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 -
Pettytalk

Why is there existence, rather than nothing?

236 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

lightly
2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

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!

      I just gotta ask nerd,   ...does it explain where the simulators reside?   Do they also dwell within this simulated universe?  Do they exist in another "universe"?      What do proponents of the theory say?   What do you think?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
4 minutes ago, lightly said:

does it explain where the simulators reside?   Do they also dwell within this simulated universe?  Do they exist in another "universe"?

The key component in the hypothesis is a super computer - where we are. The simulators are the administrators of it.
That means they can't be in our universe, as little as you can be physically in your computer.
They are in another universe! A universe that could be totally different from ours!

Quote

What do proponents of the theory say?   What do you think?

Some proponents think it's an ancestor simulation - or that it's a digital prison.

Personally I refuse to hold an opinion to something, without evidence. I can just ascertain that the model is very complete, elegant and likely.
But despite of me liking it a lot, I do not consider it as the truth. It is just the best answer I have right now. Should a better answer emerge, I will dismiss this one. (Or move it down on my probability list.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
29 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

The key component in the hypothesis is a super computer - where we are. The simulators are the administrators of it.
That means they can't be in our universe, as little as you can be physically in your computer.
They are in another universe! A universe that could be totally different from ours!

And yet, where did they come from? That's the problem. The simulation theory is almost religious. Might as well just call the admin God and be done with it. Still wouldn't answer Why and Where they came from. Just another blind leap down an infinite rabbit hole.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

And yet, where did they come from? That's the problem. The simulation theory is almost religious. Might as well just call the admin God and be done with it. Still wouldn't answer Why and Where they came from. Just another blind leap down an infinite rabbit hole.

Where they come from is not our problem. As I said earlier, the job of science is to figure our universe out. Everything else is metaphysics, like the time before the big bang.

The theory holds a few similarities with religion, but it is also very different. The admin is most probably mortal and fallible, and he/she/it doesn't give a **** about what we do, and does not need our faith.

You can think about it what you will, but you can't make its reality more or less probable. Either it is so, or it's not. Your opinion changes nothing.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Where they come from is not our problem. As I said earlier, the job of science is to figure our universe out. Everything else is metaphysics, like the time before the big bang.

The theory holds a few similarities with religion, but it is also very different. The admin is most probably mortal and fallible, and he/she/it doesn't give a **** about what we do, and does not need our faith.

You can think about it what you will, but you can't make its reality more or less probable. Either it is so, or it's not. Your opinion changes nothing.

I think it's just a poor excuse. A sad attempt to make sense of something no one can. I'm beginning to think science is just another attempt to validate god. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I think it's just a poor excuse. A sad attempt to make sense of something no one can. I'm beginning to think science is just another attempt to validate god. 

Science actually started as a branch of philosophy. "To understand God's nature."
They failed to find evidence of God, so in the late 1800's they quit looking, and since then, science has just been about understanding nature.
Science does not deny God. It just considers him unfalsifiable/unprovable. Most scientists consider him very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 hours ago, lightly said:

. . . . . . . .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.    

FOR what cause. That's purpose. Your mususing the term again. 

You tell me the purpose of a mountain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I think it's just a poor excuse. A sad attempt to make sense of something no one can. I'm beginning to think science is just another attempt to validate god. 

This sort of nonsense is. The universe does not look designed at all. There's just not good reason to consider something a valid option just because someone can think up a particular scenario. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Science actually started as a branch of philosophy. "To understand God's nature."
They failed to find evidence of God, so in the late 1800's they quit looking, and since then, science has just been about understanding nature.
Science does not deny God. It just considers him unfalsifiable/unprovable. Most scientists consider him very unlikely.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

The only good that comes from philosophy is finding one's own model for living life. 

Science is a game of infinite questions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain”

Richard Feynman

 

Philosophy might not be taken very serious by the science elite, but that is just natural hubris. They have everything going their way right now. Almost.
I enjoy it with them. But to rule out philosophy is too soon. Philosophy still has a vital role to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Science actually started as a branch of philosophy. "To understand God's nature."
They failed to find evidence of God, so in the late 1800's they quit looking, and since then, science has just been about understanding nature.
Science does not deny God. It just considers him unfalsifiable/unprovable. Most scientists consider him very unlikely.

You owe the existence of the hard and soft sciences to the occult. The occult used to be about experimentation, philosophy, alchemy (early chemistry), it even has psychology. The occultist used to be the ancient polymath. Even being a doctor. Creating mixture they thought would cure illnesses. They were the first scientist. 

Now the occult is a joke.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
56 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain”

Richard Feynman

 

Philosophy might not be taken very serious by the science elite, but that is just natural hubris. They have everything going their way right now. Almost.
I enjoy it with them. But to rule out philosophy is too soon. Philosophy still has a vital role to play.

What do you see as its main value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What do you see as its main value. 

Translating science to the masses. Explaining why "this discovery" has importance.
Acting as a bridge between the layman and the scientist.
And to set the course for new ventures.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

FOR what cause. That's purpose. Your mususing the term again. 

You tell me the purpose of a mountain. 

Psyche,

I wish I had included  all of the meanings of why listed in my dictionary... I did a couple posts further down on page 4. (Post # 96).. please look at that post and you will understand why it's ok to use the word why in relation to objective reality 

Here is the entire definition below....

1. For what purpose,reason or cause.   2. For which;   beCAUSE  of which.    The CAUSE  or intention. 

So...as you see why can can be used to ask for what purpose   OR  to ask as to the physical "mechanical" reason or cause of something.

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 by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Translating science to the masses. Explaining why "this discovery" has importance.
Acting as a bridge between the layman and the scientist.

You have lost me there. I'm not seeing philosophy in A Brief History of Time or A Universe From Nothing being applied like that? 

4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

And to set the course for new ventures.

Doesn't science already drive that direction? One thing leads to another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 minutes ago, lightly said:

Psyche,

I wish I had included  all of the meanings of why listed in my dictionary... I did a couple posts further down on page 4 ..please look at that post and you will understand why it's ok to use the word why in relation to objective reality 

Here is the entire definition below....

1. For what purpose,reason or cause.   2. For which;   beCAUSE  of which.    The CAUSE  or intention. 

So...as you see why can can be used to ask for what purpose   OR  to ask as to the physical "mechanical" reason or cause of something.

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.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really that thick? 

Because interjects the why. Your still mixing up mechanics and purpose. 

A mountain does not exist as a purpose of plate tectonics, its a result. One does not dance around 'why' one just asks the appropriate question I. E. How did a mountain come to be. 

Honestly, it's really quite simple. You can go on mixing up the two but you just look like you don't grasp the English language. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really that thick? 

Because interjects the why. Your still mixing up mechanics and purpose. 

A mountain does not exist as a purpose of plate tectonics, its a result. One does not dance around 'why' one just asks the appropriate question I. E. How did a mountain come to be. 

Honestly, it's really quite simple. You can go on mixing up the two but you just look like you don't grasp the English language. 

I 'm not being obtuse ...or "thick"..  You  have never asked why something happens to learn the cause?  Was it always to learn the purpose?

Why is the sky blue?   Why does water freeze?  Why did the dinosaurs die out?   Are there PURPOSES for each ?

of course not....but there are reasons and causes for each.     Do you understand yet how why can be used both ways?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

FOR what cause. That's purpose. Your mususing the term again. 

You tell me the purpose of a mountain. 

A mountain has no purpose.   A mountain is caused.

I am not misusing the "term"    it is proper English to use the word why to ask,   For what purpose.    OR     By what cause.    

Once again, here is the entire description of why from my dictionary ....

Why 

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

     ...For which   (purpose)      because of which   (cause)         The CAUSE     .  .or  intention.

 

 

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bendy Demon

It is true that 'something' cannot arise from 'nothing'...not even alchemy (think FullMetal Alchemist...not sayin' it's real tho) can produce an object without materials of some sort to work with.

You cannot even make a loaf of bread just by thinking about it. You still need, theoretically, the atoms and molecules to construct the ingredients and no energy can transfer if there is no medium whatsoever to utilize and of course a massive amount (from a human point of view anyways) to bond said molecules together.

"God" is purely a human construct..a metaphor used to try and explain the world to, back then, the illiterate and ignorant masses. Now days it is used to keep people from actually thinking about reality and focusing on more metaphors.

Kinda like looking at the "Beware of Dog" sign that shows a snarling dog. Reality says it is a warning to look out for the real dog that is waiting to have you for lunch whereas religion tells you to stop paying attention to the real dog and be afraid of the image of the snarling dog.

Is it really so scary to think that we are the result of millions of years of evolutionary refinement? I would think it is rather awesome to know that we, as well as any being is the result of adaptations, selective breeding and even survivors of the ancestor species we branched from.

Anywhoo..I digress..I have said before that there is no such thing as "nothing" and you cannot make something from a total absence of molecules, atoms, quarks and even so-called 'strings'. This does not mean that therefore some anthropomorphic thing made it all and even if it did..it cannot do it without existing energy of some sort to transmute.

 

17 hours ago, lightly said:

Why is the sky blue?  

"Cause if it was green we'd never know where to stop mowing. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

@sci-nerd. What is the evidence suggesting a simulation ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

@sci-nerd. What is the evidence suggesting a simulation ?

Thanks for using the word 'suggesting', because they are not at all conclusive, especially not on their own. They're first gaining weight when they're combined.

The primary piece of evidence is particle duality. The fact that reality seems to be adjusting to us, the observers. Like in a video game, where the graphics is loaded when needed.
Three experiments have proven that the observer is the one making it happen: The delayed choice experiment. The delayed choice eraser experiment. And finally the Wigner's friend experiment. Former talk about instruments causing it, is disproven by those experiments.

Then there is nonlocality. Two objects being connected over unlimited distance. That only makes sense, if they are both controlled from the same place. Like a GPU.

The third piece is the physical constants (including the speed of light). They are very specific and must be so to allow stars to form and life to emerge. There are three choices: Either they came to be by incredible luck. Or this universe is just one of countless. Or they have been set by someone.

Fourth: All particles of the same class are totally identical. If that is not a sign of fabrication, then what is?

Fifth: The holographic principle. Everything that happens in our universe has an identical representation - or holograph for easier understanding - on the edge of the universe. That sounds an awfully lot like a flow of information. Like a video feed.

Sixth: Computer codes in supersymmetry equations. To describe our reality with supersymmetry, you need to add a specific type of computer code. One that corrects graphical errors.

Seventh: A mathematician named Brian Whitworth, once decided to investigate what kind of reality math points to. His conclusion was a virtual one.


Hope this is useful to you. It proves nothing, but if you combine them, it is pretty convincing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
13 hours ago, lightly said:

A mountain has no purpose.   A mountain is caused.

I am not misusing the "term"    it is proper English to use the word why to ask,   For what purpose.    OR     By what cause.    

Once again, here is the entire description of why from my dictionary ....

Why 

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

     ...For which   (purpose)      because of which   (cause)         The CAUSE     .  .or  intention.

 

 

I take it your not an English teacher. 

If you want to look foolish misusing the language, more power to you. I'll laugh at you with other people who know how to use it 

And you should read that dictionary definition again. Try doing it more slowly maybe. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 8/6/2019 at 12:51 AM, sci-nerd said:

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

Religions doesn't give a reason for existence or a recipe for salvation.  What religions provide is a meal ticket for shysters who like cross dressing (hence being "of the frock" and "defrocking").  As to this recipe, well, given that nothing after death can be verified, it can hardly be called a recipe if there is no proven outcome.   Salvation?  Try "sting".

Jim Jeffries on Atheism and Dead babies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
22 hours ago, lightly said:

 

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I take it your not an English teacher. 

If you want to look foolish misusing the language, more power to you. I'll laugh at you with other people who know how to use it 

And you should read that dictionary definition again. Try doing it more slowly maybe. 

     Maybe you should read the definition again psyche?  Earlier you claimed that , in the definition, the word "because" 

"interjects the why"...that is a nonsensical grammatical grasping at straws.  The word  "because" is a developed contraction of the meaning  By Cause.  (by cause of which)  ...please see,and understand,the description below once again.

 I am not misusing the "term"    it is proper English to use the word why to ask,   For what purpose.    OR     By what cause.    

Once again, here is the entire description of why from my dictionary ....

Why 

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

     2. For which   (purpose)      because of which   (cause)         The CAUSE     .  .or  intention.

        Are you seriously still clinging to the claim that the Only proper use of the word  Why.. is to inquire as to Purpose?

The definition clearly states that "why" can inquire as to purpose OR cause.   "The Cause or intention".

 Purpose is usually associated with intention   ....but not always.  the shells of snails and turtles have purpose,but not intention?    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.