What are your thoughts on existence? As in, why is there something instead of nothing? Why do we have a universe instead of nothingness?
Because atrophy hasnt wiped out everything yet.
Give the universe a few trillion years and absolute zero voids will start popping up.
>>464328
but wouldn't an absolute zero void still be surrounded by other things, therefore containing some unit of space, therefore being something rather than nothing?
>>464328
>atrophy
As for me, IDK man I think there's something to it all. Like I just suddenly exist as this naked monkey alien thing for 80 years and then don't exist forever again. Lmao what That sounds illogical to me I think we came from something to exist here
>>464347
It would have to not be surrounded. It has to touch outside the universe to actually be nothing.
>>464427
Nah, we just need to start invading solar sysyems.
>>464427
Yeah things existing is a really strange concept if you try and think about it. The universe is amazing, and life is even more amazing, and we have some understanding of how these things came around, but we don't seem to have any insight into why a universe (or pre-bang energy) even exists in the first place.
Maybe it's just something the human mind isn't meant to naturally grasp.
I give very little respect to metaphysics and my thoughts on the matter. That said, here are my thoughts.
What is nothing? The universe is defined by rules dictating what is possible and what isn't possible. Take away those rules and what is to stop everything from happening? Who is to say that everything hasn't happened? By everything I mean every logically consistent system, from a universe as simple to a single particle flashing in and out of existence to infinitely complex universes. Furthermore, all possible universes existing is a less convoluted answer to existence then trying to explain why a few things exist and not any of the infinitely other things that could exist.
>>464279
>metaphysics
I haven't looked into it at all to be honest.
At a glance, it all seems like a bunch of speculations.
>>464279
you do not know:
what why means
what know means
what means means
>>464279
/his/ had a* thread on this the other day. As I replied there, to no response:
> Why are you assuming that nothingness is even an alternative? How is the term "non-being" even conceivable? What are you thinking about when you (try to) think about absolute nothingness?
I'm not confident that the term "nothingness" is intelligible. It seems like a veiled self-contradiction, masquerading as a legitimate concept.
*shitty
>>464427
Where did the something we came from come from?
If existence requires something to bring it about, you either are self contradicting because whatever something brought you about must have something to create it too, so the problem is only moved back however many steps you think there are creators creating each other, or you need a base which always existed to start from.
If the second, I think it's either too abstract to meaningfully talk about, exists on a level which is on par with eldritch horror, a creature which would perceive you and your experiences as inconsequential and me
aningless, the way a child sees an ant. In any case, the idea demands we ask "If there even can be a base, given we have no evidence of previous creator levels, why not just use Occam's razor, assume they don't exist until we have difficult-to-dispute (on a practical "functionally a creator exists unless we're all being had by something so creator-like that it almost doesn't matter because it, despite meeting all properties of a foundational creator, it isn't one, or we're all brains in jars and our senses are useless to discuss the question anyways") proof?
Until then, given we're all perceiving each other or are on some fake-Mr-Bones-Wild-ride-of-existance, isn't it better to, lacking any evidence for anything besides us, assume we ARE that base, or at least that we don't really know?"
It's not comforting, but I think it's more intellectually honest.
I don't think the human mind, being a very fallible, organic thing, could ever truly fathom nothingness and the origin of everything since we have evolved to think of everything in causal terms. For us there has to be a start that leads to something, etc. This also applies to the persistent need of applying consciousness and motive to these forces at work, e.g. God. We's just advanced apes trying to wrap our euphoric minds around something we're only a very fractional part of.
Also, sorry, for being a, commanist.
>>464279
>why is there something instead of nothing?
well first of all, the nothing is by definition the absence of being, or more precisely, non-being. Thus being defined only in total opposition to being, the nothing couldn't exist without being of it to oppose itself to that. To even question that is to set, as empirically and as an axiom, that there IS.
TL;DR: There couldn't have been nothing because the condition of 'existence' (in the meaning of apparition) of nothing is being.
What might interest you guys :
By reading Hegel (PoS and Logic mainly) you can understand how every single phenomenon, concept, idea, etc is in total correlation with the world through a dialectical method. Quite impressive.
Nonetheless I now often question my believes on ethics, do you guys think there can/should be moral objectivity? How? Following which rules ?
>>464279
>why is there something instead of nothing?
why would you assume that there would be nothing instead of something?
We don't know.
We can't rationalize an answer, an answer should come, if any, from an empirical approach.
>>464989
But this being a philosophical question I suppose we can have discourse without strict empirism? One can always speculate .
Because solipsism.
>>464502
whenever i think about it i always end up getting this horrible terrified feeling. no matter what pops into my head it always end with a vast nothingness which freaks me the fuck out
>>464929
This guy gets it. We can only think inside our small world (family, friends, relationships, work, eat, sleep, some leisure...). There is no way we are sufficiently advanced to understand reality's mysteries.
Because if the universe, including you, didn't exist you wouldn't be able to ask that question.
What an idiotic fucking question.
>What are your thoughts on existence?
Complex life, and specially consciousness, aren't "goals" of a universal force, but rather consequences of a evolutionary process. Subjectivity and self awareness became strong tools in survival, but I have my doubts about our type of superior thinking, which seems counter productive in some cases. Depression, apathy, existential emptiness, all seem to decrease our chances of reproduction, at least from a sexual attractiveness point of view. I consider myself intelligent and can't seem to find the type of "emotional intelligence" to successful attract a female to be with me, lol
>As in, why is there something instead of nothing?
Maybe nothing isn't nothing. Our definition of nothing only makes sense in the absence of a certain value, and from the beginning of time the universe never really had "Nothing", but something we still can't describe. Although quantum theory can explain this way better than me.
>Why do we have a universe instead of nothingness?
Because there was always "something" in the universe, and the natural consequence of that something was to form complex forms of matter. We're only here for a while in universe time, so we experience it as the only possible outcome, when there was already infinite outcomes. Like a lottery winner that thinks about all the other players that didn't win, and considers himself the object of a "goal".
I think a creator would raise more questions that the ones it would answer, so I don't find it interesting to even discuss it.
Just my thoughts
>>465445
>no believing in a creator
I was once as naive as you, child.
>>465456
Don't lose hope, we're always learning!
There's a Universe in all of us.
>>465496
Since everything you perceive is inside your own mind, yes.
>>465511
If it's just brain function, then why can I feel pain in my chest when I'm heartbroken?
>>465525
Because your brain is telling you that there (supposedly) is a chest and that you are feeling it hurt.
>>465538
But why the chest? Why not my foot?
>>465583
I don't know.
>>464795
^this
physics does not even recognize the concept of a 'vacuum' as being literally real. In other words as far as physics is concerned 'nothing' is inconceivable. If the meta-physician would like to say why 'nothing' CAN exist he must provide a reason.
>>465511
This desu. You are your own universe.
>>465396
What a shitty non-answer. "Why do I have two legs?" "Because if you didn't, you would have one leg lmao"
>why is there something instead of nothing?
I don't know, therefore elves did it
>>466442
>metaphysics is just elves
back to 6th grade friendo
