Why is there existence, rather than nothing?

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

Yeah I'm inclined to believe this as well although I do leave the door ajar and while Science has made leaps and bounds in progress we still have too many unanswered questions. 

Not so much regarding death or God. Appeals to authority keeps those ideas alive, but there are no university lectures in the possible role God played in the creation of the universe or possibilities that lead to afterlife theories. What we do know negates these old ideas and unless all we know is wrong, they stand well supported. I just can't see the basics being wrong. Not to say such would not be accepted if supporting evidence was to show up. That sounds Definitive sure, but evidence supports these conclusions. There are unanswered questions for sure, it's a big universe, but that doesn't mean what we do know is wrong. 

Leaving the door ajar is what we do. That's why I find the terms teapot agnostic or Toothfairy agnostic preferable. The likely hood that God exists is equal to the Toothfairy existing, or a teapot in orbit of the sun with Mars 

Quote

Probably the biggest of them all even more than 'what is the Universe' is 'what is Reality.' 

Reality is everything in the universe. Like I say, the universe is a big place, so understanding all of it is very likely beyond our grasp. I think we need to focus on what affects the here and now, not what can be imagined. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by psyche101

[+Pettytalk]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Forget science. Forget God. This is the ultimate question: What if Everything had Forever been Nothing

 

Professor Krauss did not do that. 

Granted on Krauss, but I only cited the professor in response to a poster's negative comment on the ultimate question, since Krauss wrote a book on the basis of the question.

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Pettytalk said:

Granted on Krauss, but I only cited the professor in response to a poster's negative comment on the ultimate question, since Krauss wrote a book on the basis of the question.

Indeed  I got it when it came out and have had many discussions here concerning it.

On a side note, I wonder if Krausses legal issues are resolved yet? Haven't heard much from him in a while as a result of that debacle. 

Krauss has quite a few good lectures on YouTube concerning that subject too. 

[+Pettytalk]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why is a human question. Its silly and pointless. It's just ego driven. We don't ask why the moon exists, we ask how it came to be. 

Seeking to Know why anything exists helps in eventually knowing how and why it came to be. 

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Pettytalk said:

Seeking to Know why anything exists helps in eventually knowing how and why it came to be. 

That's a backwards approach though. Why matters to the asker, it doesn't matter to the object in question. It's ego driven. 

[Black Red Devil]

32 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not so much regarding death or God. Appeals to authority keeps those ideas alive, but there are no university lectures in the possible role God played in the creation of the universe or possibilities that lead to afterlife theories. What we do know negates these old ideas and unless all we know is wrong, they stand well supported. I just can't see the basics being wrong. Not to say such would not be accepted if supporting evidence was to show up. That sounds Definitive sure, but evidence supports these conclusions. There are unanswered questions for sure, it's a big universe, but that doesn't mean what we do know is wrong. 

Leaving the door ajar is what we do. That's why I find the terms teapot agnostic or Toothfairy agnostic preferable. The likely hood that God exists is equal to the Toothfairy existing, or a teapot in orbit of the sun with Mars 

No, the door is ajar for all possibilities but the God theory is the least of those possibilities in my mind.  It's not a matter of what we know is wrong, more like we don't have all the (scientific) answers.  Until then the what the universe, reality and existence are, are still work in progress   We don't know what 95% of the universe is (dark matter and dark energy) or if the universe is infinite.  Until less than 30 years ago we didn't even know if there were other planets outside our Solar system.  So much still to learn, but yeah, I don't think the God theory will give us the answers.

56 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Reality is everything in the universe. Like I say, the universe is a big place, so understanding all of it is very likely beyond our grasp. I think we need to focus on what affects the here and now, not what can be imagined. 

Reality is the universe and also the here and now, it's not imagination.  It's what we perceive.

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

I was pointing to personal "opinions" we may have on the ultimate question, as an opinion does not demand knowing.

An opinion doesn't require knowledge?  Seriously?!

[psyche101]

43 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

No, the door is ajar for all possibilities but the God theory is the least of those possibilities in my mind.

Sorry, probably not getting my point across well. Yes that's right, any evidence that shows up would be welcomed, even if it did mean everything we know is wrong. Same for God, but right now God's existence is as likely as the Toothfairy existing according to what we have learned. 

43 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

  It's not a matter of what we know is wrong, more like we don't have all the (scientific) answers. 

If we are wrong about things like the afterlife and God, then everything we have worked out would indeed need a rewrite  not simply additional information to add to what we know. 

43 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Until then the what the universe, reality and existence are, are still work in progress   We don't know what 95% of the universe is (dark matter and dark energy) or if the universe is infinite. 

Its not something we ant learn though. We know dark matter exists even though we don't know what it exactly is, but we can detect and measure it. 

Like the half century chase after the Higgs. We can work out from other things what should exist and even where to find it. 

43 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Until less than 30 years ago we didn't even know if there were other planets outside our Solar system.  So much still to learn, but yeah, I don't think the God theory will give us the answers.

It was only 1925 when we worked out that the galaxy was not the entire universe. Sure we keep learning but what we have learned does give us a more than reasonable picture to extrapolate from. 

43 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Reality is the universe and also the here and now, it's not imagination.  It's what we perceive.

But we cannot embrace it all. The universe is just too big. What is immediate to us matters. If physics changes at the centre of a back hole, that doesn't change how it works here is what I'm saying. Current discoveries lead us in certain directions. None of those support God or afterlife concepts, they are well and truly superseded. 

[Alchopwn]

If you look at the Universe there is an awful lot of nothing to every bit of something.  If you further look at every bit of matter, you see it is composed of an awful lot of nothing to every bit of something.  If you even look at atoms, the nothing to something ratio is pretty much all nothing.  The closer one looks, the more something begins to look a lot like nothing.  

To somewhat explain this, I recommend the work of a Physicist called Colin Guillespie LINK: Time One: Discover how the Universe Began who says that matter is created by the curvature of spacetime.  His argument is persuasive.

[Alchopwn]

On 8/1/2019 at 7:15 AM, XenoFish said:

That's cute and all but tell me this. How does the observer exist? If you have to observe something to for it to exist. Then what in the hell is self-awareness. Because without something objective to observe things, nothing would exist. Yet meteors and asteroids that near miss our planet obvious exist without us observing them till it's a close call or too late. Quantum woo. 

The so-called observer is not so much a "human eyeball with a mind attached" as the process of quantum measurement.  LINK

I assume you know that Xeno, I am posting this for those who didn't quite understand the woo.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Alchopwn

[XenoFish]

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

understand the woo.

The woo is the problem People like to use quantum as a catch all for a lot of woo. It annoys me. Same goes for people claiming empathy is a psychic power...

[zep73]

On 1.8.2019 at 1:38 AM, XenoFish said:

Welcome to your first rodeo. Trust me. If I didn't enjoy your post I could've been a lot harsher. 

Second rodeo really. The first was the thread I started with back then, which you brought back up in this. But then again, this is quite pale in comparison. It was late last we spoke, I was tired, and you were two at once against me.

On 1.8.2019 at 4:57 AM, psyche101 said:

I don't think I've used any tricks at all. Not sure what your referring to. Just calling it as I see it 

You pulled the woo-card. But never mind. Forget it. I hold no grudges.

[zep73]

On 1.8.2019 at 1:20 AM, psyche101 said:

I see you totally avoided the question posed to you hence..... 

If you lack the fortitude to finish what you started, so be it. Duly noted. 

Yes it is. The why, and the simulation stuff is just another version of religion removing boundaries to make concepts that don't work work. It's like I'D proponents who protest at being called creationists, yet its exactly what they are. 

So tell me, why does a mountain exist? 

Is there any point to that question? No. There is a point in asking 'how does a mountain come to be'. 

What question did I avoid? Please ask again!
What did I not finish? I need a reminder.

"The simulation stuff" is taken very serious by several scientists, and there has been made some work to seek evidence. There's even been found evidence, where no one was looking. So it's not woo, and it's not a new religion. It has no dogmas, no divinity and nothing sacred. It's just an alternative model of reality.

[Alchopwn]

18 hours ago, XenoFish said:

The woo is the problem People like to use quantum as a catch all for a lot of woo. It annoys me. Same goes for people claiming empathy is a psychic power...

LOL, So you dislike the idea that empathy is a psychic power, I agree.  One of my pet peeves is the notion of "emotional intelligence", remember that little debacle?  I also loathe the whole quantum physics=magic crew, especially Deepthroat Chopra and his mission to culturally appropriate the world's mythologies into a single new age blob of ignorance promotion.  As someone who values the cultures of the world, I think he is a disgusting vandal as well as a charlatan.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Alchopwn

[lightly]

On July 31, 2019 at 7:20 PM, psyche101 said:

 

So tell me, why does a mountain exist? 

Is there any point to that question? No. There is a point in asking 'how does a mountain come to be'. 

Why does a mountain exist?  ..BeCAUSE of plate tectonics. Geological forces CAUSE areas of the earth to move and override each other.

How does a mountain come to be ?    Same way.

 There is nothing wrong with using the word why in relation to objective reality?   Why does rain fall?  ..beCAUSE gravity makes it fall.    How does rain fall?   Down.

i know, it's just semantics I suppose... I'm just finicky that way.  

.. . .  . Why can go to the cause.    How can go to the process.

Edited August 4, 2019 by lightly

[XenoFish]

22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

LOL, So you dislike the idea that empathy is a psychic power, I agree.  One of my pet peeves is the notion of "emotional intelligence", remember that little debacle?  I also loathe the whole quantum physics=magic crew, especially Deepthroat Chopra and his mission to culturally appropriate the world's mythologies into a single new age blob of ignorance promotion.  As someone who values the cultures of the world, I think he is a disgusting vandal as well as a charlatan.

Empathy and intuition both. They're normal functions, not super powers. The problem with magic/the occult is that instead of practicing traditions, most people use a Frankenstein's monster of beliefs, toss in some pseudo science (observer effect/quantum entanglement) and it 'makes' sense. It's a lot like the Law of Attraction, where positive thinking somehow magically has the power to affect/effect causal change without physical actions. If such nonsense were true, every little boy would be super hero, every little girl would have a pony, adults would be rich, beautiful, and have the life they wished. All effortlessly. It's pretty much the reason I dislike positive thinking too. 

Don't get me wrong, law of attraction, positive thinking, magick, and wishing can and do have an effect on consciousness. It's just that no matter how much you think about having a beach ready body, those love handles won't go away till you (not you directly) do something. 

The biggest issue I have with the use of the observer effect in regards to woo is the paradox it creates. If reality doesn't exist unless it's observed, then how does anything exist? Because in order for it to exist you need an observer but an observer can exist without being observed, so nothing exist. It pretty much cancels itself out. And that's how people think. They also want to believe if they think about say getting loads of money, that the very thought will make the money manifest effortlessly all due to quantum entanglement, which doesn't happen. In reality it's confirmation bias. 

So I think if you're going to go the whole intention-manifestation route, drop the pseudo-science and focus on psychology for your explanations. Even science doesn't know what the hell it's downing half the time. Due to the constant changes. Hell, half the time I think it's all guess work. At least interesting guess work. 

[psyche101]

On 8/3/2019 at 8:03 AM, sci-nerd said:

What question did I avoid? Please ask again!
What did I not finish? I need a reminder.

The purpose of why. 

On 8/3/2019 at 8:03 AM, sci-nerd said:

"The simulation stuff" is taken very serious by several scientists, and there has been made some work to seek evidence. There's even been found evidence, where no one was looking. So it's not woo, and it's not a new religion. It has no dogmas, no divinity and nothing sacred. It's just an alternative model of reality.

Its just as open to interpretation as religion. No matter how it is disproved on just answers with 'designers of the simulation allowed for that' which is the same thing as goddidit.

[psyche101]

14 hours ago, lightly said:

Why does a mountain exist?  ..BeCAUSE of plate tectonics. Geological forces CAUSE areas of the earth to move and override each other.

How does a mountain come to be ?    Same way.

 There is nothing wrong with using the word why in relation to objective reality?   Why does rain fall?  ..beCAUSE gravity makes it fall.    How does rain fall?   Down.

i know, it's just semantics I suppose... I'm just finicky that way.  

.. . .  . Why can go to the cause.    How can go to the process.

That's incorrect use of the English language. Why involves purpose, you're getting that mixed up with mechanics. You are staring how things come to be, not why they exist. 

[lightly]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's incorrect use of the English language. Why involves purpose, you're getting that mixed up with mechanics. You are staring how things come to be, not why they exist. 

. . . . . . . .Here is my post to which your above response was directed:

"Why does a mountain exist?  ..BeCAUSE of plate tectonics. Geological forces CAUSE areas of the earth to move and override each other.

How does a mountain come to be ?    Same way.

 There is nothing wrong with using the word why in relation to objective reality?   Why does rain fall?  ..beCAUSE gravity makes it fall.    How does rain fall?   Down.

   Why can go to the cause.    How can go to the process."

. . . . . . . . and here is the first listed dictionary definition of why..

 [1.For what purpose,reason,or cause.]

so, as you can see, why can go to purpose OR cause.    

Edited August 5, 2019 by lightly

[zep73]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The purpose of why.

I guess the purpose of 'why' is to solve the conundrums of science, where 'how' is a dead end, like:
- Why is gravity so weak, and causing so many problems in uniting quantum mechanics with relativity?
- Why is there so little anti-matter?
- Why does time only move forward?
- Why is there a wave state?
- Why does our universe have the exact constants that it does? (Could there be more universes?)
You can see the complete list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

But I do agree, that 'how' is the primary and best approach in science.

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Its just as open to interpretation as religion. No matter how it is disproved on just answers with 'designers of the simulation allowed for that' which is the same thing as goddidit.

I respectfully disagree. You're just biased against it.
If we are simulated, we can know absolutely nothing about the reason, or who the simulators are. So any attempt to guess or calculate it, is pointless.
Religion gives a reason for existence and a recipe for salvation. A simulated reality gives nothing, but a 'how'!

[lightly]

Psyche,

I'd better include all of the meanings of the word Why listed in my dictionary ...

 

1. For what purpose,reason or cause.   2. For which; . because of which.

       The CAUSE or intention. 

 

People ask why all the time . Are they always asking about the purpose of things?  

When someone asks..."Why is the sky blue"? Are they generally asking about the purpose of the sky appearing blue?....or the reasons or CAUSE?

---------------------------------------------------------

reason:  2.  An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sence for a premise or occurrence.

Edited August 5, 2019 by lightly

[lightly]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

 

Religion gives a reason for existence and a recipe for salvation. A simulated reality gives nothing, but a 'how'!

To my mind....the idea, or reality, of a simulated universe...begs the question...WHY?

....this time I am asking For what purpose or reason are the simulators simulating our universe?

Edited August 5, 2019 by lightly

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, lightly said:

To my mind....the idea, or reality, of a simulated universe...begs the question...WHY?

....this time I am asking For what purpose or reason are the simulators simulating our universe?

No one can answer that! But I could give you a list of probabilities, based on the 'they are like us' assumption.
I could also make a list, based on 'they are not like us'.

[Vorg]

If there was zero matter in the entire universe, dark matter, regular matter or any yet undiscovered matter, space would still be there. Without any consciousness it wouldn't cease to exist as it is just emptiness. However, yes. How did this matter come to be from seemingly nothingness? To claim it is because we are in a computer simulation would leave those that created us outside of the simulation with the same question. How did the matter they used to make our computer come to be?

It answers nothing.

[zep73]

15 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

To claim it is because we are in a computer simulation would leave those that created us outside of the simulation with the same question. How did the matter they used to make our computer come to be?

It answers nothing.

Science only has one job. To understand and explain our universe. Everything besides that is metaphysics.
The simulated reality ontology does an excellent job explaining our universe and solving all the problems - even if it raises metaphysical questions.
The big bang theory also raises metaphysical questions, but no scientist would ever dismiss it because of that!