Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[cristo]

The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper.

A blank piece of paper implies that there exists an object on which something can be written. This is clearly not nothing!

 

[honestrosewater]

Not so fast. Obviously, if we start with a mathematical model of nothing. The a priori postulate in such model is that it is void of space-time, matter, energy, real numbers, and the laws of nature. The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper.

Can someone help me out a little here? I'm having a hard time following this.

Say that to build, or define, a mathematical model, we start with a set. This is our domain and contains all of the individual things that we want to consider. For example, our individuals might be numbers, sets, dogs, colored objects, members of a family, or the stops on a certain subway line.

On top of the domain, we can define some relations and operations. For example: if our domain contains dogs, we can partition the domain into all of the different dog breeds; for numbers, we can define zero, one, and multiplication; for a family, we can define a family tree; for subway stops, we can put them in order by the order in which the train visits them.

This basic setup, a domain with some relations and operations defined on it, is how I understand "mathematical model". So can someone tell me what a "mathematical model of nothing" would be? Does that simply mean that the domain is empty?

Also, I'm having a hard time with how an empty model could be "void of space-time" too. Is your domain there a vector space? If the domain is empty, how could you tell it apart from another model with an empty domain? In all formulations of set theory that I have seen (I am borrowing some modest set-theoretic ideas here), there can be only one empty set. This follows from the assumption (axiom of extensionality) that if two sets have exactly the same members, they are considered to be equal, or the same set.¹ I think this is a useful idea. Your domain is set, and the relations and operations that you define on your domain are also sets and are built using the members of the domain. So how can you tell two empty models apart? Don't they have exactly the same members: none?

Or maybe someone can explain in what other way the terms are meant. To me, a mathematical model is an abstract object and a blank piece of paper is not; it's a concrete object. I realize, or presume, that this abstract vs. concrete distinction is just a tool to help us divide up our perceptions. But I still find it to be a useful tool, so could someone help straighten that out? How can a mathematical model be like a piece of paper?


1. There is some difference between equality and identity, but I don't suspect we are to that subtlety yet.

 

[kant]

A blank piece of paper implies that there exists an object on which something can be written. This is clearly not nothing!

Well, a blank piece of paper need not be a blank piece of paper. You don t really need to write equations or a model in blank piece of paper at all.

 

[kant]

Can someone help me out a little here? I'm having a hard time following this.

Say that to build, or define, a mathematical model, we start with a set. This is our domain and contains all of the individual things that we want to consider. For example, our individuals might be numbers, sets, dogs, colored objects, members of a family, or the stops on a certain subway line.

On top of the domain, we can define some relations and operations. For example: if our domain contains dogs, we can partition the domain into all of the different dog breeds; for numbers, we can define zero, one, and multiplication; for a family, we can define a family tree; for subway stops, we can put them in order by the order in which the train visits them.

This basic setup, a domain with some relations and operations defined on it, is how I understand "mathematical model". So can someone tell me what a "mathematical model of nothing" would be? Does that simply mean that the domain is empty?

Maybe a mathematical model is a wrong way to describe it. It is still not to the bone. Let's say it is a model on a piece of paper(paper is a metaphor). And in this model, we will define a apriori postuate that there is not space-time, energy, matter, real number, logic, quantum machanics etc...

 

[honestrosewater]

Maybe a mathematical model is a wrong way to describe it. It is still not to the bone. Let's say it is a model on a piece of paper(paper is a metaphor). And in this model, we will define a apriori postuate that there is not space-time, energy, matter, real number, logic, quantum machanics etc...

So you are thinking of a model as something like a collection of statements? Okay, I know that meaning too. Can we call the model that means a set of statements an "s-model" and call the model that means a set of individuals (as I just described) an "i-model"? It can be confusing otherwise. (Or call the s-model a theory?)

So you are talking about an inconsistent s-model, then? Say that you can interpret the statements in an s-model as making claims about the individuals in an i-model. If an s-model is inconsistent (makes contradictory claims), the claims can't sensibly be taken to be talking about any i-model. And this, having an inconsistent s-model, is not the same situation as having an empty i-model, as I thought you meant before.

Are you talking about having an inconsistent s-model?

 

[kant]

So you are thinking of a model as something like a collection of statements? Okay, I know that meaning too. Can we call the model that means a set of statements an "s-model" and call the model that means a set of individuals (as I just described) an "i-model"? It can be confusing otherwise. (Or call the s-model a theory?)[\QUOTE]

I don t know if the "collection of statement" are the right connotations. It is a model( or idea), with one postulate. The only postulate is that there is no laws to govern stuff, and no stuff at all. It is a idealistic state/model/idea.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don t know if the "collection of statement" are the right connotations. It is a model( or idea), with one postulate. The only postulate is that there is no laws to govern stuff, and no stuff at all. It is a idealistic state/model/idea.

What is a postulate if not a type of statement?

The "no stuff" part is covered by what you take your statement to be saying.

 

[kant]

What is a postulate if not a type of statement?

The "no stuff" part is covered by what you take your statement to be saying.

I use the word stuff because i try to avoid the word matter. Obvious, matter is a form of stuff, but not the converse relation. Is there something more than matter? I refrain from answering.

 

[honestrosewater]

I use the word stuff because i try to avoid the word matter. Obvious, matter is a form of stuff, but not the converse relation. Is there something more than matter? I refrain from answering.

Great, call it whatever floats your boat. I don't care about the stuff.

What is a postulate if not a type of statement?

It sounds now like I understood you the first time: you are talking about a theory being modeled by the empty model. And so you take the question to be asking why the universe is non-empty rather than empty. Does that sound right?

 

[kant]

"What is a postulate if not a type of statement?"

i think a postulate is a statement of some sort, yes.

It sounds now like I understood you the first time: you are talking about a theory being modeled by the empty model. And so you take the question to be asking why the universe is non-empty rather than empty. Does that sound right?

sure, if you want to think about it that way.

 

[baywax]

Not so fast. Obviously, if we start with a mathematical model of nothing. The a priori postulate in such model is that it is void of space-time, matter, energy, real numbers, and the laws of nature. The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper. I am interested in the causal( or perhaps something else) relationship between such blank state model v.s a mathematical model of our physically self-contained universe. In such case, i am not really taking about nothing or something.

Ok, if there is a nothing (once again this is contradictory and becoming very uninteresting) it is one of the laws of nature.

 

[kant]

Ok, if there is a nothing (once again this is contradictory and becoming very uninteresting) it is one of the laws of nature.

if the laws is that there is no law, then i disagree. it is very interest to me( i am not really taking about "nothing" here).

 

[Langbein]

What a great discussion :-)

For the question: "Why does anything exist than rather nothing ? I think my answer would be more something like this:

"I feel existence - therefore I am. As I am, I am the creator of my universe."

As an existent I could not relate to a non existing universe.

Just my ten cents ..

 

[paledim]

first of all, let's use computers as a relative example. i am a computer programmer and there are many courses in computer phylosophy etc... i won't get too specific because it's unnecessary. humanity is trying to "replicate", like a human, a computer with artificial intelligence in the striving journey to be able to say that we are able to create a creator. we've accomplished nearly all in a computer (cyber) consciouness except AI, where this is the programming of free will/free thought to a computer. however, it is impossible for a computer to understand or compute a value of zero and creates a "concept of nothing" called a null value. until the computer can conceptually accept an absolute value of nothing, AI will not come about, because of the restrictions the concept itself imposes on the limits of free will/thought. The same goes with us in some regard. we cannot conceptually (or in thought) accept a value of absolute zero (not the temperature for those not following). We know what it means to have "nothing", like "i don't have any money" but we do this because we are able to compare against something. this is relative to all. you can say i don't know what it's like to have a ferrari, but you are only comparing that emotion to another relative figure like money.

the concept of nothing is to be able to 'accept' and without pre-comparison, unconsciously and consciously, but however to do this, there needs be apre-meditated (if you will) thought of planning all this thinking out. basically, you end up contradicting the very thing you want to do even before you attempt to do it. it is a necessary evil and if nothing was a person, he's already go you figured out.

say before the big-bang or God's hand in the creation of all, (whichever you want to believe), imagine standing there in the nothingness of nothing. now it's not black (you're thinking of black because of space, but space is another strain of water particles that are more dense, but more flexible than the densest form of matter-like transparent liquid-led). nothingness is not even transparent. if you can think of anything more transparent than transparent, there is a possibility that this is nothingness, or at least near. but it is conceptually impossible to imagine or comprehend non-color, non-position, non-time (which is not even pause or moving) it is beyond pause, yet thought somehow not stopped. these are the characteristics of nothingness.

it is meant to be greater than our consciousness for the sake of pure enjoyment as a mind-tease, it keeps us humble. so to summarize, here are some of the characteristics that you have to learn to grasp BEFORE understanding nothingness.

1. time: nothingness comes before pause, but is not rewinding or forwarding time. it is not moving either. it is stillness but is not still.

visual: a color beyond transparent but is not transparent as in the definition of a clear color, an empty color without particles (transparent contains particles)

position: relative to time. nothingness belongs somewhere, yet is nowhere. it has no departure point. try to conceive that. yet at the same time, it is everywhere.

now these are only 'physical' and somewhat 'mental' characteristics. sleep, in essence is the closest thing we have to experiencing nothingness.

but again: nothing, is something. it contradicts its own existence.

 

[Kenny_L]

Why is there anything than rather nothing ? - Why is there sometning than rather nothing ? Why does anything exist at all ? Why is it like that ? I found I link that might or might not put some light on it - I don't know.

The answer to "Why is there anything rather than nothing" is ... we don't know. It's helpful to admit that we don't know everything...instead of squirming and trying to squeeze out a 'reason' when we're truly clueless about what's really going on in the universe.

Nobody knows what the origins of everything is. Like, we don't know what the origin of energy is. Nor do we know what the origin of the origin of energy is. And so on. If we were able to keep backtracking to find what the origins of the origins of the origins etc etc of energy and anything else that we know of, then we'd be in a position to give an answer. But right now, we have no idea at all. We don't know the biggest secret of the universe...like...how did it get here? And when I mean 'the universe'...I mean 'everything'...not just the theoretical "big-bang"...but everything else that caused this (and everything else that caused the cause before that...etc).

Thinking about it and trying to think of an answer to this massive mystery is fun, even if we seem to have no way of coming up with a feasible explanation for how anything got here.

 

[baywax]

The answer to "Why is there anything rather than nothing" is ... we don't know. It's helpful to admit that we don't know everything...instead of squirming and trying to squeeze out a 'reason' when we're truly clueless about what's really going on in the universe.

Nobody knows what the origins of everything is. Like, we don't know what the origin of energy is. Nor do we know what the origin of the origin of energy is. And so on. If we were able to keep backtracking to find what the origins of the origins of the origins etc etc of energy and anything else that we know of, then we'd be in a position to give an answer. But right now, we have no idea at all. We don't know the biggest secret of the universe...like...how did it get here? And when I mean 'the universe'...I mean 'everything'...not just the theoretical "big-bang"...but everything else that caused this (and everything else that caused the cause before that...etc).

Thinking about it and trying to think of an answer to this massive mystery is fun, even if we seem to have no way of coming up with a feasible explanation for how anything got here.

Actually the question is skewed somewhat. To be thorough it might be better as follows in a few parts.

Does nothing represent a component of everything?

Do everything and nothing need to exist at the same time to exist at all?

Further to these, nothing can never exist beyond being a concept because of its very nature (nothing = non=existing).

But I could be wrong.

 

[Kenny_L]

Actually the question is skewed somewhat. To be thorough it might be better as follows in a few parts. Does nothing represent a component of everything? Do everything and nothing need to exist at the same time to exist at all? Further to these, nothing can never exist beyond being a concept because of its very nature (nothing = non=existing). But I could be wrong.

I don't think that the question is skewed at all. It is all to do with trying to know what is the origin of the origin of the origin of the origins (etc) of whatever thing we can think about...eg...start with 'energy' for example. Or start with 'something'. We have no idea what the origins are, or how things 'started' up. And if somebody reckons that things were already existing and already started ... then what's the origins of the origins of the origins etc of it (and if something 'moves'...what initially started the 'movement'? We just don't know. This is the biggest mystery of ... everything. And yes...you're right, you could be wrong, because we just don't know what's really going on.

 

[out of whack]

Asking for the cause of existence is an invalid question since any such cause would have to exist already. The question is meaningless.

 

[Kenny_L]

Asking for the cause of existence is an invalid question since any such cause would have to exist already. The question is meaningless.

True... but 'how' did anything (anything at all...movement, energy, components of energy, components of the components of energy etc) start off (or start up, or become created) in the 'first' place?... this question can be quite meaningful.

 

[baywax]

True... but 'how' did anything (anything at all...movement, energy, components of energy, components of the components of energy etc) start off (or start up, or become created) in the 'first' place?... this question can be quite meaningful.

Right there you're asking if energy can be created or destroyed and the answer so far is no.

 

[out of whack]

True... but 'how' did anything (anything at all...movement, energy, components of energy, components of the components of energy etc) start off (or start up, or become created) in the 'first' place?... this question can be quite meaningful.

Saying 'how' something happened requires you to identify a cause so we're no further ahead. And if we say there was no cause then existence would have to arise spontaneously and you could not possibly describe 'how' in any way. So again, the question is meaningless.

 

[Moridin]

Asking for the cause of existence is an invalid question since any such cause would have to exist already. The question is meaningless.

I agree. It is like saying that existence equals nonexistence.

 

[Kenny_L]

Saying 'how' something happened requires you to identify a cause so we're no further ahead.

That's the point. Some of us, due to curiosity, would like to identify causes (or origins) of something else. But, maybe for somebody like that you that doesn't want to identify or know about origins of something, then that's fine...it'd just be meaningless to you only.

 

[Kenny_L]

Right there you're asking if energy can be created or destroyed and the answer so far is no.

But what is the origin of energy, and the origin before that...etc? Nobody knows. This can lead people to question the assumption that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[Holocene]

There is no scientific reason to assume that the "natural" state of affairs ought to be nothing, rather than something.

 

[Kenny_L]

There is no scientific reason to assume that the "natural" state of affairs ought to be nothing, rather than something.

But there is a meaning in wondering what's the origin of that something, and everything 'before' that (and also before that as well...etc). Which would then lead to the question...how did these 'something' get here? Eg...if people think there was always 'something'...then they should also think about how there was always 'something'.

 

[out of whack]

That's the point. Some of us, due to curiosity, would like to identify causes (or origins) of something else. But, maybe for somebody like that you that doesn't want to identify or know about origins of something, then that's fine...it'd just be meaningless to you only.

Well, it's not the point I was making. It's not that I don't 'want' to know the origin of existence. The point is that asking the question does not make sense. Let me explain with another question that also makes no sense: "what does not answer this question?" This is also a meaningless question because there is no way to answer it. Both questions are like that.

 

[baywax]

There is no scientific reason to assume that the "natural" state of affairs ought to be nothing, rather than something.

I get you there. There is a probability of a wide range of conditions between nothing and everything and beyond them as well.

 

[robertm]

Well, it's not the point I was making. It's not that I don't 'want' to know the origin of existence. The point is that asking the question does not make sense. Let me explain with another question that also makes no sense: "what does not answer this question?" This is also a meaningless question because there is no way to answer it. Both questions are like that.

On what empirical evidence do you base the claim that humans will never understand the origins of existence? Or is this just your personal belief?

 

[baywax]

You have to properly define "everything".

Does it include "nothing"?

 

[out of whack]

On what empirical evidence do you base the claim that humans will never understand the origins of existence? Or is this just your personal belief?

That's not what I claimed.

It's my personal belief that asking what existed before existence makes no sense.

 

[baywax]

That's not what I claimed.

It's my personal belief that asking what existed before existence makes no sense.

It used to make no sense to ask how we could fly. Then it made no sense to ask how to get to the moon. It made no sense to ask why the moon went black once or twice a month or how it got there or why it stayed there.

All questions make sense to the person asking them.

 

[DT_tokamak]

In mathematics, we define abstract spaces all the time with elements that don't necessarily physically exist... for instance, has anyone ever seen an element of a function space? Do we have them in our desk drawer?

I'm going to illustrate a couple constructions here. This is not to build a precise structure persay, but rather to get us thinking in the same manner.

Consider an abstract set of elements (we shall call it the "truth set") where an element is said to be in the set if that element is a truth. For instance, the statement '2+2=4' is an element of the truth set. Do not think of this truth in reference to decimal or modular notation... think of it at the level of raw truth... a block and a block... and then another block and another block... that is the same as a block and a block and a block and a block. This is an absolute truth.

Now let us consider a larger set that is actually complete so we shall call it the "known space". An element is said to be in this space if it is anything that can be known. For instance the design behind a 1985 Lamborghini Diablo is something that can be known. The process for starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together can be known. Therefore those are elements of the set. Now, consider this... before human beings knew that rubbing two sticks together would start a fire, was it still true that rubbing two sticks together would start a fire? Before it had ever been done, was it still true that the process would work? It's simply friction...laws of the universe. My contention is that there exists an abstract space where anything that can be known, is known. Therefore any technology that we have yet to discover, any fact that we have yet to unfold, any law of physics that we have yet to create, is still in this abstract space waiting for us to discover it. This space is independent of us and has always existed. Moreover, we can say that the "known space" contains the "truth set". If something is true, then it can certainly be known.

Consider even more strange and abstract sets containing elements such as desires and passions. We can feel the force of desire and passion in our lives... these are real forces because they physically move us to do things. They cause action and change. And like elements in the "known space", elements of desire existed independently before human beings came about. Let's call this new space, the "space of desire".

Now, bring this together... you have a space where everything that can be known *is* known. You also have a space where everything that can be desired *is* desired. Moreover, you have a subset of all known things called truths. And since all of these are independent of our own minds, then they have always existed. Their existence is absolute. Now consider this... these truths will direct the forces of desire and knowledge, to create something that is functional, intricate, complex, beautiful, and majestic. They will create a functional universe and dismiss nonfunctional ones. They will create functional lifeforms and dismiss nonfunctional ones. They will create us.

What you have is infinite knowledge, infinite desire, and truth... you have an intelligent omniscient being. You have God.

 

[Kenny_L]

What you have is infinite knowledge, infinite desire, and truth... you have an intelligent omniscient being. You have God.

But different religions have different 'god's. So what makes this particular one more believable than the others? In fact, which 'god' are you talking about here?

 

[DT_tokamak]

But different religions have different 'god's. So what makes this particular one more believable than the others? In fact, which 'god' are you talking about here?

I was just illustrating a construction from the way I see things. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't believe me. If you see any merit to it, then ponder away and take what you will. I'll be glad I could inspire further thought. And if you don't see merit to it, then at least it didn't take you too long to read =)

 

[out of whack]

It used to make no sense to ask how we could fly. Then it made no sense to ask how to get to the moon. It made no sense to ask why the moon went black once or twice a month or how it got there or why it stayed there.

Naw, clearly it had to make sense at least to all those who answered these questions.

All questions make sense to the person asking them.

I certainly agree with this one. I've asked my share of senseless questions before realizing why they didn't make sense. But once I understood a question's flaw then I stopped asking it and moved on to better ones ...or so I think until I learn better!

 

[Dark Fire]

I haven't read what everyone has written, though I find the problem to be: what is nothing.
Is vacuum really nothing, or can it interact?
If it can't, if we're talking about the empty: "nothing", that can not interact, then like most has already said: there must be something to create this very question.

However, in a very abstract view of reality, it is possible that only nothing exist, because the ultimate reality does not correspond to our logic for some reason.
This is in my opinion, likely enough to be prioritized.

 

[DT_tokamak]

I haven't read what everyone has written, though I find the problem to be: what is nothing.

Here's my take on it. 'Nothing', in essence, marks the absence of something. Without something to absent, 'nothing' cannot even be defined. Therefore, if there is a definition of 'nothing', then something must exist.

Just my take... no proofs or coercive plots given =)

 

[Kenny_L]

Here's my take on it. 'Nothing', in essence, marks the absence of something. Without something to absent, 'nothing' cannot even be defined. Therefore, if there is a definition of 'nothing', then something must exist.

Just my take... no proofs or coercive plots given =)

Yeah...but the thing is ... 'how did anything/something/thoughts/movement/whatever come to 'exist' in the 'first' place?'. That's the big(gest) question.

 

[Dark Fire]

Here's my take on it. 'Nothing', in essence, marks the absence of something. Without something to absent, 'nothing' cannot even be defined. Therefore, if there is a definition of 'nothing', then something must exist.

Just my take... no proofs or coercive plots given =)

What..?
Is your point now, as already stated: that the definition of nothing is information, therefor something must exist?
Because I disagree that nothing implies anything in absent.
Infinity nothing is still nothing, yes?

how did anything/something/thoughts/movement/whatever come to 'exist' in the 'first' place?'. That's the big(gest) question.

Why must there be any limit or a point of start of the universe?
I find Big Bang as a very accepting theory, but that's just me.
"Start" and "End" is just myths in my opinion.
Terms of a weak attempt to define important periods of time, though I have no problem accepting reality to continuously exist in an infinite amount of time.

 

[Kenny_L]

Why must there be any limit or a point of start of the universe?
I find Big Bang as a very accepting theory, but that's just me.
"Start" and "End" is just myths in my opinion.
Terms of a weak attempt to define important periods of time, though I have no problem accepting reality to continuously exist in an infinite amount of time.

Yeah...but regardless of a limit or point...I mentioned already that the big(gest) question is ...how did something/anything/energy/movement/thoughts/WHATEVER get to arise/exist/come-about in the 'first' place? The 'big bang' is only a theory about a subset of something...since the 'big bang' theory only describes something that happened. But what 'made' it to happen, or what things 'triggered' this to occur is unknown. In other words ... the emphasis on ... 'what happened?'... or what's going on here?

 

[Dark Fire]

Few has studied Big Bang enough to know the very inch of physics of it.
What about: due to the massive energy created by the Big Crunch, while the process of all matter/energy to be compressed, energy is built up, and in the end the energy is so great that a explosion will occur aka Big Bang?

I'm not sure what you mean, really..
You bring up "first place" once again, so I presume you're still convinced that there must be a starter point, while I'm convinced it most likely does not.
Perhaps reality states: we can predict every action of the universe, back to the point of our most recent Big Bang.

//Going to bed

 

[Kenny_L]

What about: due to the massive energy created by the Big Crunch, while the process of all matter/energy to be compressed, energy is built up, and in the end the energy is so great that a explosion will occur aka Big Bang?

I see...so basically, it seems as if all you care about is what you know. But you don't care about what you don't know. If you begin your talk with energy already in the picture, and some movements already in the picture, then that's ok. But what I'm saying is ... how did that energy (or other things) get here/get there in the 'first' place? Or, if you don't want time references in there...then I could just say 'how did energy or other things get here/there'...or 'how did they get here at all'?

Perhaps reality states: we can predict every action of the universe, back to the point of our most recent Big Bang.

But you don't know the origins of all those things that you mentioned... eg big crunch/big bang/energy ... and what I mean by origin is ...what 'behind' all those things you mentioned...and if you really want...what's behind all those things that are behind those things that are behind those things...etc. But as I said already, if you're happy to sweep aside what you don't know...or don't want to know, then that's ok. But at least you know there is a big question out there with no answer ... that is 'what are the origins of anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever'?

 

[out of whack]

'what are the origins of anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever'?

What is the origin of existence?

 

[Kenny_L]

What is the origin of existence?

Not known (unknown)

 

[out of whack]

I wanted to point out that what you are asking by the origin of "anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever" is the origin of existence itself, regardless of what specifically exists. The fundamental question is about existence. Do you agree with this?

 

[Kenny_L]

I wanted to point out that what you are asking by the origin of "anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever" is the origin of existence itself, regardless of what specifically exists. The fundamental question is about existence. Do you agree with this?

I know what you were trying to say there. The 'existence' that you mentioned is also included in the 'whatever' part. What's the origin of it? Unknown.

 

[out of whack]

I know what you were trying to say there. The 'existence' that you mentioned is also included in the 'whatever' part. What's the origin of it? Unknown.

What we do know is that the origin in question either existed or did not exist.

If we knew for sure that an origin did not exist then existence would be known to be for all time and the question would be answered: no origin. This would not a bad state of affair since it would be perfectly in line with our daily observations: we never witness anything appearing out of nowhere. Everything changes but nothing is either created or destroyed. So why should anyone assume that existence itself is any different? No origin works fine.

If on the other hand an origin did exist then we would have a problem: such an origin could not be the origin of existence because existence would already be a fact: the origin exists! Since this possibility does not work at all, the hypothesis that an origin existed for existence itself fails immediately. The only alternative is the one in the previous paragraph.

 

[Kenny_L]

The only alternative is the one in the previous paragraph.

But that doesn't answer the biggest question at all. The issue/question is... what mechanisms or just 'what' makes anything (energy or whatever else) exist? Emphasis on 'what'. In other words, where does it come from? You could also ask 'how'...like, if somebody (like you) assumes it was already there...then 'how'. And right now...you don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. If you do happen to find out, then please, by all means...let us know. And saying something like 'It was always there, but I don't have a clue how it got there'...is just not going to cut it.

 

[out of whack]

But that doesn't answer the biggest question at all. The issue/question is... what mechanisms or just 'what' makes anything (energy or whatever else) exist? Emphasis on 'what'. In other words, where does it come from? You could also ask 'how'...like, if somebody (like you) assumes it was already there...then 'how'. And right now...you don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. If you do happen to find out, then please, by all means...let us know. And saying something like 'It was always there, but I don't have a clue how it got there'...is just not going to cut it.

Consider the possibility that you don't fully understand the question itself.

In your question "what makes anything exist", the 'what' part stands for something, right? That something either exists or does not. So you can apply the same rationale as above to this question. Or in your question "where does it come from", the 'where' part also asks for some "place" or some "situation" that either exists or not. The same thing applies if you instead ask for "how it happened" or even for "who is responsible". In the end, you are asking for a reason. Well, a reason exists or it does not exist. And one more time, apply the previous rationale to 'reason' instead of 'origin' and you will arrive at the same conclusion.

You complain that this does not answer the question. Of course not. What I have been trying to explain is this: the question does not apply to existence, the question is invalid. Existence is the starting point, one of the rare few certainties you can believe for sure. It is immune to doubt (cogito ergo sum). It is also immune to "why", to "how" and so on.

I find some beauty in this concept of "existence". It gives us a starting point to understand reality.