Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[robheus]

Robheus ... I think here, that you're falling into the 'trap' of not trying to think beyond what you're given in physics/theory/religion class. It's like people many many years ago, when everybody just believed what was taught by scientists/religion teachers etc, like maybe atoms where the smallest building blocks. But now, there are other things/theories like energy theories (eg strings and stuff like that). For all we know, matter/atoms etc could be created by patterns or behaviours of energy, that give atoms/electrons/etc their characteristics...size/charge properties, etc etc. But in the end, it is not meaningless to ask or try to figure out how energy (and its possible 'constituents' came to BE THERE). You state that 'matter is infinite and eternal, and cannot be destroyed or created'...but this is merely a theory that somebody came up with. We don't know if this is actually true. And it certainly isn't out of line to ask the question : how did it get there? You might say that it cannot be created or destroyed, but you're ignoring how it achieves this 'condition', and where how did it get to be there?

Well basically,because there has to be 'something', some substance, that is fundamental to the world.
It is not about wether you can break it down in smaller parts, but it is about the philosphical question of the primary substance of the world.
Don't think about matter as atoms or whatever (that is to physics to form models of), but it is about the category of thought that refers to the outside, external world, which exists independent of our consciousness (and which through sensory perception we can -in part- model within our consciousness and thus become 'aware' of).
In this point of view, matter as the fundamental substance, exists 'on it's own', ie. it means that it does not depend on anything else for it's existence (esp. it does not depend on consciousness). That also means: it can not begin, since (apart from matter), there is nothing in which it could begin, which then means: matter is eternal.
Note that this is not the same as saying that any particular material formation or structure can be said to be eternal, since none are. What kind of material things exist and how they exist, that is the topic of physics.
All physical things can be said to be non-fundamental, since they depend on matter, and for that reason are not eternal, but constantly get formed, shaped and reshaped by matter (ie. the physical forces).
For consciousness, it means it is not fundamental to the world, and it can not exist on it's own, but depends on matter. (example: human consciousness needs a physical organ: the brain).

 

[robheus]

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.

Mathematics can quite easy be "rebooted" starting from the mathematical equivalent of nothing, the empty set. From that you can generate the natural numbers, then the rational numbers, the real numbers, and so on.

In physical reality one can not do that. There are no a priori physical laws without there being physical entities, requiring space and time.

 

[baywax]

For consciousness, it means it is not fundamental to the world, and it can not exist on it's own, but depends on matter. (example: human consciousness needs a physical organ: the brain).

In order for anything to "exist" there has to be a conscious verification of its existence. In science there must be a number of parallel agreements about how something exists.

I don't think we can assume that conscious awareness does not exist without matter, brains, vertebrates or invertebrates in general. We certainly can't prove it because that would mean doing research without a brain and we are predisposed to using neurons as a means of verification. This doesn't mean its the only way to verify the existence of everything, however.

 

[robheus]

In order for anything to "exist" there has to be a conscious verification of its existence. In science there must be a number of parallel agreements about how something exists.

Yes and no.
Yes because obviously we can only talk about something's existence when we have observed it directly or indirectly.

But I would argue that things (like stars, galaxies, planets,etc.) have independent existence on their own, and don't require there to be an observer.
Things don't pop into existence just because we happen to observe them.

(of course, some interpretations of quantum-physics would not agree with that perspective).

I don't think we can assume that conscious awareness does not exist without matter, brains, vertebrates or invertebrates in general. We certainly can't prove it because that would mean doing research without a brain and we are predisposed to using neurons as a means of verification. This doesn't mean its the only way to verify the existence of everything, however.

If we translate "consciousness" to the ability to process information, the question then would be could there be any system that can process information without there being such a physical system in the first place?
Now, I would clearly argue no, because as well the information processing system, as well as the information it processes, must be contained on some physical system.

 

[baywax]

If we translate "consciousness" to the ability to process information, the question then would be could there be any system that can process information without there being such a physical system in the first place?
Now, I would clearly argue no, because as well the information processing system, as well as the information it processes, must be contained on some physical system.

In one of your examples

(example: human consciousness needs a physical organ: the brain).

we require a brain to process information. Now you believe it is any physical system that is required to process information.

We might need to define information here. I think after some research we would find that information is a physical system.

Its not like we need a brain or camera etc... to record non-physical information. To do that we need to be ghosts or something beyond the realm of the physical... including beyond energy.. because energy is physical.

 

[robheus]

In one of your examples we require a brain to process information. Now you believe it is any physical system that is required to process information.

We might need to define information here. I think after some research we would find that information is a physical system.

Its not like we need a brain or camera etc... to record non-physical information. To do that we need to be ghosts or something beyond the realm of the physical... including beyond energy.. because energy is physical.

Yes, but without a physical system one can not process information.

 

[baywax]

Yes, but without a physical system one can not process information.

Please describe the parameters of "processing information".

Does a rock process the information of rain by eroding?

Does sand process the information of waves by assuming the wave's patterns?

 

[Kenny_L]

In order for anything to "exist" there has to be a conscious verification of its existence. In science there must be a number of parallel agreements about how something exists.

Humans weren't around at one stage. And yet things existed. And those things 'somehow' existed. And we don't know how those existing things 'got there/here'.

 

[robheus]

Please describe the parameters of "processing information".

Does a rock process the information of rain by eroding?

Does sand process the information of waves by assuming the wave's patterns?

The only relevant point is if there is (in theory) any information processing without underlying physical system.

 

[baywax]

The only relevant point is if there is (in theory) any information processing without underlying physical system.

Information and information processing are both physical systems.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

To F with your head. It's all mind games.

 

[robheus]

Information and information processing are both physical systems.

That was my argument, indeed.

Although it can be asserted that information and/or abstract entities themselves are not physical (what is physical about a number?).

This is to say our ontology requires there to be at least physical things and abstract things, and none can be reduced to the other.

 

[baywax]

That was my argument, indeed.

Although it can be asserted that information and/or abstract entities themselves are not physical (what is physical about a number?).

This is to say our ontology requires there to be at least physical things and abstract things, and none can be reduced to the other.

A number, like any concept, is a collection of neurotransmitters, neurons and em pulses occurring in a physical system we know as "brain". That's it.

Nothing abstract about it.

Its all physical. There is no way we can interpret non-physical, we'd have to be non-physical to do so... so...

"why is there anything rather than nothing"

because "anything" is the only "thing" we can comprehend.

 

[Kenny_L]

"why is there anything rather than nothing"

because "anything" is the only "thing" we can comprehend.

And what people do not know is how things got here/there.

 

[robertm]

And what people do not know is how things got here/there.

Kenny, what is the point in stating over and over what we do not know? Why not take a more realistic optimistic approach and focus on how we are going to try to know?

It just seems like beating some poor dead animal into the ground, with the goal of classifying it; I think discussing the animal's physiology and behavior patterns would be more effective.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy discussing with you, I guess I just can't see any point to invoking the limits of our collective knowledge so often without subsequently adding: "...; however,..." or " In my opinion 'x' seems promising."

 

[rory@acmerec.]

Robert Nozick has something to add to this question.

The form of the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" assumes that there are at least two possible states, say S and N. And S requires explanation, whereas N does not. In other words, it assumes that N is the more natural condition of a system, left to itself, and that S is a departure from that natural condition N. Is there any reason to suppose this? Do we have any "non-experience" of N to benchmark against?

I, myself, have no such experience. Everything I have ever experienced or observed is a "Something". I would have to assume, based upon experience, that S is the more natural of the two conditions. Therefore, we should only have to address this question if we were to suddenly find ourselves devoid of existence. (Who, then, would be asking the question? Not me, that's for sure!)

 

[baywax]

Here's a link to a video called

The Nature Of Existence

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8503156790716142769

Key words are:

This is an "ex nihilo" derivation of existence as the geometric embodiment of a simple integer count. Possible mechanisms are given for the nuclear, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions as well as cosmological observations. Keywords: origin of universe, physics, astronomy, cosmology, constants of nature, electron, proton, theory, mathematics, geometry, space, time, causality, uncertainty, Planck constant, dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, CPT symmetry, inertia, ufo propulsion, parity, conservation laws, parity, charge conjugation, time reversal symmetry...

This just in from

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/nature.htm

The universe was once nothing and now it is everything. Nothing has therefore a propensity to be something or we would not be. Nothing does not, so it seems, mean a state of inactivity or nothing as we understand the word. This is a language difficulty of our own making to explain a concept of absence of anything. It is a concept and our understanding of that concept is obviously incorrect beyond daily observation.

The universe is comprised of “matter” separated by distance, or space. Before the “big-bang”, there was nothing or no space, only a predisposition for space and something. Hard to imagine as this is, that we exist is proof of it. That we violently erupted from nothingness is a fait accompli argument that the precursor of nothingness allows for it.

Nothingness is evidentially something-ness even though its definition and explanation elude us.

 

[Sylvano]

Well perhaps one take on a question like this is to ask what initiated the big bang.

 

[throng]

This is a very pertinant question. I don't subscribe to it being unanswerable, but I can't.

Somthing exists (we all perceive it).

The existence we perceive is energy. (everything is of energy).

To better refine the question I would ask, why does energy exist.

What "law" would dictate existence?

I was toying with a notion of truth. It is a silly logic thing.

If somthing is true then it is true that it is true.
If somthing were false the truth is, it's false.

so if somthing exists it really does and if it doesn't, in reality, it doesn't.

If nothing existed that would be the reality, in this way it is inevitable that reality will exist in some form.

somthing exists because reality or truth apply to any circumstance - even nothing.

so some "reality" always exists. It's inevitable.

Just musing

 

[baywax]

This is a very pertinant question. I don't subscribe to it being unanswerable, but I can't.

Somthing exists (we all perceive it).

The existence we perceive is energy. (everything is of energy).

To better refine the question I would ask, why does energy exist.

What "law" would dictate existence?

I was toying with a notion of truth. It is a silly logic thing.

If somthing is true then it is true that it is true.
If somthing were false the truth is, it's false.

so if somthing exists it really does and if it doesn't, in reality, it doesn't.

If nothing existed that would be the reality, in this way it is inevitable that reality will exist in some form.

somthing exists because reality or truth apply to any circumstance - even nothing.

so some "reality" always exists. It's inevitable.

Just musing

Reality is always relative to the observer.

There is no reality without an observer. Reality and Observers go hand in hand. There's never one without the other.

This explains why everything exists rather than nothing. It is because we, as observers, are here experiencing everything. When we're not here, there is nothing and there is no observation and no record of it... but it may as well be nothing because we are not aware of it and we won't ever be.

The reality of everything depends on observers being present.

The reality of nothing depends on no observers being present.

 

[out of whack]

What "law" would dictate existence?

A law that does not exist does nothing so a law that mandates existence would need to exist. But whatever exists cannot be what mandates existence if it already exists. Consequently, nothing mandates existence.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

whoever manages this forum,

I see you have taken out the posts in this topic that talk about God and existence. The discussion of God,existence,and universe is perhaps the most widely discussed and biggest topic in philosophy. With that said, I don't see how you can delete those posts since they were in the Philosophy forum.

 

[Evo]

whoever manages this forum,

I see you have taken out the posts in this topic that talk about God and existence. The discussion of God,existence,and universe is perhaps the most widely discussed and biggest topic in philosophy. With that said, I don't see how you can delete those posts since they were in the Philosophy forum.

Check your personal messages, you will find that you got a message when your posts were deleted.

Your posts were off topic and religiously slanted which does not lead to a fruitful discussion.

Your statement 'because God wanted it that way" is not appropriate.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

evo,

In the philosophy section am I allowed to discuss the existence of God at all?

just want to make sure I don't get in trouble again.

 

[Evo]

evo,

In the philosophy section am I allowed to discuss the existence of God at all?

just want to make sure I don't get in trouble again.

As long as you are not making any claims as to the existence of a God and there is no religious inference, it is allowable.

I would suggest that you read the Philosophy Forum Guidelines as to what is acceptable for the philosophy sub-forum. This is a scientific forum and this sub-forum falls under stricter guidelines than free for all internet philosophy forums.

Also, Intelligent Design is religion and not science, so no, that would not be allowed. Since you brought up the fact that you believe in ID, I may as well save you the trouble.

Remember, also, that our policies for discussion of science and mathematics hold just as strongly in the Philosophy Forums as anywhere else on the site. Overly speculative or incorrect statements within the domains of science and math may be moved, locked, or deleted at the mentors' discretion, and warnings may be issued. In general, there is more legroom for speculation in philosophical discussion, but it must be in the form of a well motivated question or argument, as described above. In particular, even a 'speculative' argument should be logically consistent with well established scientific knowledge and theory.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294

 

[throng]

Reality is always relative to the observer.

There is no reality without an observer. Reality and Observers go hand in hand. There's never one without the other.

This explains why everything exists rather than nothing. It is because we, as observers, are here experiencing everything. When we're not here, there is nothing and there is no observation and no record of it... but it may as well be nothing because we are not aware of it and we won't ever be.

The reality of everything depends on observers being present.

The reality of nothing depends on no observers being present.

I agree. To say energy exists in reliant on general perception (observation), that is the only gauge we have.

So the pertinate question is "why does observation exist?"

Why does "the observer" exist?

Is the observing entity only observing its own existence (like a mirror)?

Could our awareness of our awareness be the precept for existence.

Still, whatever the case, if reality didn't exist, there wouldn't "really" be an observer at all.

 

[out of whack]

So the pertinate question is "why does observation exist?"

Why does "the observer" exist?

Despite narrowing the focus on just an observer or an observation, the question still asks about the origin of existence. We can talk about the existence of an observation, of an observer, of what is observed, or of anything else we claim exists. It makes no difference. The question remains about the origin of what exists and an origin of what exists cannot exist.

 

[throng]

Despite narrowing the focus on just an observer or an observation, the question still asks about the origin of existence. We can talk about the existence of an observation, of an observer, of what is observed, or of anything else we claim exists. It makes no difference. The question remains about the origin of what exists and an origin of what exists cannot exist.

Thanx 4 response. I agree. I'm suggesting that our perception of things is the only reason we presume things exist. In that case the most relevant question is: why is there perception?

To further expand I would ask: Why is the observer aware of his perceptions?

OR Why are we aware of our "selves"?

Would anyone deny their own existence?

I don't have any answers. just more thoughts on the subject. I think therefore I am. I think I am. I think.

Prbably entering philosophy though so might be inapropriate here!

 

[out of whack]

why is there perception?

To further expand I would ask: Why is the observer aware of his perceptions?

OR Why are we aware of our "selves"?

These ask how perception works, which is slightly off topic since the questions already assert the existence of an observer.

Would anyone deny their own existence?

Confused people might. I've heard this before: "I'm not sure therefore I may be".

 

[ucf-fisher21]

If nothing existed then it wouldn't seem likely for anything to become existent(how could something come out of absolute nothingness). But we obviously know that there is existence (just look around). This makes you think there has always been existence of something with no origin.

 

[baywax]

I agree. To say energy exists in reliant on general perception (observation), that is the only gauge we have.

So the pertinate question is "why does observation exist?"

Why does "the observer" exist?

Is the observing entity only observing its own existence (like a mirror)?

Could our awareness of our awareness be the precept for existence.

Still, whatever the case, if reality didn't exist, there wouldn't "really" be an observer at all.

When you ask "why" something exists the answer can only come from you because the next person will have a completely different answer to the same question.

For example... you might ask "why does the sky exist"?
A pilot will answer "because I want to fly in it".
A sky diver will answer "because I want to fall in it"...
and an astrophysicist will say "because I want to study it".

 

[out of whack]

This makes you think there has always been existence of something with no origin.

Indeed, what exists has no ultimate origin. It makes no sense to ask what existed before existence.

 

[baywax]

Indeed, what exists has no ultimate origin. It makes no sense to ask what existed before existence.

But it is a valid question to ask if existence relies upon the observation of existence.

This brings us back around to the idea of Superposition" and "Collapse of the Wave Function".

 

[out of whack]

But it is a valid question to ask if existence relies upon the observation of existence.

It depends what is meant by "relies upon". If it means that an observation somehow causes existence then it doesn't work because the observation would need to already exist in order to have this effect so it couldn't actually cause existence. If it means that existence and observation are one and the same thing, or possibly two different aspects of the same concept, then this interpretation may be coherent, depending on how we want to interpret all terms. If it means that existence is irrelevant unless it is observed, then it seems trivially true since what is relevant only applies to observers. There may be other ways to interpret it, but I'm not sure of your take at this point.

 

[baywax]

It depends what is meant by "relies upon". If it means that an observation somehow causes existence then it doesn't work because the observation would need to already exist in order to have this effect so it couldn't actually cause existence. If it means that existence and observation are one and the same thing, or possibly two different aspects of the same concept, then this interpretation may be coherent, depending on how we want to interpret all terms. If it means that existence is irrelevant unless it is observed, then it seems trivially true since what is relevant only applies to observers. There may be other ways to interpret it, but I'm not sure of your take at this point.

Hi out of whack,

I'm just trolling around in the back waters of the concept of existence:)

But, I agree that existence cannot rely upon our observation of existence. We have the record of sequence that has led up to our emergence as a phenomenon amongst all phenomena. We can see that there is a logical sequence, as entangled as it is, that results in a mammal that has the capacity to observe and record existence.

In this logical sequence existence plays out its role to the point where it is observed and recorded. The sequence is recorded in sedimentary layers of geology and paleontology. Although we observe the light of a star or galaxy... we are observing the light many thousands of years after it left its source.

This sort of logic tells us that existence has "existed" long before we observed it.

But, trivially as you put it, we can only make these assumptions by way of observation. And so, even though it sounds egocentric and anthropocentric... it is only by our own existence that we are able to determine the rest of existence. And that is limiting and has a biased view point... and it may signal a lop-sided logic to all of this.

For instance, our sense of logic is based on our physical constraints. We have neurons that only fire at a certain rate... we are only able to interpret events in sequence.

Are we somewhat handicapped when it comes to interpreting the whole of existence?

 

[out of whack]

Are we somewhat handicapped when it comes to interpreting the whole of existence?

With regard to this topic, we are handicaped by everyday situations. All objects appear to us as having a creation and a destruction, all events seem to have a beginning and an end. This is so because of how we partition all things in the universe in segments of manageable size. But we can also look from a different angle and see that things don't truly begin and end. What we can see is an endless series of related changes. We define a tea cup as something that is built and eventually disappears (breaks) but its constituents merely assume this particular shape at one time and a different shape at another time. It is us, not the universe and not the cup, who decide that the cup has a beginning and an end, because of our mental representation of what a cup must be. Our concepts of beginning and end exist because of how we partition reality so it will make sense to us and allow us to function.

Now, when we try to discuss existence itself then this habit of partitioning everything becomes a liability. We cannot partition existence in smaller sections if existence is the topic itself. When something smaller begins and ends according to our daily interpretation, there is always something else before it and something after it. So when we address existence as a whole, our natural tendency it to assume something before it and something after it as well. Only in this case, there is nothing outside of existence. This can be hard to grasp. This is our handicap.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

I think you can simply existence to this:

either something always exists (no beginning and no end), or nothing has ever existed at all.

 

[out of whack]

I think you can simply existence to this:

either something always exists (no beginning and no end), or nothing has ever existed at all.

...which can be further simplified since only the first case applies: something always exists.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

...which can be further simplified since only the first case applies: something always exists.

precisely

 

[baywax]

nothing has ever existed at all.

Do you see your contradiction here?

My philosophy is that if you don't have nothing you don't have something because you have to have the potential for something to exist. That potential is found in emptiness. For instance, if you do not have an empty cup... you can't fill it.

As to out of whack's explanation of our handicap... I am agreeing with your writing there. We are programmed to find a beginning and an end because that is what our survival instinct continually is looking for... or looking out for. It is genetically bred into our genes from the time that our cells were individual cells running from motion and light and chasing after smaller cells.

I find some comfort in the work of the quantum physicists in that they are looking at existence in terms of simultaneity. There we see no beginning or end but only change and transformation. Yet I am still stumped by this because change and transformation, by my own handicapped way of thinking, require a sequential way of seeing in order to be distinguished.

 

[robertm]

precisely

Do not forget to apply Occam's razor after you have reached this conclusion fisher

Baywax,

On your appraisal of quantum physics, the inherent logical contradictions that we can not help but feel (see Kenny_L) are much like optical illusions to which we know the answers. We KNOW for an absolute fact that what our senses are telling us does not represent reality. Quite a powerful hurdle in my opinion.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/scintillation_grid/"

 

[baywax]

Do not forget to apply Occam's razor after you have reached this conclusion fisher

Baywax,

On your appraisal of quantum physics, the inherent logical contradictions that we can not help but feel (see Kenny_L) are much like optical illusions to which we know the answers. We KNOW for an absolute fact that what our senses are telling us does not represent reality. Quite a powerful hurdle in my opinion.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/scintillation_grid/"

What they're calling the "Scintillation Grid" is facilitated by the phenomenon of "simultaneous contrast" where the rods (black and white receptors) that have just been used to represent white dots to the brain fire the opposite (black) upon relaxation. You may have been subjected to this experience in high school art class where a red dot is displayed against a white wall then removed and you see a green dot ghosting in the same spot. That's the cones that have just represented red relaxing into their opposite stimulus or colour... green.

But I get your drift on this. Time to let the subconscious work out some answers.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

My philosophy is that if you don't have nothing you don't have something because you have to have the potential for something to exist. That potential is found in emptiness. For instance, if you do not have an empty cup... you can't fill it.

Very interesting! In my opinion, it seems like this implies that something is trying to cause something else to exist.

 

[baywax]

Very interesting! In my opinion, it seems like this implies that something is trying to cause something else to exist.

That's not the intended message.

Have you ever heard the saying "nature abhors a vacuum"...? (from Aristotle)

 

[Evo]

Very interesting! In my opinion, it seems like this implies that something is trying to cause something else to exist.

No, it does not lead to that. Stop trying to push Intelligent Design.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

That's not the intended message.

Have you ever heard the saying "nature abhors a vacuum"...? (from Aristotle)

this is from a link through uoregon.edu(I found it through google): Aristotle's answer was that as the spear flies through the air, it leaves a vacuum behind it. Air rushing in (the source of the cliche "nature abhors a vacuum") pushes the spear forward until its natural motion (falling) eventually brings it to earth.

This assumes that a vacuum is nothing. In my opinion, I think a vacuum is still 'something' because it contains empty space (up,down,left and right). I don't think true nothingness incluses empty space. I believe it's impossible to picture true nothingness (non-existence) because there is nothing to picture. I always catch myself trying to picture 'nothing', but I know I can't. The best I've come to picturing it in my head is 'blackness and empty space', kind of like closing your eyes.

 

[out of whack]

I believe it's impossible to picture true nothingness (non-existence) because there is nothing to picture. I always catch myself trying to picture 'nothing', but I know I can't. The best I've come to picturing it in my head is 'blackness and empty space', kind of like closing your eyes.

Good luck with that. Nothing doesn't exist, there is nothing to picture.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

Good luck with that. Nothing doesn't exist, there is nothing to picture.

you must have overlooked my previous post. I said the same thing as you

 

[robertm]

What they're calling the "Scintillation Grid" is facilitated by the phenomenon of "simultaneous contrast" where the rods (black and white receptors) that have just been used to represent white dots to the brain fire the opposite (black) upon relaxation. You may have been subjected to this experience in high school art class where a red dot is displayed against a white wall then removed and you see a green dot ghosting in the same spot. That's the cones that have just represented red relaxing into their opposite stimulus or colour... green.

But I get your drift on this. Time to let the subconscious work out some answers.

Nit-picking is always appreciated

Wasn't there some old book that said something about how your eyes will not deceive you?

 

[baywax]

Nit-picking is always appreciated

Wasn't there some old book that said something about how your eyes will not deceive you?

Probably... its the brain that deceives... the eyes are simply the messenger.