Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?

Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?

Attached: janus.jpg (888x633, 175K)

Other urls found in this thread:

arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

ARRIVING
SOMEWHERE
BUT NOT HERE

dunno lole

Why is nothing more probable than something?

Because nothing is inherently unstable as nothing has no rules are laws to stop something from forming and replacing the nothing.

Primordial Gods built it while they were asleep.

Because something has to be caused by something else?

Something is nothing.
I can say love with only hate.
I can say hate with only love.
I can say nothing with something
And say something with nothing.
But to be nothing requires something.
As much as love requires hate.

Something requires nothing, but nothing does need something. Something can not meet nothing in any form, if something is, it is not nothing, but if something is not, nothing it is.

To acknowledge nothing, one has to acknowledge something. To acknowledge love is to acknowledge hate, to acknowledge life is to acknowledge death, and so forth.
Therefore the idea of nothing fundementally requires the idea of something. But the state of nothing does not.
Nothing as a state (of the universe) is fundamentally not observable,
Therefor, in our reality of forms and duality, nothing is an impossibility. The reality of laws is something that exists, as one example.
Further, these infinite spaces are not real since they are nothing, as nothing is an absence, not a manifestation.
As such, they exist infinitely, there are infinite spaces in reality that hold nothing.
How could nothing be real? It is simply the same as not existing at all.
One might argue nothing is that before something, as in a space something could take, but this fails to acknowledge that matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefor true nothing can only remain nothing, therefore functionally non existent.
This is why nothing does not exist beyond a form of what it would be.
Something is a manifestation of this nothing in all directions.

>why is there something instead of nothing
>why is
“Is” requires there to be something, that’s the nature of existence.

>Something is a manifestation of this nothing in all directions.
I don't understand this part, could you explain it to me?

Nothing is the standard that cant be avoided, for it exists infinetly.
But nothing is not a valid form.
As seen, nothing does not exist, as in it can never be reached or exist due to being nothing, through this it is infinite, as not existing allows you to exist everywhere.
But reality has to exist in some form, out of simple fact. Else nothing wouldn't exist.
As such, we are left with something. Because nothing is not a valid form.

Nothing is incoherent. It's not an option. The probability is zero.

Attached: 1443849063244.png (700x729, 951K)

Thanks.

arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

You're welcome.

Does it matter?

there's no such thing as nothing.

It's irrelevant.

First, there's a semantic problem. "Nothing" as a state doesn't exist in nature. A standard reply would be if I had an apple and someone took that apple, then you have no apple. That's not an example of nothing, thats an example of object in motion. If you gave an example of a car being smashed to its smallest breakable parts, all you've done is change its form. The idea of "nothing" is merely stemming from error of understanding of the concept of nothingness.

Still, on the fundamental question of why something instead of thing, that can be answered through science. Everything we interact with has something to do with big bang. What happened before big bang? There are certain theories regarding that. Some saying big bang isn't very unique and that its merely a bloating(explosion) of a much smaller fundamental aspect of reality. Even so, we could ask why that fundamental aspect of reality instead of nothing. The answer is could either be everything has always been or unknown.

From philosophical pov, there's the shitty answer "god did it" or there's the shittier answer "we don't know" or "the existence is eternal".

That implies causality applies outside of our universe.

just cos

Attached: Alan-Watts.jpg (2267x1588, 1.01M)

Thank you, people never seem to get this. Nothing means Nothing. You can make absolutely no assumption about what can happen in true nothing. There is no matter, energy, forces, or even logic when their is nothing.

This what I always try to explain to people about the concept of death without an afterlife. You can't be bored, scared, depressed, feel lost and sad, or perceive "endless dark" when your brain has ceased to function. It's what manufactures your every sensation and feeling.

Thanks

what do you mean with universe? are you implying you actually know for a fact that such things exist and how could you?

That's just how it is. There is no causation, that is the nature of reality. Nothing cannot exist as manifested by something existing instead.

to elaborate the existance of an universe implies that there are or at least could be other universes but that has not been proven neither is there a plausible theory about the topic that doesn't fall for rick and morty tier cartoon humour fallacies.

all we know is that there is the space as nothing and all known matter and particles that seem to originate from a singular point in space leading to big bang theory. We do not know if the space exists in some bigger reality, the space is the reality as far as we know. Neither we know where the big bang would have come from or where the space came from leading to ops question.

The whole concept of existance falls on it's own impossibility.

What makes you think causation doesn't exist? just curious.

Why?

Ultimately causation makes no sense if you go back far enough. Either there has always been something or something came from nothing. There are simply no other options, also in this context any god would count as something.

How do you know that there is?