Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[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?

 

[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