. Not every categorization would be as valid as any other.
Why not? What, in particular, makes your categorisation valid?

I never said what I am saying IS the truth.
Yet you did state:
I believe in one simple fact - the whole worldy phenomenon can be broadly categorized into a seer - seen relationship.
First you say it's fact and now you say it's not the truth.
Does this not conflict somewhat with your (equally contentious and declarative) statement:
TRUTH is CONTINOUS, UNBROKEN, ETERNAL
Are facts not true?

Any act of perceiving requires a perceiver.
That's a tautology.

In any subject object relationship - the truth of the subject will necessarily have to be admitted because without a subject - the presence or absence of any object would be irrelevant.
How often do you look at the engine of your car while driving? Do you not consider the engine at least slightly relevant in that circumstance?

You may counter that the object exists regardless of the subject: and that's my point. It still needs a *subject* to proclaim so.
Good. Excellent point.
So essentially you're saying that before we had telescopes, for example, certain planets and stars didn't exist.
And that before humanity arose the Earth didn't exist. (Which sort of makes me wonder how we managed to get here since there nothing to live on. But never mind, I'm sure it will all become obvious to me at some point. Or not.)
And while you're driving, and therefore can't look at the engine to confirm its presence, it's not actually there.
And by the way, I am going to be hungry for the rest of the night because, according to you, I no longer have a refrigerator, or food in it.
 
Prett much I think. I've just had a PM (from someone not involved in the discussion) saying more or less the same. Along with the funny comment that I must be Schrödinger's dog - I only bark so that people will look and stop me disappearing!

I suspect (fear) that it's going to boil down to something along the lines of "the refrigerator does exist because the "universal observer" [select your own pseudonym for god] keeps an eye on it".

I only wish more people actually understood the point Schrödinger was making with his cat. Ho hum. ;)
 
Wouldn't an "empty" Universe be a uninerse filled with "Infinate potential"?
 
Wouldn't an "empty" Universe be a uninerse filled with "Infinate potential"?
Unless it was truly empty! :D
Have you seen this?
The links in that post give one possible way to explain the START of the universe from exactly nothing. Nothing itself is unstable and must become something (about 60% of the time IIRC).
 
Unless it was truly empty! :D
Have you seen this?
The links in that post give one possible way to explain the START of the universe from exactly nothing. Nothing itself is unstable and must become something (about 60% of the time IIRC).

Yes interesting. I have been postulating that Nothingness exists for years now. Nothingness existing is space between stars, atoms and pure vaccuum. To have non-existence not exist would make the universe one solid blob of matter, as there would be no space. Pure nothingness being a point of infinate potential. This has ramifications if our soul does indeed exist. For if even non-existence exists, the only form of being is existence. Given the potential for something to exist over eternity, probability suggests it will!
 
Nothingness existing is space between stars, atoms and pure vaccuum. To have non-existence not exist would make the universe one solid blob of matter, as there would be no space.

Space is a foam of quantum activity, even the space inside an individual atom. Space is a part of physical reality. Nothing on the other hand would be "unphysical" and does not and can not actually exist at all let alone exist somewhere within a physical universe.
 
What exists has quantity, and all that exists is really real, such as mass-energy, yet there is nothing else to make existence of but non-existence, or nothing, which is so perfectly unstable that it cannot be or stay as a state, even for a zillionth of an instant. We see this as the quantum uncertainty, ‘vacuum’ fluctuations, and quantum tunneling, which I believe are all names for about the same state, the wavering in and out of existence of stuff, this being the causeless bottommost state.

That all existence must perfectly sum to non-existence could be the reason for the conservation laws. We note, too, that quantum pair production always produces particles that are opposites: matter/antimatter, and positive/negative polarity of charge. We also note that there are only two stable matter particles (and their antimatter versions): the electron and the proton (neutrons decay) and so we need to ask Why Only Two. The one energy particle, the photon, has neutral charge. We have to wonder, too, if the universe can only be the way it is.

A thing cannot cannot endlessly regress as being based on ever more and smaller things within, or effects would take forever, plus, the elementary stuff could not have been here forever since then there would have been no definition of its certain properties such as form charge, mass, size, location, etc., even the defined total amount of the stuff, so, then, a thing can only come from no-thing, and indeed, nothing satisfies the criteria of a prime mover, being everywhere (infinite) and there forever and always (eternal).

As nothing is the simplest state, it is thus the most unstable one, which is why it cannot be or stay as such. From there on up, it is as physics has it, the simpler stuff readily going through phase changes / recombining, etc,. on up to the very complex, where our being is.

My guess is that the polarity of charge must have something to do with the 4th dimension occupied by time, for there is only this one dimension left in which to nullify all of existence in the overview, and so opposite charge would be the nullifier.

It seems that there can be no really special certain time or place, thus infinity and eternity naturally fall out of this, stuff forming everywhere and at every time. ‘Nothing’ seems to be a natural, too.
 
Re; entanglement..

what i know of this theory is that two particles can be linked so the whatever one does the other does also (spin,velocity,momentum,directionality etc..)

you have mentioned time which made me wonder if this entanglement could happen outside time.(one in one instance and one in another) (chill just ran up my spine thinking of how some posit that we are just repeating history over and over)
 
We see this as the quantum uncertainty, ‘vacuum’ fluctuations, and quantum tunneling
So you ignored Rav's post? -
Space is a foam of quantum activity, even the space inside an individual atom. Space is a part of physical reality. Nothing on the other hand would be "unphysical" and does not and can not actually exist at all let alone exist somewhere within a physical universe.
Space is not "nothing".

As nothing is the simplest state, it is thus the most unstable one
The one doesn't follow from the other.

My guess is that the polarity of charge must have something to do with the 4th dimension occupied by time
Time does not "occupy" the "4th dimension". Times IS a dimension and is the fourth only as far as spacetime is concerned. There is no such thing as THE fourth dimension.
 
I agree with Rav that nothing cannot exist, not anywhere, not ever. That's why there must be something.

And space certainly exists; it quantities are volume as well as the fluctuations that must ever go on because 'nothing' cannot form. It appears that opposites must form.

I got the unstable notion from your Victor Stenger link.

Spacetime is 4D: (time)(distance^3)
 
I agree with Rav that nothing cannot exist, not anywhere, not ever. That's why there must be something.
I think Rav and I have disagreed (in a gentlemanly manner, of course) over this before.
If Rav's right then Stenger is incorrect. And vice-versa.

I got the unstable notion from your Victor Stenger link.
Ah, okay. But you've also said: "'nothing' cannot form".
And do think that 30% of NOT becoming something (i.e. it's 30% stable if want to phrase it that way) is less stable than anything else that exists? I'm sure there things that are 100% unstable.
Plus if you've stated that "nothing cannot exist, not anywhere, not ever" you're negating the premise that "nothing" can figure anywhere your statements. If it cannot ever exist at all then, because it doesn't exist, it can't be considered stable or unstable. ;)

Spacetime is 4D: (time)(distance^3)
Agreed. It's the wording I was pointing out. Many people declare that time is THE fourth dimension when the ordinality depends entirely on what you're working on.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Rav that nothing cannot exist, not anywhere, not ever. That's why there must be something.

And space certainly exists; it quantities are volume as well as the fluctuations that must ever go on because 'nothing' cannot form. It appears that opposites must form.

I got the unstable notion from your Victor Stenger link.

Spacetime is 4D: (time)(distance^3)


Indeed space does exist consider that space is empty but what's empty exists i.e. something cannot be empty if it does not exist.
 
I think Rav and I have disagreed (in a gentlemanly manner, of course) over this before.
If Rav's right then Stenger is incorrect. And vice-versa.

I remember the occasion. I couldn't accept that nothing could have the property of being unstable; that it could have the mathematical potential (or any other kind of potential) to become something, unless it was something. I think it's more likely that the unphysical state that Stenger was talking about is actually a physical state, albeit one that we don't have a physical theory to more accurately describe yet.

But, well, who the fuck knows. I certainly don't.
 
But, well, who the fuck knows. I certainly don't.
Damn', we could adopt that as a SciForums motto! :D
Each and every member to sign a certificate agreeing it's true before being allowed to post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top