WHY does anything exist?

[Rav]

Anything exists because it has to, since nothing does not and cannot. The end.

I was pondering the whole idea of nothing being an unstable state again last night. My problem with the idea was, as previously stated, that it seemed absurd to suggest that a state with the property of instability could actually exist and still be nothing.

But if we are instead saying that the perfect instability of nothing is what prevents it from existing, then in spite of the apparent contradiction we are not actually assigning the property of instability to nothing itself (which would make it something) but are instead simply stating that perfect instability is an impossibility because it must instantly be something else.

So, nothing is perfect instability, which can't actually exist. This means that Stegner's "unphysical state" isn't a "state" at all. He was instead simply bumping up against the impossibility of non-existence.

EDIT: This would still mean that his argument that the universe could have come from nothing is ridiculous. What he's really demonstrating is that it can't not exist.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You continue to demonstrate with infallible regularity how completely out of sync you are with life.

Out of sync with life?
You state that after I showed that you would come up with what I said you would?
Would you care to provide a link to the dictionary that supports your (peculiar) interpretation of "out of sync"?

 

[Dywyddyr]

So, nothing is perfect instability, which can't actually exist. This means that Stegner's "unphysical state" isn't a "state" at all. He was instead simply bumping up against the impossibility of non-existence.

Didn't Stenger's maths show that nothing becoming something was only 60% (or so) likely?
60% existence, 40% non-existence. You pays your money and takes your choice.

 

[SciWriter]

I was pondering the whole idea of nothing being an unstable state again last night. My problem with the idea was, as previously stated, that it seemed absurd to suggest that a state with the property of instability could actually exist and still be nothing.

But if we are instead saying that the perfect instability of nothing is what prevents it from existing, then in spite of the apparent contradiction we are not actually assigning the property of instability to nothing itself (which would make it something) but are instead simply stating that perfect instability is an impossibility because it must instantly be something else.

So, nothing is perfect instability, which can't actually exist. This means that Stegner's "unphysical state" isn't a "state" at all. He was instead simply bumping up against the impossibility of non-existence.

Good one, Rav, and in line with "that there is nothing to make the basic stuff out of", plus that it couldn't have been around forever with its certain definition of amount, form, size, charge, mass, location, and all that, nor be infinitely regressing to smaller and smaller turtles beneath. It is then a distribution of nothing, which shows in the positive and negative pair emissions of electrons and positrons, along with the neutral photon composed of them, all of this balance necessary so that the sum is always zero, this necessity also leading to the conservation laws. The opposite polarity of charge (related to time somehow), perhaps, is the 4th dimension of 3D spacetime that nullifies all of existence (in the overview), rather than matter and antimatter, although that may play a part, too, as they make photons, which, too, are formed of the balance of nothing.

This all indicates that the universe can only be the way it is, even for the speed of light, which would be the one and only dimensional ratio equivalent between distance and time, and possibly even of a distance^4 hypercube 'exterior' divided by the 'interior' of spacetime, time*distance^3, which also reduces to distance/time. Kind of like Einstein's block universe.

 

[Rav]

Didn't Stenger's maths show that nothing becoming something was only 60% (or so) likely?
60% existence, 40% non-existence. You pays your money and takes your choice.

Yeah, you're right. And I spelled his name wrong too. It's been a while since I read the article. I guess he really must be talking about a different kind of nothing, which would have to be a something. Perhaps 60/40 nothing is the next step up from real nothing

 

[NMSquirrel]

In other words you're also unaware of what a "fact" is.

um..
In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[12] reported by a true proposition.[13][14]
Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.[15]
Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric,[citation needed] in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."[dubious – discuss]

from wiki..

 

[SciWriter]

The slippery slope of factless insanity.

Slip-sliding…

One foot in an empty grave, and the other on a banana peel.

 

[SciWriter]

FACTLESS INSANITY

The string of errors:

1. A notion is proposed, proclaimed really, about invisible happenings, with no evidence, and then even further layered upon. The schemes vary, ranging from all is a dream, nothing is real, Allah did it, reincarnation, consciousness is all (first), conspiracies, astrology, alchemy, Tao, ETs, numerology, paranormal, ghosts, and more. That the schemes vary is a clue to their insanity and made-up-ness.

2. Science fact is ignored. This is because of the interest in (1). For example, evolution never happened (yet all fossils are in the right strata), but it is that social engineers made it up. Then we may see a flip-flop: evolution becomes true because God directed it. This betrays the interest in (1). Or, eyes don’t take in electromagnetic waves, nor does the brain’s visual systems process data. But, the next thing you know, they have lapsed into talk of visual systems. Insanity. Essentially, they will dig up any old weird, pseudo-science stuff and hurl it against science, not even understanding the information. They may even say something in favor of the physical material by accident, again not realizing, then try to disown it.

3. They forget that (1) is just a notion (based on nothing, even), and proclaim it as fact and truth. Deceptive, unethical, insane, and even disgusting when taught to innocent children or to unsuspecting adults.

4. Their only possible comeback, it seems, when confronted with (1-3), is to make up more magic, and ultimately, to get mad, insult, and/or claim some insult upon themselves. Anger has no brains.

The theories of (1) are based merely on internal neural sensation, they not even being informed by what science has found beneath or externally. The viewpoints can be ignored, humored bashed, shown to be nil, but the people won’t care, for they can’t. The nonsense has been grooved in their wishing brains by a constant firing and wiring.

5. There are no more errors to make, for they have made them all.


Emotional decisions can make one happy, in everyday life as lived, even for such as what the TOE should be, but, there, they can get in the way of the light of truth.

 

[NMSquirrel]

The slippery slope of factless insanity.
Slip-sliding…

One foot in an empty grave, and the other on a water slide.

lol..thats how i wanted to read it..

what are 'facts' when applied to the emotional state of being?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[12] reported by a true proposition.

Yep.
So, with regard to my questioning of his knowledge of what a fact is, do you think that

This is a fact according to me

holds up?
Bearing in mind that this "fact" is an accusation that I'm

hell-bent on *winning* arguments by using inane and downright brazenly stupid reasoning*

I can accept that it is a fact that he perceives that to be the case (although he'd be mistaken in his perception) because in this case the word fact applies to the "current state of his belief", not the subject of the belief itself.

* This being a claim he's made and failed to support despite a request to do so.

 

[SciWriter]

Yeah, you're right. And I spelled his name wrong too. It's been a while since I read the article. I guess he really must be talking about a different kind of nothing, which would have to be a something. Perhaps 60/40 nothing is the next step up from real nothing

One could also think of the lack of anything as the land of the law of no laws, since there couldn't be anything prior to define it.

 

[SciWriter]

what are 'facts' when applied to the emotional state of being?

Emotions are complex, largely automated programs of actions concocted by evolution that are carried out in our bodies, such as facial expressions, postures, changes in organs, and changes in internal settings and environment.

Emotions are actions accompanied by ideas and certain modes of thinking, while feelings, from emotions, are mostly perceptions of what our bodies do during the emoting, along with perception of our own state of mind during that same period of time. So it is, that, as far as the body is concerned, that feelings are images of actions rather than the actions themselves.

Emotions can be quite spurious, too, the ill effect of brain neurotransmitters out of whack, the serotonin and dopamine levels falling, due to lack of exercise and/or nutrition, or just of one’s base genetics toward depression, anxiety, and obsession.

(Emotions or felt sensations don’t make ‘God’)

 

[NMSquirrel]

hell-bent on *winning* arguments by using inane and downright brazenly stupid reasoning*

come on dyw..you know that you are 'hell-bent on *winning* arguments'.. recognize that the rest is just conjecture from an emotional state of being.

 

[Dywyddyr]

come on dyw..you know that you are 'hell-bent on *winning* arguments'..

Oh, Squirrel. Oh dear.
Never mind.
:facepalm:

 

[SciWriter]

POOR OBSERVATIONS…

It’s not that people observe totally differently, it’s that some people outright neglect what they don’t wish for, not even taking it in—not doing any observing of fact at all, for the lone right brain wants what it wants, turning some of its neural sensations into the bare naked claims of magic. They might, if they want their imaginary notion bad enough—even go against all of evolution’s evidence. To do that, they might even go against all of science. Going further, some might even say that the brain does nothing. Yet, they present nothing but words, saying that, if pressed, that evidence is not even possible or conceivable, all the while pushing against science and facts by the lame and obvious ploy of calling them ‘opinions’ or ‘beliefs’, mostly because they have no real way to push forward with their invisible imaginaries.

They’ll even get mad if one brings this or the invisibleness to their attention, although, as we know, anger has no brains. They think that getting mad shows how right they must be. They are not driven by facts, but just by what they want. They might even do a total reverse, grasping onto some ‘science’ that hints of what they wish for, but this usually turns out to be ‘pseudo science’. Such is the psychology of the human condition though.

Yet, reality cannot be made out of wishes. Science, on the other hand, is not just half of one person’s brain (the right), but is the real information and research of people who have found things out that can be repeated and shown, again and again. They don’t use magic power; they use confirmed information, such as that molecule signatures can be recorded on Earth at low temperatures; then, when they observe space through telescopes, they can match the molecules’ signatures, say, then obtain information that there are prebiotic molecules out there that could lead to life. Same with fossils and DNA, which match, by the way.

Then there still always comes along some lone right brain proclaiming magic powers to say that, for example, God is sending me some golden plates with which to extend the Bible; of course then, no one is allowed to see the plates, plus, then they inexplicably get ‘stolen’. Peace is not at hand.

 

[NMSquirrel]

(Emotions or felt sensations don’t make ‘God’)

true.

facts can be defined dependant on the context of
mental
emotional
physical
spiritual

i notice most atheist argue from a physical context (what they can see, hear, touch, smell, measure)

most theist argue from an emotional context (i know this to be true cause i feel it to be true)

one fact in one state may not qualify as a fact in another, but each comes up with their own truths,
IMO when those truths line up with each other is when you will see God.

 

[SciWriter]

Introspection alone is just the seeing of one's own mind, with its feelings and sensations. There is much more beneath, and science informs of it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

true.
facts can be defined dependant on the context of
mental
emotional
physical
spiritual

Aaargh!
Take another look at the definition YOU posted.

A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[12] reported by a true proposition.[13][14]

one fact in one state may not qualify as a fact in another, but each comes up with their own truths,

If something cannot be shown to be true then it's not fact.

most theist argue from an emotional context (i know this to be true cause i feel it to be true)

"I feel it to be true" is an opinion. One's feelings about a proposition do not decide (i.e. they neither confirm nor deny) the veracity of it.

 

[SciWriter]

Looks like strong emotion tries to rule over truth. And it probably can't even consider anything else.

Yet, when it says "Kill that bad driver," it usually doesn't, but how many less obvious and borderline cases slip right on through and down the water slide…

 

[X-Man2]

Lord have some of you lost your Marbles in this thread.Just because you imagine something doesn't mean you get to pre-tend it into reality.You can learn something by listening to Rav and Sci-Writer,they "get" it.This thread is so damn hilarious.Continue please.