Explain how anything can exist. I find it very odd that things exist

Explain how anything can exist. I find it very odd that things exist.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

sage in all fields

>I find it very odd that things exist.
Look about you, things clearly exist, the Universe has no rhyme or reason is just exists and science is solely based upon the observation of this reality, not to assign it some mystical existential purpose. In other words, an hero yourself, you personification of AIDs made manifest.

Don't be a retard
The universe clearly exists
The fact that there are things in it is a judgement that your idiot brain imposes on the universe because it finds spatial awareness by means of 'separating this thing from that thing' conducive to navigation.
Objectively, the universe is just a soup of particles. If you consider that the universe doesn't exist for any reason at all, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the fact that "things exist in it" also is a fact for no reason at all.

>things clearly exist

>The universe clearly exists

If it's so clear to both of you then how about proving it. The universe might as well not exist at all, implying a simulation of sorts taking place.

Similar to asking the question, does a character in a videogame "exist"?

>"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum."
So, I at least exist. I guess I must be 'God', right?

Yet science measures data with average values when comparing measurements and blame it on "environment" and "fluctuations". It deems anything that can't be explained a singularity yet there is tons if them in nature. Something can only exist if theres an observer yet science doesnt even test subjective experience which is most of what life is. Good.

You can exist without thinking, too

>muh latin phrases

>Yet science measures data with average values when comparing measurements and blame it on "environment" and "fluctuations".
No, they normally blame it on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error

Don't be intellectually dishonest.

>You can exist without thinking, too
So you're admitting that non-living matter exists? Great, that means you accept the Universe, good job.

I accept the universe I just don't understand how it can exist when clearly it takes 0 energy not to exist, so it's much easier. At the same time I wonder what non-existence would be like, if it's possible at all.

So theres an observational error every time but the point is its never possible to find two exact measurements at any point in "time"

If you didn't exist, you would have no awareness (as you lack consciousness).

What are you trying to say?

Yes, so?

because we happen to live in a universe where things can exist

maybe in another universe the physical laws are different and never allowed for things like stars and planets

>What is human error?
Sorry, I forgot we were perfect beings with flawless reaction time and the ability to create utterly infallible technology. Your arrogance becomes you.

All that is is one, whole, eternal, and unchanging. Panta rhei, your conception of change and movement within the world, is merely an illusion.

You wouldn't know if you didn't exist. The only facet of 'existence' you can observe is the fact you exist and the universe around you does.

How am I not myself?

I know what you mean man. I know what you mean.

Maybe we're nuts

Jesus fucking Christ.

There is no way to tell that the universe exists without pulling the semantics card.

Well, I exist, so I am the universe.
Checkmate.

>I exist
Citation needed.

[Also that's the semantics card I was talking about.]

>[Also that's the semantics card I was talking about.]
So, by saying: You assert I still don't exist, because I used language to communicate it? Then, what is the purpose of language?

The point is not if you exist or not, the point is if the universe exists or not.

Unless you're implying you = universe

The Universe is existence, it is reality, therefore, if I am the only thing in reality as the rest of you seem to think you don't exist, that makes me the Universe.

Solipsism?

>Solipsism
I guess?

But how does that explain existence?

How doesn't it?

By not not existing.

I don't even

>mfw sciencucks can't explain life without resorting to philosophy

lmaoing at your religion

Precisely.

Science is the lovechild of philosophy.

prove things don't exist.

it is a far more profound statement to assume everything we perceive isn't real

It's the logical conclusion to philosophy but usually """scientists""" are extremely arrogant towards philosophers.

because philosophers put forth nothing of even intellectual value

>jumps straight into defending science
t. Stupid Atheist

Left is in favour of philosophy, right is not.

Agnostic actually, raised in a Church of England family and went to a C of E school.

Goddamn son, whats it like being completely fucking retarded?

I'm surprised you can post words on the internet. Congrats.

You basically told op to kill himself for thinking the universe might be more than it seems.

You arent a fucking agnostic

You are arguing with a particularly American brand of anti-intellectualism masquerading as intellectualism. People dismiss complete areas of knowledge and thought because they don't understand it and then act like the fact that they somehow passed freshman physics courses makes them qualified to talk shit.

Science is a branch of philosophy, you uneducated plebeian with pedestrian opinions

trifling

are these people """scientists""" or philosophers?

if science is a philosophy, why bother making a distinction the two?

Science is a descendant of philosophy, both look for logical answers, one provides the theories the other tangible proofs.

It was banter? I'm British, so culturally, that is banter.

Also, that:
>You arent a fucking agnostic.
That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Quite so, I've noticed this as a recent trend of 'intellectual' thought.

>trifling
>Gosh, you're so much more than any of those men on the left.

How about no?

Actually address their points, rather than simply dismissing them.

The American distaste for philosophy feels like something that has been cultivated on purpose in our society. It couples with our obsession with vanity and self-promotion and the degradation of our values and morals. I would almost say that it has been something marketers would be quite happy about.

I suppose it explains in the increase in general degeneracy (not just within the arts) within the Westernised hemisphere.

1. argues that the mathematical basis of science is analogous to the platonic ideal. incidental and does not show that philosophy as a whole has value
also "I think that..." it's an opinion, not an argument

2. argues that contextual information gives insight. "a knowledge of the historic and philisophical background gives..."
an understanding of how things were understood gives you more intellectual tools to work with.
you are conflating this with an appreciation for philosophy as a whole

3. conjecture. he asserts "it (reality) is not real."
he goes on to describe Vedantic philosophy, but not how it proves nothing is real nor how its ideas are useful in a material/physical sense

4.I don't understand the historical context to his statements; so i do not understand the implications and misunderstanding he is alluding to.

The question wasnt why, rather how. Its an unanswerable question in ops context but its like saying how is there existence as opposed to nonexistence