Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[Langbein]

But if to "exist" has something to do with "interact" then to "exist" has to do something with with "time". Nothing can interact without moving or traveling trough the dimension of time, can it ?

But where does this refference point for time come from ? Why is "now" now and not tomorrow or the day after to morrow or some 2000 years ago ?

If all of us were killed due to a nuclear disaster or something (like the dinosauruses) and somebody arrived from the outher space, will they then arrive at the time "now" or some thousands years ago ?

Why is the position of Jupiter relative to the Earth the possition it has "now" and not the position it had 2 months ago ?

What about Platon. Did he live "now". Did it exist a "now" for platon as well ?

Why should my "now" be more real than Platons "now" ?

Where does the outher refference for time come from and what is time ? Can "now" be something else than it is for me, and can there be an "interaction" without a time refference ?

 

[out of whack]

But if to "exist" has something to do with "interact" then to "exist" has to do something with with "time". Nothing can interact without moving or traveling trough the dimension of time, can it ?

Correct. My understanding of reality is based on what I consider to be two inescapable truths: existence and change. We've already discussed existence quite a bit.

Change clearly requires existence because there would be nothing to change without it. And, as your comments suggest, existence would be rather pointless if nothing interacted, if nothing changed. In a way, you cannot have existence without change either, so both concepts are inextricably related.

But you were talking about time, not change. Well, I have had this discussion before in another thread and instead of repeating myself and entering a protracted debate on this, let me refer you to https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=202306" It was a long debate but you may get the point before reading the whole thing, it's just that eventually communication broke down despite my best efforts... Essentially, time and change are indistinguishable from each other. Some prefer to say that time is a "measure" of change instead of being change itself, a point of view that is mainly a semantic distinction from mine. I don't really have a big problem with that, it's only a slightly different angle on the same idea.

 

[baywax]

It is true that nothing does not exist, but the definition of nothing does, and that is what the universe is ... The definition of nothing. In a nutshell ... We are the Reality of Non-Existence.

Yes the definition of "nothing" exists especially in the form of the electromagnetic pulses of each neuron that considers (and constructs) the concept of "nothing".

However, one asks what "exists"(?) and one asks what "doesn't exist"(?) and in doing so one relies entirely upon "opposites" and the "compliments" of these concepts to arrive at these questions and conclusions.

So, without attempting to twist words or be semantic, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that everything or anything that exists would not exist without its counterpart... (that being) "nothing". Or, in the least, one would not be aware of the existence of existence without an awareness of "nothing".

This is evident because we require "nothing" to be able to discuss it and, equally importantly, we require "something" to discuss "nothing" because the two concepts are in total contrast of each other. One of the two concepts offers a "benchmark" from which to measure the other.

 

[Langbein]

Well, I think in 1853 I did not exist to much, while in 2008 I did exist some more.

I think the question of time is an interesting part of it because time is connected to changes trough basic laws of physics. Let's say delta s = v * delta t, a change of posistion along a line is the product of the speed multiplied with the change in time. Most phenomenes in clasic physics has something to do with time.

When there is no time there can be no changes, and the state of any change does relate to a time or a "now".

Why is there a "now", just now, and can there be more than just one "now" ?

How is it possible to understand what a change is if you don't know what "time" is or "now" is, as all changes hapens trough time, and those happening now, they are there "now", but what is this "now" ? And what is actually "time" ?

How is it possible to live a life that is a travel trough time and all the time being there just now, without knowing what "time" is and what "now" is ?

Does this mean that one also does not know what life is ?

Could "existence" in some way be connected to "time" ?

 

[Dark Fire]

Just to add something further from out of whack's statements:
Since space and time is connected, "before time", would also mean before space, meaning there's no time nor space to rewind from.

 

[Kenny_L]

So attempting to say, 'well we are starting to figure out where the phenomena of the observable universe arose from, but where did that arise from, and where did THAT arise from, and where did anything at all arise from?', is indeed not a scientific mode of thinking.

Asking and wondering, and thinking about what is responsible for what, and what is the origin of what...and trying to figure out what is going on here ... is fine with me. Whether you relate this to science or not is irrelevant. It is about trying to understand what's going on here. Whether we can or not is another thing.

 

[baywax]

Well, I think in 1853 I did not exist to much, while in 2008 I did exist some more.

The entire you existed in 1853. It was just a little differently distributed. In fact all of you has existed for 14 billion years and possibly longer for all we know. Its just a coincidence that you are aware of "you" in 2008.

 

[mbilitatu]

Here's my imagination of the reply, based on nothing more than my imagination and the shamanic concept that everything which exists contains some level of consciousness, not necessarily sentient, but to some degree an energetic participant in the universe.

The first universe contained nothing ... except potential. After a few hundred billion years, a quantum glitch gave rise to a tiny bit of primitive consciousness that could just barely construct a notion of emptiness, a desire for something. Then that universe brane smashed into another one, exploded into a big bang, and gave rise to a universe filled with a desire for something. After a few hundred billion years, something appeared ... maybe a sub-atomic particle, which had just enough consciousness to imagine the notion of "another", which gave rise to a second sub-atomic particle. And so on ... with consciousness itself evolving to higher and higher levels. With each big bang the old universe dies and gives birth to a new universe slightly more evolved than the one before it until, most recently, the latest big bang gave rise to a level of consciousness that could self reflect on itself ... at great risk of insanity.

 

[Langbein]

Unless it should not happen that "time" itself in some way is the basis for all existence and that all existence can only be "performed" as present in and related to "time".

If so: "Why does anything exist all and rather nothing ?" Because of the only platform for observation that is possible is "as present in time".

Because of your "presence" or "partipication" in the time dimention the world and yourself will exist for you.

It is true that if there existed a neutral and independent reference for time, I would have existed in 1853, as fragments and part by part, but not assebled as "me".

But is this neutral time refference obvious ? Will the existence in time in some way require a "time doer" or "time traveler" that in some way apply the refferece of "now".

It is for sure that I would not have existence for any living "human time travelers" of today back in 1853.

An interesting question is "could this time refference, the precense of a now, and the axis of future and past in some way be related to "life" itself" ?

Let's say all living creatures were destroyed due to a nuclear disaster, will there still be a neutral "time" going on and will there also be a "now" ? Is this obvious or is it just that we are so used to think of "time" as observed from a human observation platform, so we are not able to imagine something else.

Lets say the final disaster were there ant time would at least stop to exist as observerved by any living creature, will it still be there, moving by the same speed and observed with the same neutral observation point "now" ?

What obout some flies that only has a life of 2 days, do they live in the same time dimentions as humans ? What about a 200 year old turtle or a 1000 year old tree, or a 20 billion old galaxis, does they all relate to the human time dimention ?

If some small green men would be able to visit us from the outher space some houndred lightyears away, what time will they arrive. Would it neccessarely be "now" as observed by me, or could it be at the time of Napoleon or the dinosauruses ?

Will it be obvious to say that time of the universe will ba as observed by me from my platform for time observation is that that will yeld for the whole univerce ?

Wouldn't this be close to saying tha same as "I am the center of the universe" all the universe is built up on me and my observation of time and a "now".

Is this really obvious, and is it really not thinkable that it could also exist alternative ways of being present in time, to have an existence and to observe the world from a "now".

Could it be thinkable that the universe itself has a some kind of "time component" or "the clock of the universe" and that life itself also has a built in time refference and a "now" and that what actually exist does exist as the result of where two time components meets, the "clock of the universe" and "the clock of life" ?

So then I would be not the center of the world itself, but the center of the world as observed by me.

Can something "exist" without "time" ? Could it also be: Because of pressence in time anything does axist, as "present in time" ?

I thinke these are interesting question as I find it difficult and hard to believe that my subjective observation of "time" and a "now" should be something valid as a refference for the whole universe. There has to be something else that is the center of time and existence. It can not be me.

By the way, when you look at the stars above you, most of them are tens or houdred lightyears avay. When you look at the stars, what do you actually see, the stars as they actually are, or a some kind of painting or movie of how things used to be at variating and different distance in time. If something should happen "simustiniously" on a star or a planet 100 lightyears from here, should you then add or subtract 100 years to be at the same "now" or is there a common "now" and a common "existense" in time, as observed from here by me. What would be the absolute refference ? Me ? I find it hard to believe.

 

[robertm]

Unless it should not happen that "time" itself in some way is the basis for all existence and that all existence can only be "performed" as present in and related to "time".

Time is the basis for everything. If you would agree that 'space' is necessary for existence, then you must accept that time is just as integral.

If so: "Why does anything exist all and rather nothing ?" Because of the only platform for observation that is possible is "as present in time".

Because of your "presence" or "partipication" in the time dimention the world and yourself will exist for you.

The fact that we are here proves that there was existence before your perception of it. So we can say with near absolute certainty that the Earth has existed for about 4.5 billion years, even though no organism alive was there to experience that time.

It is true that if there existed a neutral and independent reference for time, I would have existed in 1853, as fragments and part by part, but not assebled as "me".

But is this neutral time refference obvious ? Will the existence in time in some way require a "time doer" or "time traveler" that in some way apply the refferece of "now".

There is indeed something special about life, and human life especially, but that does not include an ability to effect the physical world any differently than other physical manifestation of atoms. I.e. humans must still obey the laws of physics. Maybe the 'time doer' you are thinking of, is simply matter in any form.

It is for sure that I would not have existence for any living "human time travelers" of today back in 1853.

An interesting question is "could this time refference, the precense of a now, and the axis of future and past in some way be related to "life" itself" ?

You could not have been aware of the time travlers, however, they could still have walked around and interacted with every atom that has every been in your body. You are simply a very neat manifestation of the parts that make you up.

Let's say all living creatures were destroyed due to a nuclear disaster, will there still be a neutral "time" going on and will there also be a "now" ? Is this obvious or is it just that we are so used to think of "time" as observed from a human observation platform, so we are not able to imagine something else.

Lets say the final disaster were there ant time would at least stop to exist as observerved by any living creature, will it still be there, moving by the same speed and observed with the same neutral observation point "now" ?

Yes, there would absolutely still be a neutral time and an infinite number of nows. Again, think about what happened before life existed, why and how would the end of life or the existence of life affect spacetime any differently then none replicating manifestations of particles would?

What obout some flies that only has a life of 2 days, do they live in the same time dimentions as humans ? What about a 200 year old turtle or a 1000 year old tree, or a 20 billion old galaxis, does they all relate to the human time dimention ?

The perception of time can be altered by normal biological functions. For humans, it takes powerful drugs or a very high stress/life threatening situations; but electro-chemical activity in the brain can slow (in the case of high stress/extreme danger/stimulates ect...) or speed up (in the case of depressants/tranquilizers/hallucinogenics ect...) your conscious perception of time. And this is a repeatable measurable effect. However, we know that the measurement of time passage remains the same for all outside observers simply by looking at a clock.

If some small green men would be able to visit us from the outher space some houndred lightyears away, what time will they arrive. Would it neccessarely be "now" as observed by me, or could it be at the time of Napoleon or the dinosauruses ?

It would depend on when they left and how fast they could travel. This is basic relativity.

Will it be obvious to say that time of the universe will ba as observed by me from my platform for time observation is that that will yeld for the whole univerce ?

Wouldn't this be close to saying tha same as "I am the center of the universe" all the universe is built up on me and my observation of time and a "now".

Is this really obvious, and is it really not thinkable that it could also exist alternative ways of being present in time, to have an existence and to observe the world from a "now".

Could it be thinkable that the universe itself has a some kind of "time component" or "the clock of the universe" and that life itself also has a built in time refference and a "now" and that what actually exist does exist as the result of where two time components meets, the "clock of the universe" and "the clock of life" ?

Again, Einstein asked similar questions. You should read some works on the special and general theories of relativity.

So then I would be not the center of the world itself, but the center of the world as observed by me.

Precisely, langbein.

Can something "exist" without "time" ? Could it also be: Because of pressence in time anything does axist, as "present in time" ?

With the extent of our collected knowledge today, nothing can exist outside of spacetime (space or time) because spacetime is everything and anything that exist would be part of spacetime and interact with its other constituents.

I thinke these are interesting question as I find it difficult and hard to believe that my subjective observation of "time" and a "now" should be something valid as a refference for the whole universe. There has to be something else that is the center of time and existence. It can not be me.

All non-inertial frames of reference are equally valid. So instead of the humbling truth being " I am not the center of the universe" it is (and equally humbling so ) "everywhere is the center of the universe".

By the way, when you look at the stars above you, most of them are tens or houdred lightyears avay. When you look at the stars, what do you actually see, the stars as they actually are, or a some kind of painting or movie of how things used to be at variating and different distance in time. If something should happen "simustiniously" on a star or a planet 100 lightyears from here, should you then add or subtract 100 years to be at the same "now" or is there a common "now" and a common "existense" in time, as observed from here by me. What would be the absolute refference ? Me ? I find it hard to believe.

When you look through space, you cannot help but look through time. They are inexorably connected. So when you look at something (say a star) because of the finite speed of light you are seeing the object as it was when the light from the object left on its long journey to your eyes; not as the object is now.

I highly recommend that you read some introductory literature on the theories of relativity. There is a reason why Einstein is one of the most famous men in history and even non-scientist know his name.

 

[robheus]

There doesn't have to be a reason why there is something instead of nothing. If there was nothing, then there would just be nothing. If there was something, then there would just be something. That's how I see it.

The above is not proper reasoning, since the phrase "If there was nothing, then there would just be nothing" is both affirming and denying there is something.
The problem arises from the context in which the initial question was posed, which does not refer to a particular situation in which "there is something" or "there is not something" makes sense.

As an example: if I ask the question "what is there in your refrigerator" and the current state of affairs is that (apart from the refrigerator components itself and the air) the refrigerator is empty, you could answer: "nothing". This makes sense since we refer to an existing state of affairs, an existing world, just that that world contains a refrigerator which does not contain milk, eggs, butter, or anything at all (except for the trivial things like the components of the refrigerator, the air) etc.

So, in the normal case, on the assumption (which is never mentioned explicitly, but always implictly assumed to be the case) we talk about an existing state of affairs, an existing world, we can ask the question why it is not the case that some particular (sub)state is existing (like the substate of the contents of some particular refrigrerator).

The initial question however, urges us to deny that the normally implicitly context (that there is an existing world, in which thus at least something exists) for a state-of-affairs is the case.
But without the context of an existing world, the original question as to why something at all exists, places us in the rather strange situation that there is not something we can base our answer on.
And this leads us to conclude that the implicit assumption (to assume that a state of affairs exist or world, in which it is not that the case that something exist for any something) simply is wrong, since a non-existing world can not be assumed to exist, and thus makes it impossible to answer the question.

So in summary, the answer to the question would be that it can not be assumed that there is not any something that exists, since that does not refer to any possible existing world. And for that reason the initial assumption is wrong, and renders the question meaningless/unanswerable or simply wrong, i.e. the question itself is semantically or logically incorrect, and makes it impossible to answer.

Anologies
In computer anology it would be similar to ask a program to calculate some value from data contained in a file, while that file does not exist. It's a job that cannot be done.
Or if the question was reformulated using some computer programming syntax, the computer might respond: "parsing error on previous input" and halt compilation and never produce an executable file, and hence that non-existing executable could never be run to yield a result.

 

[Kenny_L]

Let's just say that 'nothing' means ... a system that has nothing that moves in it...nothing that changes...no transitions. We take this as a starting point. Then we ask the question...how do things begin to move or begin to transition in it?

And if people want to take another starting point...such as we have a system that already has things moving and transiting in it, then we ask the question...how did those begin to move or begin to transition? And where did those things come from? And where did those things that made those things come from? And so on. Basically, you still come up with the same questions.

I know that a lot of people try to just try to take the easy way out and ignore these obviously good questions, and even try to make up some off-tangent arguments to lead people away from these questions. But in the end, we all know that these questions make sense...perfect sense actually.

 

[robheus]

You are not really answering the question. All you are doing is begging the question, or by restating the question so that you might give the impression that you are being profound and deep.

I disagree on that. "because there is a universe (instead of none)" is amongst one of the sensible answers for an unsensible question (in so far unsensible questions can have sensible answers).

I think some people do not really see the problematical nature of the question itself, since it urges us to assume an impossible proposition is true, namely that some non-existing state is existent.

A general form of the question can be stated as: why is it the case that X, instead of the case that Y.

Now, for being answerable, we must already assume that X is a possible (and factual) case, and also Y is possible (but not factual).
Like for instance: X is "earth has a moon", Y is "earth has no moon".

Although many things would be different in the world if Y were true instead of X, we can still imagine that it is possible and not a-priori impossible. In other words, we can imagine a possible world which is more or less the same as our current world, except for the fact that the moon (of the earth) is not existent.
More even, we can quite reasonably state that this situation in a far history was the case, in which there was a (proto) earth, but (yet) no moon, and that (probably) due to a cosmic catastrophe some large object collided with the proto-earth and formed the moon. The exact way of how the moon was formed however, is of no importance here, as it might have as well been that Earth and moon formed at the same time out of the proto-solar stellar stuff.

In the question as stated though, X has the form as "anything at all exist" (or, perhaps better statedas: "at least something exist"), and Y is the negation of X,meaning it is not the case that any something exist.

Now we trivially accept of course the fact that X is true, and then we are asked to explain that fact, solely based on the assumption that Y is true.
But this makes only sense if it can be assumed that Y is true for any possible world, at least one such possible world exist in which Y is true.

Which leads to the proposition that we have to assume there is a (possible) world which both exist and does not exist.
This is however a complete logical contradiction, and is untrue by definition.

We can not explain any fact at the basis of an untrue proposition.

 

[robheus]

Let's just say that 'nothing' means ... a system that has nothing that moves in it...nothing that changes...no transitions. We take this as a starting point. Then we ask the question...how do things begin to move or begin to transition in it?

And if people want to take another starting point...such as we have a system that already has things moving and transiting in it, then we ask the question...how did those begin to move or begin to transition? And where did those things come from? And where did those things that made those things come from? And so on. Basically, you still come up with the same questions.

I know that a lot of people try to just try to take the easy way out and ignore these obviously good questions, and even try to make up some off-tangent arguments to lead people away from these questions. But in the end, we all know that these questions make sense...perfect sense actually.

It is absolute nonsense. If a state-of-affairs could exist in which no motion/transition or change whatsoever takes place, this state would be "eternal" and eternally frozen in time (or "without time" since there is no way to measure time in such a case).

So to explain that the actual world of motion, transition and change could occur at the basis of such a motion-less change-less state, is simply impossible.
The actual world in motion could never have had a motionless/changeless state as one of it's predecessors.

 

[Kenny_L]

So to explain that the actual world of motion, transition and change could occur at the basis of such a motion-less change-less state, is simply impossible.
The actual world in motion could never have had a motionless/changeless state as one of it's predecessors.

So now you understand that: if we start from either point... such as we begin by saying that things were always 'moving' ... then you come up with the same puzzle ... ie how did those things get there? And when I mean 'things'...I mean energy/matter AND movement. If you or anybody can answer this, then a nobel prize is awaiting.

 

[out of whack]

If a reason for existence could exist, it would first need to explain its own existence.

 

[robheus]

So now you understand that: if we start from either point... such as we begin by saying that things were always 'moving' ... then you come up with the same puzzle ... ie how did those things get there? And when I mean 'things'...I mean energy/matter AND movement. If you or anybody can answer this, then a nobel prize is awaiting.

The only reason being that matter/energy in motion/transition/change has always been and always will be.

 

[Kenny_L]

The only reason being that matter/energy in motion/transition/change has always been and always will be.

But the question is where did they come from.

 

[out of whack]

But the question is where did they come from.

Are you expecting a place that existed or a place that did not exist?

 

[Kenny_L]

Are you expecting a place that existed or a place that did not exist?

My question was : where did those things come from? And how did they get there? Where do you think those things came from? Or how do you think those things became abundant?

 

[out of whack]

My question was : where did those things come from?

Yes, you said that. But what will you accept as an answer, a place that exists or a place that does not exist? There are only two possibilities so which one would satisfy your expectations?

And how did they get there?

If you are asking for a process then again, will you accept one that is real or one that isn't real?

Where do you think those things came from?

Same as your first question.

Or how do you think those things became abundant?

Same as your second question.

 

[Kenny_L]

Yes, you said that.

I know. This is where you need to answer the question - instead of introducing something that goes off on a tangent in attempts to evade the question.

 

[out of whack]

I know. This is where you need to answer the question - instead of introducing something that goes off on a tangent in attempts to evade the question.

This is no tangent or evasion but a pertinent attempt to clarify. If your question is clear to you then you know if you are asking for an origin that was real or an origin that wasn't real. These are different questions. Please give it some thought, then say which one you are asking for.

 

[robheus]

But the question is where did they come from.

That question is meaningless.

Matter/energy come from matter/energy,and since those are supposed to be conserved quatities, there IS no definite 'origin' to them.
(and if there were, where did that 'origin' come from?)

 

[robertm]

I know. This is where you need to answer the question - instead of introducing something that goes off on a tangent in attempts to evade the question.

Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that everything around you and you yourself add up to nothing at all?

And thus, do not need an origin.

 

[Kenny_L]

Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that everything around you and you yourself add up to nothing at all?

And thus, do not need an origin.

Robert ... it seems to me that it is you that has a bit of trouble understanding what you just said. You said... 'everything around you and yourself add up to NOTHING at all'. So, what you need to do is to try to provide an answer for ... if it all adds up to nothing at all...then how did those things become 'abundant'? You can call it abundant 'in the first place', or 'abundant AT ALL', or whatever you like. The question is just ...how did those things become abundant? I already know that you (or anybody else) doesn't know how things became 'abundant'. But I'm just getting you to try to answer it anyway.

 

[Lacy33]

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.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Langbein,
Did you actually 'read' all that was written at that link you offer here?
You posted this a long time ago.
If I read all of that and gave it the thought it deserves, I would still be thinking how to phrase a question 20 years from now!~

 

[Kenny_L]

(and if there were, where did that 'origin' come from?)

So...you're saying 'and if they were, then where...'. This goes to show that you too have questions about origins of things...namely, where did those things come from? And how did those things (or anything) become abundant?

Like, if you reckon that the 'abundant' things didn't just 'pop out' or 'be there'... then have you got any ideas about how these things 'popped out', or 'were ALREADY abundant'?

 

[robheus]

So...you're saying 'and if they were, then where...'. This goes to show that you too have questions about origins of things...namely, where did those things come from? And how did those things (or anything) become abundant?

Like, if you reckon that the 'abundant' things didn't just 'pop out' or 'be there'... then have you got any ideas about how these things 'popped out', or 'were ALREADY abundant'?

I meant to say that it in no way 'helpt' to think about 'ultimate origins' cause also they need to be explained, if you want a sufficient explenation.

But it is important to note that you need to have some well established metaphysical framework to resolve this.
Like science itself I conform to the idea that the world itself is material in origin (as opposed to the idea that the world originates in the mind) and that all phenomena of the world (including our mind) are dependent on that.
And the existence of matter is in this worldview a postulate or axiom, which means matter itself is the origin of all things. Or almost, as the only 'things' which exist apart from the physical are abstract entities (like numbers), but that is a different existence category.
Matter is infinite and eternal. You can not destroy matter or create matter. It can only be transformed.
Further matter is always in motion/change. And appearently space and time are there as the modes of existence of matter. So that is basically what the world is about.

Note that a question as to what is the origin of matter, is not a sensible question, as it is posed that matter IS the original substance, the world is made of.
A different question is, what exactly is matter, and what laws govern it's motion. That is a physics question.

 

[Kenny_L]

And the existence of matter is in this worldview a postulate or axiom, which means matter itself is the origin of all things. Or almost, as the only 'things' which exist apart from the physical are abstract entities (like numbers), but that is a different existence category. Matter is infinite and eternal. You can not destroy matter or create matter. It can only be transformed.

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?