Why does anything exist at all? THE ANSWER

[superpaul3000]

THIS IS THE ACTUAL ANSWER…

I wonder if this got anyone’s attention. Anyway the answer to the question “Why does anything exist at all?” is remarkable simple.

EVERYTHING MUST BE UNDEFINED.

Alright, well you might ask yourself what the hell that means. First of all, I define everything in the most general form possible; it is absolutely infinite in every aspect. Not the conversational definition of everything being all things within a set. As in “everything about that exam sucked”. So then let us look at the question again. It is really asking why anything exists as opposed to nothing existing. The key concept here is that nothing is nil or zero, but that itself is a defined value. So a set of nothing is a defined set. If everything is nothing then everything is defined, but something must exist outside of everything to make that definition. However, this goes against the definition of everything because you cannot have anything outside of everything if it is infinite in every aspect. This same logic applies to any defined set of everything. So everything must be undefined. This even pops up in math. What is zero times infinity? It is undefined because it can be anything so the answer is everything. Even in math everything is undefined (again don’t confuse the two definitions of everything).

This makes perfect sense if you think about it and in fact it predicts our existence. If everything is undefined then anything within everything is completely random. Let’s consider this example: an infinite sequence of random letters. S = [meyfnapo…]. Most of it is going to be nonsense, but we all know that if you search long enough you will find things that make sense. S = […nwudkthelloworldsqnxyeh…]. At some point you will run into the entire book War and Peace. So if you consider everything, then at some point in everything, you will find our universe.

Does your existence make a little more sense now? If not I can clarify. Please give me some feedback if you agree or disagree...

 

[Pagan Harpoon]

...but something must exist outside of everything to make that definition

I see no reason to suppose that.

 

[superpaul3000]

I see no reason to suppose that.

That is just based off the definition of being defined.

 

[Pagan Harpoon]

I disagree with you. I can define myself, I don't have to exist outside of myself to do that.

If you prefer, we can define our universe without having to exist outside of it, because you might counter that my definition of myself is based on information that is taken from outside of myself.

 

[superpaul3000]

I disagree with you. I can define myself, I don't have to exist outside of myself to do that.

If you prefer, we can define our universe without having to exist outside of it, because you might counter that my definition of myself is based on information that is taken from outside of myself.

You are talking about a partial definition though. I am talking about a complete definition in the sense that you can't store all the information about yourself (all the properties of each particle in your body) within your mind.

 

[magpies]

So let me see if I understand this does this sound right? Because everything is everything it can't be observed? And then basicaly because nothing is something it becomes a part of everything? Is that basicaly what you said?

 

[superpaul3000]

So let me see if I understand this does this sound right? Because everything is everything it can't be observed? And then basicaly because nothing is something it becomes a part of everything? Is that basicaly what you said?

Not exactly. Some part of everything can be observed within everything but everything in its entirety cannot be observed. That is to say that you can't have two copies of everything. I am not saying that nothing is something but I am saying that nothing is a part of everything. Think of nothing as zero, something as anything but zero, and everything as both nothing and something.

 

[apeiron]

Not exactly. Some part of everything can be observed within everything but everything in its entirety cannot be observed. That is to say that you can't have two copies of everything. I am not saying that nothing is something but I am saying that nothing is a part of everything. Think of nothing as zero, something as anything but zero, and everything as both nothing and something.

This using different words is pretty much the thinking when I mention Peirce's vagueness or Anaximander's apeiron. Or you could throw in a bunch of other versions - graal recently mentioned some linked to the gnostic tradition, Jung's pleroma, Boehme's ungrund, the Kabbalah's ein sof, Aquinas's divine simplicity.

And instead of "undefined", I have been using the term unconstrained (also you could say unbounded, indeterminant, limitless, etc).

So good that you are excited. You are locking into a core idea.

 

[Math Is Hard]

<edit> I've asked the OP to redevelop this with more clarification of the terms.