Why does anything exist? Why isn't there simply nothing, forever?
You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math
Why does anything exist? Why isn't there simply nothing, forever?
>>7652922
We just don't know
yet.
>>7652922
Because without something there can be no nothing. Without an ever there can be no never, nor forever.
The very logic you're using itself is based on existence. Non-existence probably isn't meaningful in the same way, as it's a consequence of the existing framework of logic you have available.
>>7652922
In the set of all possible complete mathematical representations of the universe, there is only one way in which nothing can exist, the empty set. There are however, one assumes, an infinite number of ways things can exist. So, it is infinitely likely things will exist, and infinitely unlikely nothing will exist.
>>7652933
>There are however, one assumes, an infinite number of ways things can exist.
I don't know why you'd assume that.
>>7652940
How many different complete spaces can you imagine?
Consider the Cartesian coordinate system. That is a complete and closed space. It can have an infinite number of dimensions. Each individual dimensional (1d, 2d, 3d, xd) is a possible framework for a universe.
Consider the laws of physics. F = ma, is one possible way for things to happen, but is not special, F = mv as Aristotle would describe things is possible, but untrue in the world we live in. Any set of laws of physics in a complete space is a possible way for things to exist. And there are infinitely many.
>>7652956
To our ability to test, we only exist and or experience ourselves in one universe. The functionality of another universe is thoroughly out of our faculty for thought and only worth postulating to further expand our understanding of our own universe.
We're only in one universe, and there are likely finite combinations of states. Unless subdivision is infinite, then it's only seemingly finite on a given scale.
Having nothing, forever, isn't entropically favorable.
>>7652960
>The functionality of another universe is thoroughly out of our faculty for thought
But I just wrote down two possible ways for universes to exist. F = ma vs. F = mv. Both lead to equations of motion, both can describe states of different universes. What would a member of the set "Possible ways for things to exist" look like? It would be a space, and a set of equations for things to move in that space. The point >>7652933 is that there is an infinite number of possible members of that set, but only one of those members is the state "Nothing" which is no space, and no ways for things to move. Only one way describes the universe we live in, to be sure, but that does not mean they are no members of the set.
>and there are likely finite combinations of states
A point on a line has an infinite combination of states, positions denoted by x and velocities denoted by v. Why do you think our universe has a finite number of states?
Nothingness exists as well as somethingness.
>>7652967
>Having nothing, forever, isn't entropically favorable.
What am I reading
>>7652977
>But I just wrote down two possible ways for universes to exist.
We only live in one universe, and it's all we have direct evidence of. Everything you're mentioning is just an idea, which themselves are just particle states within our universe.
>What would a member of the set
Anon, this isn't relevant. Our universe is a machine, it works how it works. In a theoretical sense, the totality of that is the extent of the set you're describing. And it is likely a finite set.
>A point on a line has an infinite combination of states
Points and lines are abstract ideas. Which only exist because of the arrangement of a finite number of particles in your brain.
>Why do you think our universe has a finite number of states?
Mainly because it's a machine.
I type on this keyboard, every key I hit is finite. It's "1" key. But even though it's only 1 whole, it's made of many parts. Those parts can be treated as wholes, but we know quite well they can be further reduced to more parts. And finer, and finer, and finer. But in the context of my keyboard, on this scale, I can only do a finite number of things with it in any given instant. This implies finity. An infinite universe is also not directly provable because it would require infinite time to do so.
Two things would break this more intuitive assumption. The first is if time isn't granular, and really is composed of an infinite number of points. The second is if particles can be infinitely subdivided. In that case being finite either relies on scale, or is an outright illusion.
>>7652998
Why are you assuming time and space both have a finite number of values? Even if they are granular you are assuming they must end at some point. If space is composed of integer values, why must space have a maximum value from the origin?
>>7653022
>If space is composed of integer values
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
>>7653023
He's the one assuming space is granular for some reason. If space is granular, integer values can be assigned to each point. I disagree, but he is assuming space, and time, are both granular (for reasons) and finite (because even if it is granular, it can still be infinite a la the integers, so to have a finite number of states, it must be both).
I would like explanations for both. Why can space and time be described by a finite set of integers, as opposed to the reals (and/or complex numbers)
>>7653022
I'm assuming it because it makes the most sense to me, for a number of reasons.
This goes back to how little we actually know about the universe or the physics that drive it. In my machine universe, there are no probabilistic features, only deficits in capacity for measurement. Time works in ticks where only a certain amount of change can occur in any given interval. The universe either has a border or loops back on itself. And space is quantized, and only has finite positions to occupy. I'm not saying it has to be that way, I just lean most towards that. I think the idea of infinity is usually nonsensical, just an idea projected onto a reality with which it has no parallel.
The universe can be a lot of things. I'm hoping experimentalism comes around again and a good deal of this mess we call quantum mechanics gets filtered down a bit before the end of our species, or my lifespan. But yeah, I can see the beauty in infinity as well, in some cases.
>>7652922
physical answer: nothingness is for some reason unstable
>>7653042
The universe is no under the restriction that it must make sense to you.
>>7653052
Where did imply it was. My very first post explicitly said it could break our faculty for thought, and our logic. Just as postulating additional universe's is confined to the initial set of data you have available, all extrapolation is.
It's hard for nothing to observe itself. Matter on the other hand can observe itself. That's why we observe matter instead of nothing. The probability space of total nothingness is necessarily unsampled.
>>7653060
Oh, this is called the Anthropic Principle in philosophy by the way. Depending on who you ask it may or may not be significant.
>>7653039
>Why can space and time be described by a finite set of integers, as opposed to the reals (and/or complex numbers)
How about this: it can't be explained by either. Our number systems are an abstract concept, an idea, while space is out there and everywhere around you without being an abstract idea or concept. What you're doing with math is you're approximating certain observed regular occurrences, but to replace this idea with what the universe is is philosophically absurd. You have no idea even what dark matter is, so how on Earth can you be so cocky as to propose a theory that explains what the universe is made of when you're missing so much information about it?
tl;dr you don't know, no one knows.
>>7653056
When you, as an advocate for empirisim, decide to ignore hundreds of years of experiment because it doesn't fit the way you picture the universe (not just QM, but thermodynamics as well).
>>7653086
Oh my, do point me to the experiments showing time is an infinite series of instances (if not an outright fluid), space is and the universe is infinite, and subdivision of particles is infinite, and your model of the universe is ever so correct.
Really. As hostile as it sounds, this will answer my life's most base, deep, persistent questions. Convince me. Enlighten me. If you can't, then piss off and go back to rambling unsubstantially about infinite sets and certainty you don't actually possess.
>>7652956
Is there a possibility of there being an infinitely large universe of sperm besides your moms vagina?
>>7652922
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
>>7653042
So many words, so little sense.
>>7653119
Back to /lit/ you savage.
>>7653103
*beside
You just implied that my mother's vagina is also a sperm, in addition to other sperm.
Grammar mother fucker.
>>7653124
Seeing nothing is not evidence that there is nothing to see.
>>7652922
The concept of "thing" is formulated by us for communication purposes. It's not that "anything" or "nothing" "exists"; they're merely words whose only purpose is to facilitate the communication of certain ideas between humans in this language-made society. If you try to use them in an attempt to understand the "universe" (as we call it) when you can't even understand what "is" a "thing" after all (because there is nothing to know, it's a created concept), then you're never going to find an answer. And then you'll give up, and you'll adopt a nihilistic philosophy and start denying all kinds of knowledge. Then you'll start making up possibilities about the "matrix", brain in a vat, solipsism and other epistemology-related bullshit. Why? Because you gave up in your search of answers. Because you couldn't change your way of thinking. Because you were afraid, my child. Afraid of being trapped in an endless spiral of doubt for the rest of your life while all the other philosophers were okay with their own conclusion.
Abandon concepts, son.
>>7652922
>Why does bla bla bla
There is no reason why. The universe is not intelligent
>Why isn't there simply nothing, forever?
Why would there be nothing? The idea that "nothing" is the default state and that existence requires a reason is idiotic. Stop thinking in terms of insecure ancient goat-herders' fairy tales.
>>7652922
"nothing" is a concept "something" made up to describe something not being there. Thinking that "nothing" should rather exist than "something", would require "something" to define what "nothing" is first. we have this false belief that "nothing" would be a neutral state.
if information means existence of something then nothing is information and therefore something.
pure infinite noise is no information and infinite information at once. our existence is subset of a set of infinite information.
>>7653158
Professing to be wise, they became as fools....
>>7652987
S=k ln W, where W = A!/(product a!), and A= sum(a)
W is basically the number of possible states a system can be in
I don't know how to type in latex, but basically the boltzmann entropy equation says that all states are equally favorable, and that since nothing existing is only one possible state of literally an infinite number of other possible states, nothing existing is not favored by entropy
>>7652967
Right cause if there was nothing forever there'd still be entropy.
>>7653669
You are aware that these equations are derived under certain physical/metaphysical assumptions. One for example being that matter exists.
>>7653717
It assumes that the space in which this thought experiment takes place is like the space we exist in right now, yes. Asking a question about how things work in a reality that isn't real seems like an excersize in futility to me, e.g. how was chel able to open a portal on the moon if the moon is moving relative to her? The question is pointless, and thus dismissed.
You asked what he meant by entropically favorable, and I told you
