Isn't it odd that anything exists? It's most peculiar. It requires effort. It requires energy. It would be so much easier for there to have always been nothing at all. So why, then, do we possess the disgusting function to exist? What is the purpose behind all of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH9H7f97AfI
go back to your /new age/ containment board.
>>>/x/
Also, it's not odd at all, assuming energy exists.
>>28139022
>What is the purpose behind all of this?
is the wolrd a tool?
>>28139098
well...energy obviously exists
>>28139022
>alan watts
>>>>/reddit/
>>28139451
elaborate? what's so bad about him?
>>28139022
> how strange it is to be anything at alll
got muted for 5 minutes because of this meme
But anon, non-existance itself is a concept that exists. It is a definable thing. Existance is the fundamental property, from which everything else comes about. You cannot get behind it no matter how much you try. I guess if you were a pantheist you could call it god.
>>28139022
The Anthropic Principle: Yeah it's pretty damn strange that the universe is the way it is, but how could it be different? If it were, we wouldn't be here to observe it, so of course we see a universe that, though incredibly improbable, has parameters that allow us to be here.
>>28139022
It doesn't matter how much you think about this kind of stuff you don't get anywhere.
Just accept that things do exist, and that them existing IS "right", and that our view of what is strange is incorrect.
>>28139022
well, this thread is probably dead soon.
it's indeed weird that anything exists, and i think it's even weirder that somewhere in this gigantic and almost empty space, there something that can call it's own attention to that fact. I feel like a tiny god.
bye OP
>>28139022
Actually on a cosmic level things exist because it was impossible for them not to exist simple as that
I like to think sometimes that nothingness is an impossibility and eventually nothingness creates something
>>28139022
>Alan Watts
Mah nigga.
There is only one state, and that is existence. The things that do not exist cannot contemplate their non existence.
Also everything from the way we act to the largest star in the universe is because it's the only way it can be, everything is fine the way it is. If someone has hopes of a brighter future, a change that is right as well.
I believe there is only existence because it must be, and that existence is absolute.
actually it isnt strange at all you are just dumb
>>28140188
>I believe there is only existence because it must be
What does this even mean? Why is existence the default state? I can follow the logic that existence is the only state because like you say, the non-existent cannot ponder existence, but why does anything have to exist anyway? Why does energy exist? If we assume that energy exists because it always has and always will, how far are we really from simple deism?
I guess "why" might be the wrong question anyway because it assumes that causality always holds. And I know obviously no one will have the "true" answers to these questions because we can't verify stuff like this, I'm just wondering peoples' opinions.
>>28140277
It's the default state because that's what is. There's nothing else. Existence is everything.
Nothing 'has' to exist. If nothing existed no being would know, you know that. But since we do know, it means existence is a thing, in whichever state it might be, a simulation, dream or other science pop culture theories.
There is no "why" to existence either, again, it just is. We create the "why", but since we are a part of this universe we didn't really make the "why" on our own either. It simply is because there's no other way to be, if it didn't exist then there would be no "why", and thus no existence.
It isn't an option. It isn't black and white. It is or it is not. Non existence is even foolish to think of, it's something beyond the human mind, beyond reality, it's a lack of everything. It's not even nothingness, for it's comparable to something, non existence cannot even be described for it's not absolutely anything, we can only describe in forms we know and understand, even the concepts don't do it justice, and I believe it's very foolish to try and conceptualize non existence.
>If we assume that energy exists because it always has and always will, how far are we really from simple deism?
Check out Naturalistic Pantheism.
To gain any real answers about the nature of existence I think one must be outside of the existence we are a part of.
>>28139022
The question that will really bake your noodle is : when the universe expands the space between objects so temperatures reach absolute zero and light vanishes will anything exist again?
>>28140496
Do you mean in the parameters we defined reality as scientifically already or are you arguing the notion of since there's no life or chance at life to observe this form of the universe it does not exist?
>>28140359
>If nothing existed no being would know
This is what I'm curious about. I can accept that existence is a thing because the non-existent can't think about existence, and I can accept that we can't understand the nature of non-existence as beings that exist, but the fact that there was in theory a 50% chance of existence and a 50% chance of non-existence and existence is what happened is really an amazing thing. Of course, it seems as though even language (or at least my poor grasp of it) can't really express what I'm trying to get at because the condition of anything happening is preceded by existence, so I can't really say that "existence is what happened."
I guess I like to think about non-existence as loosely similar to what a blind person sees. A lot of people think that blind people see what we see when we close our eyes, just pure black, but I read one day that trying to imagine what blind people see is like trying to imagine seeing behind your own head (with no additional eyes of course). I can't really imagine it but it's fun to think about.
>Naturalistic pantheism
Did a quick Google Search, I actually tried to read a bit of Spinoza a while back but it went pretty far over my head, maybe I should try again. I do see the difference between a cold non-interventionist clockwork god that exists outside of the universe and the assertion that nothing exists outside of the universe and that the universe is in itself a sort of god (using the term loosely), but effectively they seem to accomplish the same things.
>>28140359
The concept of nothingness and zero is essentially defined as the absence of a certain thing. The concept is used in reference to the observation of a specific thing. In this case, non-existence is logically the lack of existence, the lack of life. If all the life on earth died, there would still be a planet... in that sense the universe can still exist while we as humans experience nonexistence.
Applying this thought process to the existence of matter in the universe in the forms we observe it in, the OP can pose the question "why" in reference to scientific processes that occurred to form our universe. Physics tell us that inertia tends to keep matter in either a stationary or moving state and that it takes a great force to overcome one state to transition to another. Science can tell us how that force formed but as they try to wind the hand back down to "zero", or the start of the universe, all we can estimate is the random occurrence of particle interaction that caused a chain reaction. The why of this even becomes much more ambiguous. Was it truly just random?
>>28140277
I think we can determine the why by considering the scale of the universe, there's a lot of it out there beyond what we can see. We know small and large scales tend to mimic one another in form and function, and that leads me to believe that perhaps our observable universe is likened to the reproduction of a cell from another part of the unobserved universe that had already existed. I think we are just a link in the chain. And there are many other galaxies out there that mimic the conditions of our solar system, I wouldn't be surprised if millions of planets with human like species existed in our observable universe.
yes, it's almost like their is an intelligence behind the universe and everything
the only thing we can do is work on solving it, science is doing that with the only correct method, empiricism
philosophizing wont get you anywhere
>>28140582
I don't know how to quite approach in responding. It's a difficult argument to even articulate.
But what I have to say is that I don't think it's a 50/50 chance thing, that it either is or isn't, or existence has happened or it hasn't.
When existence started in our universe then that's it, that's all there ever was and will be, once it ceases (if it ceases) then not even nothingness will exist. Existence is as simple as "is". When you say "is not" you are only able to from it by comparison of taking away from "is". It's the only and ultimate form, the only reason we question non existence is because we try to take away from what "is", and if you do that then there is not even a way to think about it. To think of non existence you have to not think. And that can't be done unless you're dead, right? But if you are dead then you no longer are, so that falls apart.
Non existence in my opinion is nothing to ponder over, for it does not exist simply put. Non existence is not just empty space for eternity, it's even a lack of that. It's not a possibility, just an idea we created. So that's why i believe existence must be the only possibility.
>>28140698
Then the "why" would be entropy. This is even the "why" to life. We are a byproduct of entropy.
>>28140528
The former. Although everything will be massively spread apart, they would still exist but motionless. It is our observation of the flow of time that allows life to be, too fast and its a uncharacteristic blur too slow and it's an inanimate object. When matter is separated so far apart that the stars and planets lose their forms, will the universe find a way to create a working system once more? Was that the state we emerged from? Is it an eternal cycle of death and rebirth? These are the questions I ask myself daily.
>>28140757
From my understanding the universe will cease to function as it does today and there's no other system in which could produce anything else due to the laws of the universe.
Energy and particles will still exist, just in a different form. Things will be "there", I guess, just not doing much for all of eternity.
I think they other question is a bit more exciting. Will this even be 'existence' since there's no observer?
Nothing exists
But it doesn't matter anyway
>>28140742
The concept of entropy itself is a strike against the formation of the universe. Entropy requires matter to begin with in order for us to observe and know if its properties. For there to be disorder there must be order prior. Unless you are suggesting that the universe began in a completely ordered state full of matter that eventually experienced increasing entropy to form what we have today. That still begs the question though...why? Why did the great force that caused the change to give us what we have now happen?
>>28140801
Although biocentrism is the hot new theory in that existence requires an observer, I see no reason for things to cease to be tangible in the absence of observers. Like you said, energy and particles will still exist so there is the existence of something. Existence of life, I doubt it. It seems most logical to conclude that once the universe reaches a completely disordered state that there would be no possible way for it to function again, yet it is perplexing to think of how our universe came to be in the first place. Each seems equally unlikely.
>>28140838
This might be my ignorance, but isn't entropy chaos going into order? Of complex states of high energy into simple forms of it like low heat?
I don't think entropy 'requires' anything. It's a process that exist because there is existence. It was not a thing which predated the universe, it's there because it's able to be there.
>for there to be order there must be disorder prior
Prior to what? There's no prior to the universe. The most popular notion today is that it began with a large burst of very intense energy. Since it started at this state there's no other way but for it to turn simpler forms.
Life came to be because it falls under this process. Of energy being transformed into simpler forms of it, of it being broken down and released out again. I'm getting pretty drunk now and I cannot think.
Good thread though. Thanks, /r9k/.
>>28140920
Good points, anon. I can only add to the confusion with the notion that we are deluding ourselves about the importance of current state of existence. That we only see this as right or the way it should be because we are self aware. Our ego is telling us that this is the 'right' state, but the universe is emotionless, thoughtless. It has one path and that is entropy, we are absolutely nothing important, we do not set the rules, we only observe them for such a short time in all of existence that it's not even worth comparing it to anything.
There is no 'should' with the way things are, there only is the way things are, and each state of the universe, be it it's inception or 'death', it is all natural, ordered and fine. It's ultimate and infallible. It does no wrong or right, we only find it strange because... well. we find it weird and strange, and this gives us no ground at all, for it's only our observation.
>>28139022
i ask myself this question all the time
its the chicken or the egg dilemma, its pretty much the proof that some type of omnipotent being exists.since it makes no sense for shit to suddenly start existing from nothing, and it makes no sense for shit to just exist, there has to be some all powerful fuckhead who existed inside the nothingness. it really makes me wonder what exists beyond the universe because the answer would probably lie there.
the saddest thing ever is that we will never fucking know the true purpose for existence
>>28140150
how is nothingness an impossibility?
>>28141000
No quite the opposite, entropy is order going into chaos. Of a thermodynamic system no longer being able to convert to mechanical energy. I think I mispoke from what you quoted, and meant to say for there to be disorder there must once have to have been order.
And that is what the big bang tries to explain, the large burst of very intense energy if you will. A completely ordered singularity that turned into the nuanced combination of order and chaos that gives our universe the form it has. This is why I said entropy requires matter, in the sense that it is a function of an ordered system to fall into a constant rate of disorder, and for that disorder to increase as the system's size increases. Entropy in a place with nothing to act on would be the same as nothing at all.
>>28141065
Not necessarily trying to say anything should be this way or that way, just always curious as to why it is this way. It is enough to say from our limited experience of existence compared to the billions of years the universe has been around that things have just always been and always will be, but because we form the notion of nothing from the absence of things we will always ponder the possibility of the absence of everything and how everything came from that absence.
Thought provoking stuff.
>>28141129
But that just shifts the question from "how does the universe exist" to "how does god exist", it solves nothing
>>28141252
Sorry, my mind is clouded, I understand the concept of entropy, what it does, just had different definitions of order and chaos for some reason. To me low forms of energy is order instead of the high and extremely unstable amounts at the start of the universe.
And honestly I'm pretty gone now. My mind is not functioning any more. If the thread is still up when I sober up I'll leave a reply.
>>28139022
Anything else is a logical impossibility. For there to be "nothing," there must also be "something," and the other way around. They define each other, and cannot exist without each other. Therefore both existence and nonexistence are necessarily required.
>>28141129
That's the deterministic property of the universe, shit just starts to happen and keeps happening where it can succeed. Life, uh, finds a way. In this sense one can say the true purpose of life is to be, to thrive and survive in the universe and contribute to more resilient future generations. But to exist just for the sake of existing isn't very purposeful or romantic, so our ego's want to believe there is some grander purpose. I can't say for certain one way or another.
>>28141291
Yolo, enjoy the perks of consciousness by altering it. *hic* cheers.
>>28141170
Even in the vacuum of space there is matter everywhere
>>28141303
The concept of nothing depends on the concept of something, but one does not require the other. We only need the definition of a thing to understand when it is not tangible to describe nothingness. In fact both can "exist" independently of one another similar to a binary system, its there or its not. Apply this concept to the observable universe, and you can either consider it being tangible, and it not being tangible. Whether that is scientifically possible is an entirely different can of worms, but the philosophical viewpoint can be considered.
>>28139022
I really enjoyed that video, thanks anon. The hindu view on god is cool.
>>28140698
that leads me to believe that perhaps our observable universe is likened to the reproduction of a cell from another part of the unobserved universe that had already existed.
There's a .gif out there somewhere comparing the shape and structure of what was either a galaxy or the known universe with the shape and structure of what I think was a human cell and they were pretty similar, you've probably seen it. Still, as you mention, the farther back we go in our own chain the more it seems to be random chance, so I would assume the farther back we go in the chains of any of the other universes would seem to be random chance. The ride never ends I guess.
>>28140704
And the scientific method has its own problems with the use of inductive reasoning. Science is not "correct" in the sense of providing absolute truth, and what makes it so beautiful is its allowance to prove itself wrong. Of course I will agree that it is the best method to arrive at practical and effective truths.
>philosophizing won't get you anywhere
I don't think anyone who is slightly educated would claim that they can give concrete and verified answers for the questions we're asking, but it's at least fun conversation which is the point of this board, isn't it?
>>28140709
I typed up a long response to this only to realize that I was completely misinterpreting your post. Either way, I guess it's the idea of the infinite that really bothers me. I always think about infinity as an idea to use in mathematics where, as useful as it is, it already causes problems large enough that there is a sizable minority of mathematicians who disregard it. But even in math, infinity is only useful when discussing the concrete abstract, not the physical world, so it's hard to picture the universe as some infinite object.
>>28141129
Yes, this is more or less what bothers me too but the other anon I'm replying to has done a pretty good job at explaining why existence may be outside of causality in general.
>>28141367
Correct, even in seemingly empty voids of space there is radiation energy, noble gasses, plasma, and dark matter among other things invisible to us. While we may be more certain that inside of the observable universe that there are no places of "nothingness", we cannot conclude that beyond the observable universe that there are true voids of space.
>>28141394
Yeah, this shit is what I was trying to get at. The two 'exist' but are not comparable. If you're in one the other does not exist, and if you're in the other then the ..other does not exist.
There cannot be existence and non existence, both are ultimate. Why there "is" something is because there is. It's as simple as that. There's no why to it.
>>28141442
There is no why in the sense that "existence" does not have a conscious purpose to be, but there is always a why when bringing into question the happening of something.
And this is how our universe can possibly "experience" both non existence and existence. The passage of time changes the state of the system. Now whether a state of complete nothingness is possibly scientifically is not clear to me, the philosophical questioning of "why" our universe formed the way it did can be explained partly through the scientific "how" description, but there is some grey area in that description that allows for the question of "why" to be posed.
Its a gnawing of our desire for purpose that poses this hypothetical question regardless of the scientific factors that explain how we got to where we are and why it had to form this way.
Why was it always this way or why it started are the million dollar questions.
>>28141414
I have seen a gif similar to what you are describing. As much of it that seems random, seeing the cycles at the micro and macro scales makes you think there is a method to the madness. Or maybe its just delusional hope. The ride never ends indeed.
>>28141615
Did some digging, couldn't find the .gif but found a picture that's somewhat close. Again I don't want to say that this "proves" anything but it's at least a fun picture to look at.
>>28141675
Fascinating. I also recently learned that memories are the result of a specific series of electrical signals between neurons in the brain. Imagine if the energy flowing throughout the universe is indicative of its own thought process, expanding in a way in which it thrives. A long shot, but the resemblance is remarkable.
