Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why do I feel nothing instead of something?
Why does there have to be a why?
>>1266868
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
Thanks to the Big Bang. Which presumably was some kind of Quantum Fluctuation, Thanks Physics ;_;
>>1266868
Nothingness "exists" too but it wouldn't if there wasn't something. So there's something because there is nothing but we cannot imagine and know what nothingness is because we're apart of the "something".
>>1266919
>Nothingness "exists" too but it wouldn't if there wasn't something.
But do we even know? Maybe everything we can see are false vacuums? Maybe there is no true 100% energy-less vacuum
>>1266924
Nothingness is everything that isn't occupied by properties of the Universe.
>>1266868
Why not?
There is no answer to this question.
>>1266929
>Nothingness is everything that isn't occupied by properties of the Universe.
Which can't work as long as we are inside the universe. If it had no properties of the Universe, it wouldn't be in our universe
>>1266933
Only if you think Universe is everything that is real. Nothingness is apart of our realm. It works on a dialectical level and it's an ontological question, positivism won't provide a valid answer.
>>1266939
Well there is no Falsifiability(Popper) or prove that they exist(Alder's razor). So we are going into Philosophy here and now the rules change completely
>>1266952
It's a metaphysical question. We've been into philosophy since he asked it but you seem to insist with a purely materialistic, positivist answer. Science explains what is observed but it's useless once you get into ontological questions, it reduces everything to what our senses percieve.
>>1266868
Tetralemma
>>1266868
nature abhors a vacuum
>>1266918
>implying this answers anything
Tips fedora
>>1267362
It's the best we have.
>>1266918
>Thanks to the Big Bang.
That explains why there is something big and mostly empty and cold instead of something small and very dense and hot.
>>1267385
That answer is pure garbage; attempting to answer anything scientifically without the proper background makes you look like an autist.
I get the feeling that the idea of an ALTERNATIVE to existence, ie "non-existence" or "nothing" is just literally a mistake of the mind.
>>1267385
The big bang doesn't explain where the universe came from. It explains how it got into its present state. Answering the OP with "the big bang" would be like answering "where did you get that coffee from?" with "my car".
>>1267503
B-b-but le epin science man said...
>>1266868
>Why
A "Why" question will never be answered satisfactory. Any answer I'd give will spawn infinitely many more questions.
Instead the question is how or what makes things bit closer to being answererable in an objective manner.
Lets say your question is "How is it possible that there is something instead of nothing"? The answer lies in the theory of fundamental reality like standard model. Standard model explains how objects come to exist and how they gain properties and such.
You could go further and ask what makes this possible. The answer is due to the mechanics of standard model. Which are based on uneven distribution of elementary particles creating random patterns. Then these random patterns start interacting with other random particles and things become as they are.
>>1267503
>The big bang doesn't explain where the universe came from
One theory is, that Quantum fluctuations over billions of years create a new big bang. And therefor the Universe never began and will never end. Obviously this is reaching into religion kind of guessing
>>1267503
Big bang answer should satisfy most people. Ofcourse what came before big bang is of great interest to the scientific community. There are some interesting theories into what goes on before big bang. String theory is one contender thats somewhat popular and has some mathematical explanations and some experimental backings. Things like multi-verse comes into play when we get beyond the universe and into the realms of pure mathematical explanation.
Even then most people who weren't satisfied with big bang would be satisfied with that answer. However there will be the portion that will ask, what about before those multiverse. The questions can never truly be answered because our capacity, our science hasn't matured to that level yet. This means, the theories are being tested and the solutions don't make sense accordingly to our current knowledge and theoretical limits. Any answer would be beyond absurd at this point forward.
>>1267624
>what's going on, what is all this
>dude particles lmao
Just stop
>>1267651
Muh multiverse
>why is this book here
>there's actually an infinite amount of books, QED
lol
>>1266868
mysterious ways XDD
>>1266868
there is nothing, none of this is actually happening
>>1267753
If we don't know, the answer is we don't know. People can speculate all they want, but calling multiverse or any other thing as an answer for something we don't know yet doesn't make you different from someone who claims that a god did it.
For now is we don't know, and should stay this way until we have a good reason to say otherwise.
>>1267776
>I don't know therefore no one else knows
Stop being so limited. Multiverse is not for the retards or non-physists/non-mathematicians
The criteria for what is "known" and not depends on specialization/field. Each individual will have different criteria and therefore what you know is not the limit of human knowledge.
>>1267836
Oh, so you know it to be true? Can you prove it? If so that's marvelous, just publish a paper on it and get the approval of the scientific community.
>>1267753
It makes perfect sense, it just doesn't answer the question
