Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

8 Great Philosophical Questions


Anomalocaris

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

Philosophy goes where hard science can't, or won't. Philosophers have a license to speculate about everything from metaphysics to morality, and this means they can shed light on some of the basic questions of existence. The bad news? These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension.

See more

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"there's no reason to believe that we only have one shot at this thing called life." There's nothing pointing to it being the case, though. If something has absolutely no supporting evidence (life after death) and all current evidence pointing to the alternative (death being the end), it has no leg to stand on. An afterlife is not as equally probable as a lack of afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...free will is real and achievable as long as your expectations aren't unrealistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2016 at 5:58 AM, Podo said:

"there's no reason to believe that we only have one shot at this thing called life." There's nothing pointing to it being the case, though. If something has absolutely no supporting evidence (life after death) and all current evidence pointing to the alternative (death being the end), it has no leg to stand on. An afterlife is not as equally probable as a lack of afterlife.

That's what I used to think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for life after death, our life itself is incredibly unlikely. Given a universe 13.8 billion years after its creation, and given the randomness of the evolution of this universe, and the randomness of biological evolution on this planet, and the randomness of all the past generations to produce you right now... There are countless unpredictable coincidences that produced you.

On the other hand, here you are. So, what does this mean? You being alive is as mysterious as why is there something rather than nothing. If there is something (which there seems to be), and you are something within this something, it is likely there are many iterations of this something (just one universe existing seems to me unlikely).

Is it not possible that there are many iterations of you as well? If you exist in this universe, and there are many universes, the likelihood of you appearing in many of them is as likely as your appearance in this one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I find it truly puzzling why people think this to be an "unanswerable question". 'Nothing' cannot exist.

The ridiculousness of this question lies in the first 3 words,"Why is there...". This presumes a state of existence, therefore the answer can only be "Because nothing cannot exist."

Is our universe real?

Of course it is. We have defined "real" as "existing (testably real) for us". Whether we, and the reality we inhabit, is a figment of Descartes Evil Genius' vivid imagination, what we are able to test to be "real" undoubtedly is. The only way this question could be phrased so as to be dubious in its answer, is if it was put to us by the Evil Genius.

Does God exist?

Unquestionably, yes. Oh, I do not mean that some guy-in-the-sky is a bona fide existence and determines our lives (and afterlives), but the very inability of ourselves to arrive at a strict, and common, determination as to what "god" is - and I don't mean the deity of some specific belief, but what actually is the defining characteristic of "god" as some entity distinct from any belief. The only characteristic of "god" that is common to any belief, is that it is believed to be "god". So, as long as something is believed to be "god", no matter what that something is, then "god" exists. "God" is just a noun that can be substituted for any other noun.

Is there life after death?

By definition, no. Death is defined as being the cessation of life so, if life were to continue following what we believe to be death, then what has occurred is not actual death. The question itself is illogical.

Can you really experience anything objectively?

This is one of the more interesting questions, and I would tentatively suggest the answer is "Yes". A reason I would suggest this, which may seem ridiculous and not being paid attention to by academia in such a regard, is the advent of the MMO virtual environment where two (or more) separate consciousness' can interact in an environment which is divorced from our world of the physical senses. That such interactions can be agreed to have occurred by each individual - and recorded to have happened in a medium that is not dependent on the subjective experience of any of them - I think qualifies the affirmative answer.

What are numbers?

I tend towards the "abstract" school of thought with regards numbers. My opinion is they are symbolic representations of value and do not, in and of themselves, exist.

The only two questions which I believe to be truly "unanswerable" in the list provided are questions 3 and 7. The first because the subject cannot be separated from the object of the question, and the second because it requires foreknowledge (and knowing the future is impossible) to be able to be answered.

 

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 i believe this universe is a cycle in which every cycle adds new information to make the next cycle more effcient . Humans living thier same lifes again and again. In this cycle humans would eventually would make the best decisions faster resulting in faster and faster advances in technology. See while we destroy the planet in this cycle. The next cycle we would develop cleaner more effcient energy faster preventing any catastrophic decisions we made in the last cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

find it truly puzzling why people think this to be an "unanswerable question". 'Nothing' cannot exist.

The ridiculousness of this question lies in the first 3 words,"Why is there...". This presumes a state of existence, therefore the answer can only be "Because nothing cannot exist."

I agree with you in the way you state your post, but cannot there 'be' "the absence of Something"? That would mean non-existence. Is non-existence possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I agree with you in the way you state your post, but cannot there 'be' "the absence of Something"? That would mean non-existence. Is non-existence possible?

 

While my answer might sound a bit counter-intuitive, I would suggest it is possible - but only in the subjective sense. For example, currently "I" exist. If "I" were to die, then "I" cease to exist. There is a non-existence of "I".

However, that non-existence of "I" does not suggest the non-existence of anything else. If you were asking if it is possible that there is a lack of anything (i.e. an objective "nothing"), then I would say "No, such a state is not possible."

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

While my answer might sound a bit counter-intuitive, I would suggest it is possible - but only in the subjective sense. For example, currently "I" exist. If "I" were to die, then "I" cease to exist. There is a non-existence of "I".

However, that non-existence of "I" does not suggest the non-existence of anything else. If you were asking if it is possible that there is a lack of anything (i.e. an objective "nothing"), then I would say "No", such a state is not possible.

I would think Nothing would be more probable than Something. Of course, there is Something, so I could be mistaken. I think the basis of our reality or our Something is more counter-intuitive than we imagine or can imagine. For instance:

Tribar.jpg

In this image the local reality can exist, but the global reality cannot exist. Perhaps our Something is this local reality that exists because it can, as the image demonstrates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I would think Nothing would be more probable than Something. Of course, there is Something, so I could be mistaken. I think the basis of our reality or our Something is more counter-intuitive than we imagine or can imagine. For instance:

Tribar.jpg

In this image the local reality can exist, but the global reality cannot exist. Perhaps our Something is this local reality that exists because it can, as the image demonstrates. 

I feel you're digressing to a different topic here, SMK. The question "Why is there something instead of nothing" makes no assumptions regarding the objective or subjective nature of "reality", and whether reality is objective (global) or subjective (local) is irrelevant to it's existence. The only point relevant to the question is why there is not nothing, and that is because there can never be "nothing". In what can "nothing" be? And if there is something is which nothing is, then there cannot be nothing - so the assumption that nothing can be (exist) is shown to be false. Emptiness is not nothing, it's just the absence of anything else other than space (or spacetime).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leonardo said:

I feel you're digressing to a different topic here, SMK. The question "Why is there something instead of nothing" makes no assumptions regarding the objective or subjective nature of "reality", and whether reality is objective (global) or subjective (local) is irrelevant to it's existence. The only point relevant to the question is why there is not nothing, and that is because there can never be "nothing". In what can "nothing" be? And if there is something is which nothing is, then there cannot be nothing - so the assumption that nothing can be (exist) is shown to be false. Emptiness is not nothing, it's just the absence of anything else other than space (or spacetime).

I don't think I am digressing, because I'm not speaking about objective or subjective reality. Our local, existent reality could be manifested from some entirely separate realm we cannot imagine, even a non-existence as considered in opposition to existence.

I think Nothing considered as non-existence is as possible as Something as considered as existence. Space itself is a Something, but is not the absence of space an equal possibility?

As you infer, Nothing cannot exist as a 'thing', it is the absence of 'things'. Just absence. A non-presence. I do not consider this an impossibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StarMountainKid said:

I don't think I am digressing, because I'm not speaking about objective or subjective reality. Our local, existent reality could be manifested from some entirely separate realm we cannot imagine, even a non-existence as considered in opposition to existence.

I think Nothing considered as non-existence is as possible as Something as considered as existence. Space itself is a Something, but is not the absence of space an equal possibility?

As you infer, Nothing cannot exist as a 'thing', it is the absence of 'things'. Just absence. A non-presence. I do not consider this an impossibility. 

It doesn't matter if "our reality" manifests from somewhere else - it exists as our reality and it is something, not nothing. The questions is not about "what is our reality", but why there is something and not nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

It doesn't matter if "our reality" manifests from somewhere else - it exists as our reality and it is something, not nothing. The questions is not about "what is our reality", but why there is something and not nothing.

So, you cannot reply to my definition of 'nothing" as non-existence, as opposed to something as existence? I think this is relevant to the question "Why there is something and not nothing", because first we must define the terms "something" and  "nothing", as we are trying to do.

If, as you say, "nothing" cannot exist, then the question becomes meaningless. I just do not consider this question trivial, and I think these definitions important. I consider Something,"existence", and Nothing, "non-existence", equal realities by my definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StarMountainKid said:

So, you cannot reply to my definition of 'nothing" as non-existence, as opposed to something as existence? I think this is relevant to the question "Why there is something and not nothing", because first we must define the terms "something" and  "nothing", as we are trying to do.

If, as you say, "nothing" cannot exist, then the question becomes meaningless. I just do not consider this question trivial, and I think these definitions important. I consider Something,"existence", and Nothing, "non-existence", equal realities by my definitions.

How can you? As I have said, in the context of the question the concepts "Something" and "Nothing" are entirely distinct from the concept "reality", and it digresses from the question to conflate them. "Reality" is the subjective experience of existence, while "Something" and "Nothing" are descriptors for an alleged objective existence (or non-existence) of anything/everything. In this regard, there can be no question that the possibility of "something" and "nothing" existing cannot be "equal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

How can you? As I have said, in the context of the question the concepts "Something" and "Nothing" are entirely distinct from the concept "reality", and it digresses from the question to conflate them. "Reality" is the subjective experience of existence, while "Something" and "Nothing" are descriptors for an alleged objective existence (or non-existence) of anything/everything. In this regard, there can be no question that the possibility of "something" and "nothing" existing cannot be "equal".

I don't want to get involved in official philosophical definitions here. If we define "reality" as the subjective experience of an alleged objective existence, and we define this alleged objective existence as "Something", then I would submit that non-existence or Nothing can be equally defined as the absence of this Something, subjectively experienced or not. 

It seems that this alleged objective existence as Something exists with or without our subjective experience, so I would consider subjective experience irrelevant to the subject at hand. At any rate, existence implies non-existence as its corollary, and in my view, non-existence as reality is as probable or improbable as existence. 

In the end, I suppose, all this is a matter of opinion. My fundamental opinion is that neither exists. It's all an meta-quantum mechanical illusion, an abstraction or iteration of elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I don't want to get involved in official philosophical definitions here. If we define "reality" as the subjective experience of an alleged objective existence, and we define this alleged objective existence as "Something", then I would submit that non-existence or Nothing can be equally defined as the absence of this Something, subjectively experienced or not.

Which is why I said in an earlier post that "non-existence is possible only subjectively". However, the philosophical question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" does not make any distinction between subjective and objective "reality", so you are effectively redefining the question to ask a different question.

In answering the question as posed, the only possible (in my opinion, "correct") answer is "Because nothing does not - can not - exist."

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Which is why I said in an earlier post that "non-existence is possible only subjectively". However, the philosophical question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" does not make any distinction between subjective and objective "reality", so you are effectively redefining the question to ask a different question.

In answering the question as posed, the only possible (in"Because my opinion, "correct") answer is "Because nothing does not - can not - exist."

I mentioned "subjective" and "objective" because you mentioned these terms. I think Something and Nothing imply realities and this is why I brought up this term. To answer the question as posed, (in my opinion, the "correct") answer is, "No one knows, any answer is speculation."

Our discussion is your opinion as opposed to my opinion, no matter how thoughtfully we defend our positions. "Because nothing does not - can not - exist", to my mind is too rigid a position to hold. I think there are more possibilities that can be rationally considered, as Nature always has its own surprises that are often counter-intuitive to previous philosophical dogma. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

I mentioned "subjective" and "objective" because you mentioned these terms. I think Something and Nothing imply realities and this is why I brought up this term. To answer the question as posed, (in my opinion, the "correct") answer is, "No one knows, any answer is speculation."

Our discussion is your opinion as opposed to my opinion, no matter how thoughtfully we defend our positions. "Because nothing does not - can not - exist", to my mind is too rigid a position to hold. I think there are more possibilities that can be rationally considered, as Nature always has its own surprises that are often counter-intuitive to previous philosophical dogma. 

"Nothing" cannot ever be something "natural", because it cannot be "something". The answer to the question can only be considered speculative if one redefines "nothing" to be "something that we do not know or understand".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 0:38 PM, Habitat said:

That's what I used to think. 

Until you gave it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people assume there should be nothing? That to me doesn't make sense and is a loaded question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we can consider another definition of Nothing, a sort of thought experiment.

Let’s imagine the multi-universe theory is correct, and Something is an infinite number of universes packed together so as there is no dimensional space-time between them, and this situation has always existed extended in infinite space and time. This Something is all there is.

I think here we have to stop and consider the limitations of human imagination and conceptual ability. All this infinite Something may actually be a pinpoint in some larger infinity of Something Else that is beyond our capability to comprehend.

Our Something may be a momentary flicker of this Something Else lasting only a nano-second in this larger eternity, a tiny random fluctuation. In this scenario, we could consider this Something Else “Nothing”, because it is not the Something we can comprehend. It would be like trying to see beyond the limits of the periphery of our vision. To our vision, what is behind our heads is non-existence.

Something Else may not be an actual Nothing, but we can't define it as Something, either. So, in effect for us, not being able to conceptualize it, in this sense it would be a Nothing, if you follow my reasoning. A Nothing that our Something manifested from.

Does not the counter-intuitiveness of the quantum scale of Something give us some indication that conventional reasoning cannot comprehend the fundamental construct of our Something? It is not a great leap therefore to consider Nothing or non-existence as a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StarMountainKid said:

In this scenario, we could consider this Something Else “Nothing”, because it is not the Something we can comprehend. It would be like trying to see beyond the limits of the periphery of our vision.

Something - even if it is something we cannot understand, perceive or comprehend - cannot be nothing. In the sense of the question being asked, "Nothing" is absolute and not conditional on any limitation of our senses.

Quote

To our vision, what is behind our heads is non-existence.

This is dangerously close to solipsism. If someone standing behind you were to throw a rock at your head, are you suggesting that rock would not exist, even if it were to hit you and cause you to bleed?

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Something - even if it is something we cannot understand, perceive or comprehend - cannot be nothing. In the sense of the question being asked, "Nothing" is absolute and not conditional on any limitation of our senses.

This is dangerously close to solipsism. If someone standing behind you were to throw a rock at your head, are you suggesting that rock would not exist, even if it were to hit you and cause you to bleed?

I was trying to compare our sense of Something as opposed to Not-Something, which may not be absolute Nothing, but could be considered a Nothing compared to our complete lack of comprehension of it.

If you are standing in a unfamiliar room, without turning around to see what is behind you, you cannot describe what is behind you. What is behind you is for your vision a non-existence. If you are not aware of something, it becomes a nothing to your senses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2016 at 6:41 PM, Leonardo said:

Which is why I said in an earlier post that "non-existence is possible only subjectively".

In answering the question as posed, the only possible (in my opinion, "correct") answer is "Because nothing does not - can not - exist."

Isn't 'non-existence is possible only subjectively', assuming you mean total non-existence, a contradiction?  Doesn't 'subjectively' require a 'subject' which is a 'something' which contradicts 'non-existence'?

I'm not clear on why 'nothing cannot exist' unless it's just the phrasing;  does, 'there could have been nothing' have the same issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.