Why is there existence, rather than nothing?

[lightly]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

.... . See previous post^

[VastLand]

In the start, among darkness, a multitude of collision, a chaos of no momentum, somewhere, choice was made, to unify. Among darkness, like an eye that opened, there was light, a conciousness, awareness, that, upon looking at the darkness, like a watery surface who reflected his face, he saw himself and was self aware. 

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, lightly said:

.... . See previous post^

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2019/03/01/debate-richard-dawkins-cardinal-george-pell-transcript/

[lightly]

O

53 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2019/03/01/debate-richard-dawkins-cardinal-george-pell-transcript/

       Thank you psyche,   I quickly skimmed all that and found the bit about it doesn't make sence to ask why mountains exist,as mountains have no purpose.  I understand that mountains have no purpose.   I'm sorry to bother you with all this....

if you would answer just one more question I promise to leave you,and the thread/topic in peace 

     Is this also a grammatically improper use of the word "why" ?  

"Wow Dad !  WHY is the pond covered in ice" ?! . . . "Well son, the REASON is, beCAUSE  it got below freezing all night."

        So it is always improper grammar to ask Why something happens to find out the reason or cause?

 

[lightly]

I can't help but think, incorrectly?, that when inquireing about Things or Events, Why can lead to answers that How cannot?

as I used earlier..... Why does rain "fall"?   ..Gravity.   How does rain fall?  ... Down.

why answers the reason or cause....and how answers the process?

[+Pettytalk]

On 8/5/2019 at 3:18 PM, psyche101 said:

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

You tell me the purpose of a mountain. 

To scale up on it?

[+Pettytalk]

On 8/5/2019 at 3:22 PM, psyche101 said:

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. 

What are the physical absolute laws for? Are not those very laws that we know of, so far, that which designed what you look upon as randomly occurring? How can anything governed by absolute laws be anything but what those laws intent to have happen?

Is not what we have in the universe the result of those very absolute tyrannical laws of nature? Random means without constraint, and laws, especially absolute ones, are very constraining. Just try to violate any of them, randomly or otherwise. Where there are laws there is reason and purpose, and so there is also a law maker for that purpose.

[+Pettytalk]

All roads are laid down with the purpose of making getting from one place to another easier, and vice versa. And all roads, especially the scientific one, lead to the One Cause and first principle. Because nothing can come to be without a cause, whether it's from nothing or from something.

[quiXilver]

why is there existence, rather than nothing?

 

awareness.

[lightly]

Doesn't predominant theory insist that nothing exists without an observer?   And then out of the other side of the mouth, it's said that the universe is 200 billion years old?   Only one of these statements can be true, in light of the other.        

?

 

 

[Alchopwn]

2 hours ago, quiXilver said:

why is there existence, rather than nothing?  awareness.

This presupposes that anything aware makes reality.  So that begs a large number of philosophical questions.  For example, how aware does one have to be?  For example, is an AI aware enough?  What about a cockroach?  How about a single celled organism?

Next, isn't this answer a form of mind over matter?  Couldn't there be matter existing without any mind to observe it?  You know, the way rocks exist under ground that no human has ever layed eyes on, or the way rocks exist in space that no human has ever seen either?

While Quantum Physics tells us about the importance of an observer in atomic and subatomic level interactions, that doesn't mean human awareness, it means a form of detection equipment being present.

[Free99]

I got one for you,, Start from the top of this and scan every reply and then go from the bottom back up. Does it remind you of anything? A conversation between two AI bots arguing about nothing LOL

[zep73]

On 8/5/2019 at 10:15 PM, 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.

By all logic, there is absolutely no reason for anything to exist. Existence is illogical. Things have to have a source. Something should not come from nothing.
But since there is something, it must have come from nothing at some point. You argue that this "nothing" started with our universe. A view point shared by most scientists.

The problem with that is that many things in our universe points to it being virtual. So either the universe has a virtual nature, or it is inside a computer in another universe.
You can then argue that the next universe is virtual too. But it does not need to be. If you remove one single thing from it, it can be real. Without quantum mechanics, there would be much less reason to think a universe was virtual.

So imagine the next universe as having no quantum mechanics. Then the VR nature of it is gone. The rabbit hole is gone. There is only one real universe, and the simulations created by civilisations inside it.

I am an atheist, and I despise the biblical god. So it annoys me when people make that comparison. Because there is no reason for it. We have made AI's ourselves, that might consider us as gods, but we know we are not. So why should we consider the simulators as such?

I know this is a pointless discussion. It just bothers me a lot that you call it a rabbit hole and compare it to theism. It doesn't deserve it.

[XenoFish]

Sorry, I quit caring about this thread after that post.

[+Pettytalk]

16 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

By all logic, there is absolutely no reason for anything to exist. Existence is illogical. Things have to have a source. Something should not come from nothing.
But since there is something, it must have come from nothing at some point. You argue that this "nothing" started with our universe. A view point shared by most scientists.

The problem with that is that many things in our universe points to it being virtual. So either the universe has a virtual nature, or it is inside a computer in another universe.
You can then argue that the next universe is virtual too. But it does not need to be. If you remove one single thing from it, it can be real. Without quantum mechanics, there would be much less reason to think a universe was virtual.

So imagine the next universe as having no quantum mechanics. Then the VR nature of it is gone. The rabbit hole is gone. There is only one real universe, and the simulations created by civilisations inside it.

I am an atheist, and I despise the biblical god. So it annoys me when people make that comparison. Because there is no reason for it. We have made AI's ourselves, that might consider us as gods, but we know we are not. So why should we consider the simulators as such?

I know this is a pointless discussion. It just bothers me a lot that you call it a rabbit hole and compare it to theism. It doesn't deserve it.

I think that your idea of all this being a virtual universe merits some serious consideration. This virtual idea is not new, although many like yourself have come to put some faith in the idea because our technology today shows that a virtual creation is not only possible, but a reality........pardon the expression.

[zep73]

37 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

many like yourself have come to put some faith in the idea

It's not faith. I just consider it to be very likely.
As a friend of mine once said: Maybe 'seemingly virtual' is the only way the universe can be.
The universe might not be a simulation, but it sure as hell acts like it.

[Coil]

On 7/31/2019 at 6:54 PM, sci-nerd said:

There can't have been nothing before everything, because there was potential.
Without that potential, there would still be nothing.

 

And how did the potential move into the form of a conscious manifestation of the universe?

 

[zep73]

1 hour ago, Coil said:

 

And how did the potential move into the form of a conscious manifestation of the universe?

 

What is that? "a conscious manifestation of the universe"? Define it, please.

[Coil]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

What is that? "a conscious manifestation of the universe"? Define it, please.

 

Well, in your opinion it turns out that since we were descended from a potential being, it means that this being has not yet developed into a conscious life, so I wanted to find out how this potential is able to awaken to the conscious life of the universe and also control it and lead the evolution of every galaxy, all planets in it and all creatures.

 

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Coil said:

 

Well, in your opinion it turns out that since we were descended from a potential being, it means that this being has not yet developed into a conscious life, so I wanted to find out how this potential is able to awaken to the conscious life of the universe and also control it and lead the evolution of every galaxy, all planets in it and all creatures.

 

I'm not talking about any being. I'm talking about potentiality itself.

[Coil]

59 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I'm not talking about any being. I'm talking about potentiality itself.

Well, just say in simple words how a potential can manifest the universe. Because I do not understand from your words why he needs it because every action should have a motive and purpose.

 

 

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Coil said:

Well, just say in simple words how a potential can manifest the universe. Because I do not understand from your words why he needs it because every action should have a motive and purpose.

He who?

Actions in nature never has a motive or purpose, unless there is an intelligence behind it.
We must assume that intelligence started with homo sapiens (because there is no evidence of any other). So prior to that, there was none.

Unless we are living in a simulation, of course.

[Coil]

12 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

He who?

Actions in nature never has a motive or purpose, unless there is an intelligence behind it.
We must assume that intelligence started with homo sapiens (because there is no evidence of any other). So prior to that, there was none.

Well, here we are. The wind is blowing and the lightning sparkles, and therefore Nature is unconscious? The spirits of nature would laugh at your words.
I’ll tell you a simple thing: Consciousness is behind Nature and matter, which organizes all this, otherwise no conscious life would have manifested because by sorting out accidents and combinations of amino acids you would not have created a rational being, therefore, from the first seconds of the universe, its path and necessary actions were already known to create a rational of life and we are proof of this initial and accomplished Plan and future achievements.

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, Coil said:

Consciousness is behind Nature and matter,

Who or what's consciousness and where did it come from? 

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, Coil said:

Nature is unconscious?

Yup. Deaf, dumb, blind and stupid. Totally random.

7 minutes ago, Coil said:

The spirits of nature would laugh at your words.

I know I can be funny, but never knew I was that funny!

9 minutes ago, Coil said:

I’ll tell you a simple thing: Consciousness is behind Nature and matter, which organizes all this, otherwise no conscious life would have manifested because by sorting out accidents and combinations of amino acids you would not have created a rational being, therefore, from the first seconds of the universe, its path and necessary actions were already known to create a rational of life and we are proof of this initial and accomplished Plan and future achievements.

Yada yada yada.... so you are superstitious. Have fun with that