WHY does anything exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everything we see is a manifestation of that energy.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I am trying to say. Everything is but a manifestation of that one single reality - *in my opinion*. Further if we understand this single reality (source of energy, soul whatever) - then all others are simply shapes and forms arising out of that one single reality - which I am labeling as the *observer/seer* etc. I subscribe to this mode of thinking.


Things may not always essentially be what they appear to be, but everything always does exist,
Click to expand...

Yes, everything *exists* but NOT ALWAYS - there is a constant flux of coming and going, appearing and disappearing - except for that *uninterrupted* reality which *observes* all these comings and goings.

That's my *contention*. Wrong or Right is the debate. As others have pointed out, turns out it's not quite right - even though what's right is still not known.

and as we learn more and more those illusions disappear and are replaced by theories that describe what things actually are.
Click to expand...

Fair enough --- one day hopefully, mankind would know.

Once again - all these are my thoughts/ideas/notions. I have no proofs so can offer none. But I thought the point of this forum was to promote discussions and hopefully find some answers - or insights.

Thank you all once again for being patient.
 
Rav said:
There is no problem there at all. When no measurement is taking place the photon (or electron if that's the version we're doing) may very well sniff out every possible path in the entire universe on it's way through but that's very different from saying that the photon (or electron) doesn't exist at all when no measurement is taking place. Everything in the universe always exists, in one form or another. Measurement simply forces definite outcomes.
Click to expand...

You know... it's not so hard after all. To each one his own... No wonder all these years of human existence have yielded so much and yet so little in the task of uncovering the truth out there. It almost seems like a hideous design...

Anyway... who knows...
 
dwivedys said:
Yes, everything *exists* but NOT ALWAYS - there is a constant flux of coming and going, appearing and disappearing - except for that *uninterrupted* reality which *observes* all these comings and goings.
Click to expand...

What I should have said is that everything always exists in one form or another, since that's what I actually meant. But I do not agree that anything ever disappears, only that it changes forms, as energy is indeed well known for doing. We probably don't disagree about that anyway. I would imagine that that's what you meant.

Once again - all these are my thoughts/ideas/notions. I have no proofs so can offer none. But I thought the point of this forum was to promote discussions and hopefully find some answers - or insights.

Thank you all once again for being patient.
Click to expand...

These forums are all about discussion and it's definitely welcomed. But one of the reasons that I like sciforums in particular is because of how much people tend to challenge assertions here. It doesn't always seem overly friendly (although fun is certainly often had) but there aren't many places where you can post about almost anything you can possibly conceive of and have your arguments sharpened by the feedback. I find it incredibly useful.

For the record, if I don't enjoy a discussion in one way or another I don't participate. So feel free to take that however you like :)
 
Last edited:
dwivedys said:
You know... it's not so hard after all. To each one his own... No wonder all these years of human existence have yielded so much and yet so little in the task of uncovering the truth out there. It almost seems like a hideous design...

Anyway... who knows...
Click to expand...

From the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
 
Rav said:
What I should have said is that everything always exists in one form or another, since that's what I actually meant. But I do not agree that anything ever disappears, only that it changes forms, as energy is indeed well known for doing. We probably don't disagree about that anyway. I would imagine that that's what you meant.



These forums are all about discussion and it's definitely welcomed. But one of the reasons that I like sciforums in particular is because of how much people tend to challenge assertions here. It doesn't always seem overly friendly (although fun is certainly often had) but there aren't many places where you can post about almost anything you can possibly conceive of and have your arguments sharpened by the feedback. I find it incredibly useful.

For the record, if I don't enjoy a discussion in one way or another I don't participate. So feel free to take that however you like :)
Click to expand...

Well - I felt a bit disheartened reading some of the comments ... but it's alright. One never learns without being badgered :)

I am catching up on the discussion live in the atheists versus science forum...sounds like I might have a thing or two to say there too :)

Thanks Rav...
 
keith1 said:
Nature, obviously the consummate dupe, continues to upgrade it's "homemade" sensory devices, the latest, a left/right hemispheric interferometric unit, connected to it's old (and tested) standby comptroller--the pons/hypo-campus unit. It seems intent on standing at two locations at once, and simultaneously measure, collect, (and store) viable information from that endeavor. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You're obviously talking about the human brain, but I'm still kinda lost :/
 
dwivedys said:
then all others are simply shapes and forms arising out of that one single reality - which I am labeling as the *observer/seer* etc. I subscribe to this mode of thinking.
Click to expand...
Told you so.
Me said:
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".
Click to expand...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2698078&postcount=126
 
keith1 said:
Your welcome to graze on what you can. Not to imply insult to you.
Click to expand...

I just wasn't sure if you were trying to make some kind of vague or subtle point or if you were just sharing a cute little description of the method that the universe uses to become aware of itself. I'm going to go with the latter.
 
Dywyddyr said:
I exist.
I'm posting on SciForums, while drinking a mug of coffee. The sun is shining through my window and the birds are singing.

Which of those is:
Click to expand...
Not true?
Click to expand...
according to some who argue here..since your situation is subjective (how do we know?), then non of it is true..
Continuous?
Click to expand...
um easy to pick on..at some point you will stop posting on sciforums and participate in your own life, the coffee will be drunk, the sun will go down and the cats will eat the birds..
Unbroken?
Click to expand...
depends on if the cat has to run across you to get to the birds..
Eternal?
Click to expand...
um..extraneous, as continuous means the same, or is it one complements the other? either way, they are related.
 
If someone can't even decide whether they're here or not, is thier opinion relavent?
 
NMSquirrel said:
according to some who argue here..since your situation is subjective (how do we know?), then non of it is true..
um easy to pick on..at some point you will stop posting on sciforums and participate in your own life, the coffee will be drunk, the sun will go down and the cats will eat the birds..
depends on if the cat has to run across you to get to the birds..
um..extraneous, as continuous means the same, or is it one complements the other? either way, they are related.
Click to expand...
Exactly. My point is demonstrated.
While the things on my list were true (in that they could be verified, etc) non of the others applied.
Oh and I sort of dispute your comment about eternal being the same as continuous.
One can have a continuous object which is so, until it stops. It is uninterrupted while it is ongoing.
 
Some things need more conditions to exist than others. For examle, it's easy for a rock to exist whilst a microchip had to wait until we created the conditions necessary before it was to be able to exist.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Exactly. My point is demonstrated.
While the things on my list were true (in that they could be verified, etc) non of the others applied.
Oh and I sort of dispute your comment about eternal being the same as continuous.
One can have a continuous object which is so, until it stops. It is uninterrupted while it is ongoing.
Click to expand...

Guess what - you should be pretty smug about your points getting demonstrated all the time while you flash that winning smile (or smirk). Oh sorry - I don't think you have the capability for smiling.

And of course you can sort of dispute any one's claim by cooking something to the contrary - definitions to suit your unique mindset - as in

One can have a continuous object which is so, until it stops
Click to expand...

If it has stopped - it has failed the test of continuity. But of course since you are hell-bent on *winning* arguments by using inane and downright brazenly stupid reasoning --- be happy being what you are. Yes, and I call this a point that I am not putting up for discussion. This is a fact according to me and I am pretty convinced reading all your arguments - not just here but on other threads as well.
 
SciWriter said:
The end.
Click to expand...

then whats the point of discussing anything?
we choose the subject matter that holds our attention the longest, and these things tend to be the ones that there is no absolute answer, otherwise it would be a short conversation..
 
dwivedys said:
Guess what - you should be pretty smug about your points getting demonstrated all the time while you flash that winning smile (or smirk). Oh sorry - I don't think you have the capability for smiling.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. assumptions. Again.
Would you care to refute my points rather than make unfounded claims about my person?
An ad hom doesn't go far toward supporting your contention, sorry.

And of course you can sort of dispute any one's claim by cooking something to the contrary - definitions to suit your unique mindset - as in
If it has stopped - it has failed the test of continuity.
Click to expand...
So either you included "continuous" extraneously (as NMSquirrel pointed out), since you seem to think it means the same as "eternal", and you're unaware of the definition of the word:
Definitions of continuity
1. [n] - uninterrupted connection or union
2. [n] - a detailed script used in making a film in order to avoid discontinuities from shot to shot
3. [n] - the property of a continuous and connected period of time
Click to expand...
OR you know that "eternal" is not the same as "continuous", and are now being disingenuous at minimum.
Either way, you fail.

Now, do you dispute my illustration of true yet not "continuous, eternal and unbroken"?
If so, on what grounds?

But of course since you are hell-bent on *winning* arguments by using inane and downright brazenly stupid reasoning --- be happy being what you are. Yes, and I call this a point that I am not putting up for discussion. This is a fact according to me and I am pretty convinced reading all your arguments - not just here but on other threads as well.
Click to expand...
In other words you're also unaware of what a "fact" is.

Please show where my previous argument is either (or both, it's up to you) "inane" or an example of "downright brazenly stupid reasoning".
If you cannot then I at least expect an acknowledgement that you were wrong, if not an actual apology.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top