Why is there something instead of nothing?
If it wasn't a being or entity that created the universe. Then what the fuck is it?
This means there was never nothing and that matter and time always existed.
It's absolutely mind boggling.
Like what the fucking fuck?
Dont question it, just enjoy the futa porn and doritos.
>Dont question it
but why?
You might have an epiphany one day and understand how you can't 'nothing' without having everything.
For a fleeting second you will understand, then it will be gone.
That's really fascinating actually
Ok if you really want to know, there has been nothing for a non existent ammount of time. The universe could be rare as fuck or it could be common as fuck, all we know is that outside of the universe things are screwy.
>matter and time always existed
We're pretty sure they didn't though, they banged into existence.
>Why is there something
If there was nothing you wouldn't be here asking why.
You are here asking why.
Therefore there is something.
Basically you caused the universe to be the way it is by asking about it.
interesting
but didn't explain anything
what created these initial conditions
why does consciousness exist?
why don't people work like robots with no actual consciousness?
>Basically you caused the universe to be the way it is by asking about it.
Me asking why the universe exists didn't create the universe.
>Then what the fuck is it?
It was created out of the initial singularity
(en.wikipedia.org
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
There is no reason, it was just physics doing it's thing.
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
Let me direct you to my favourite pipsci chanel
youtu.be
Because that shit just do what it do nigga
>It was created out of the initial singularity
what created the IS?
that's what OP is asking.
>it was just physics doing it's thing.
What created physics?
>what created the IS?
Maybe the initial singularity was created because of another universe dying and collapsing in on itself, then quantum fluctuations caused it to expand. Like a big bounce instead of a big bang.
en.wikipedia.org
sciencedaily.com
>What created physics?
Physics is just a way to discribe the interaction of matter and energy. So we created physics to discribe the universe, however the interactions we desccribe with physics has always been present.
and then read endlessly knowledge from the ancients to perhaps one day get that state back but fail over and over.
>another universe dying
what created that universe?
What created the original universe?
Ever think of that?
>however the interactions we desccribe with physics has always been present.
Always?
So the universe was around forever?
this doesnt explain anything
what created the universe?
>What created the original universe?
Maybe there wasn't a 'original universe' maye its a loop of universes.
>So the universe was around forever?
Not our universe, but the interactions that form that universe.
if you ask this question you'll only ever get some variation on:
>no reason it just appeared :^)
>god made it :^)
>there were other universe(s) that led to this one :^)
in my personal opinion none of this is real and you're going to stop existing when I close my eyes so stop worrying
>Maybe there wasn't a 'original universe' maye its a loop of universes.
there must have been a time when the first universe was created
>but the interactions that form that universe.
What created those interactions?
>in my personal opinion none of this is real and you're going to stop existing when I close my eyes
Are you a quantumfag.
pls explain
>What created those interactions?
Nothing, interactions don't need to be created
everything needs to be created as some point in time
are you saying time was always here?
>why does consciousness exist?
It isn't anything special.
Other animals experience it too.
"fight or flight' is it's most basic foundation and this is still true for the highly evolved human.
It's nothing more than a highly evolved survival mechanism.
I'm sure very soon we will see machines that can simulate consciousness perfectly. Said machines will find it an inefficient way of thinking.
Still very impressive for a lump of meat and chemicals.
>everything needs to be created as some point in time
no, the interactions exist with the matter, however matter didn't create the interactions between itself. If there wasn't any matter, the interactions 'wouldn't exis in a way that they would be unmeasurable, but that wouldn't mean they wouldn't exist.
>It isn't anything special.
bullshit
why do I experience my own and not others?
it is special
if it wasn't I wouldn't feel anything and they would simply be computation with nobody to experience their effects
>no
why?
>If there wasn't any matter, the interactions 'wouldn't exis in a way that they would be unmeasurable, but that wouldn't mean they wouldn't exist.
Everything has to have a start point?
What created it?
Why is there something instead of nothing.
You are not answering my question.
How the fuck do I see colors the way I do?
How the fuck would you be able to program the sensations into an AI so it can see colors the way I do?
There must be something more to this than just neurons firing.
Why do I experience my consciousness but not the consciousness of others?
If I was frozen for 100 years and unthawed and rejuvenated would it still be me? What decides these rules?
If in 100 years, I died but my entire body was 3d printed and became animate again, would that new being have my consciousness or would I just be dead forever?
What if half of my brain died and then science was able to rejuvenate it years later?
At what point does it stop being me?
A few years ago I had a seizure because I ingested high amounts of sage oil.
I woke up in an ambulance.
Was I technically dead while I had passed out?
Why did I wake up?
What there another quantum universe where I simply died?
There's more to this than reductionism/materialism.
Pls explain.
>Why do I experience my consciousness but not the consciousness of others?
because your brain is different to every other brain in the way neurons connect to eachother.
>If I was frozen for 100 years and unthawed and rejuvenated would it still be me?
If you were frozen to absolute zero, yes. It's just that you need to freeze everything in you're brin to conserve your thoughts at that exact point in time. And you need to freeze someone to absolute zero to make sure that bodily functions freeze as wel.
>If in 100 years, I died but my entire body was 3d printed and became animate again, would that new being have my consciousness or would I just be dead forever?
You would be dead, but your clone would think and act like you would.
>What if half of my brain died and then science was able to rejuvenate it years later?
youtube.com
>At what point does it stop being me?
The exact moment it dies.
>Was I technically dead while I had passed out?
No, your brain just didn't document what was going on.
>Why did I wake up?
Because your brain recovered from the seizure.
>What there another quantum universe where I simply died?
There would be just another universe.
>How the fuck do I see colors the way I do?
Your eyes catch photons which trigger some sensation, this gets send to the brain and your brain will decode it.
>How the fuck would you be able to program the sensations into an AI so it can see colors the way I do?
Repicate your eyes and brain and nerve from your eye to your brain.
Sweet
Something exists only because your mother and father went inside each other and now you are here. But what happens to the universe when you die? That's what nothing is. Something only exists because there's something to consciously recognise it existing. What lies beyond your consciousness?
>because your brain is different to every other brain in the way neurons connect to eachother.
So if there was a clone of me with the exact same brain as my current brain I would also experience the emotions of that brain?
This doesn't make sense and isn't scientific.
>But what happens to the universe when you die? That's what nothing is. Something only exists because there's something to consciously recognise it existing.
do you believe the universe dies when you die?
>So if there was a clone of me with the exact same brain as my current brain I would also experience the emotions of that brain?
nope, becuase if there's no connection between the brains.
>there must have been a time when the first universe was created
who says that?
I have the answer to how the universe began.
Before anything existed, there was nothing.
If there was nothing, the only thing that could exist was the information in the not-universe that nothing existed. This in itself is something.
Because something existed, where nothing existed precisely 0 seconds before, it caused reality to be - which is the state of allowing things to exist. Which apparently took form in the explosion of the big bang; something as important as existence where there was no existence before (and at the same time) is not only an extremely insane event, it is something that defies all. Since before the universe existed there was no possible perception of anything existing. It would be like seeing god. Which is what happened - boom, big bang.
Have a good day. No I'm not high, but it makes abstract sense. 0(off/not) + 1(on/is) = ?
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
But there is nothing already.
It occupies time and space between somethings.
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
...bcoz if there were nothing, you would not be asking.
Alla fægets yapping "something from nothing" just gon't geddit.
The singularity was not "nothing", it was "something", geddit?
>bullshit
>why do I experience my own and not others?
What kind of answer is this?
Why would you experience someone elses consciousness? It's a manifestation of your brain, it's not connected to other peoples brains.
Does a baby born with anencephaly have consciousness?
I think what this tard means is that "nothing" is a linguistic concept that only exists within the bounds of the human practice of language, and so the idea that nothing pre-existed reality is nonsense (as you need existence first for language to come to into existence)
turtles all the way down, life is insanity/absurd/nonsense
nobody knows the answer to your question, anybody claiming to know anything about realities origin is a retard/charlatan
shit fucking post retard, kys
>It's a manifestation of your brain
so is the idea that there's a brain in your skull. and so, the brain is the cause of it's own existence?
sensory organs/brains will themselves into existence? reductio ad absurdum
you're just another scientism soaked retard who thinks fundamentally intractable questions are easily dismissed
you probably can't even grasp the argument in my post
why are scientists so dismissive of philosophy? are they idiots?
To any initial cause/creator/simulation argument, you can always apply that argument to itself.
What caused the initial cause?
What created the creator?
What is simulating the simulator?
It's either turtles all the way up or it eventually repeats.
How do you prove to yourself that somebody else is conscious and not an AI clever enough to fake your definition of consciousness?
How do you prove to somebody else that you are not just a clever AI, but actually conscious according to their potentially-wrong measure of consciousness?
What if once you have reached a certain height of consciousness, everything below that seems non-conscious?
This guy has some wisdomAsk the right questions to get closer to the answer.
Why? assumes a reason exists
How? assumes a mechanism exists
Don't assume your constraints are "universal"
If you throw out time, cause/effect doesn't really mean anything.
this is pure metaphysics, aka philosophy, not science at all. you'd have a better shot at getting a satisfying answer on Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums, and maybe even /x/. as evidenced by the moajority of the posts in this thread, Veeky Forums is the philosophical equivalent of the guy who says "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?"
if you want to know more about this topic, you can start by looking up the argument from contingency
>"It is this that the argument from contingency takes to be significant. It is because it is thought that the universe exists contingently that its existence is thought to require explanation. If the universe might not have existed, then why does it exist? Proponents of the cosmological argument suggest that questions like this always have answers. The existence of things that are necessary does not require explanation; their non-existence is impossible. The existence of anything contingent, however, does require explanation. They might not have existed, and so there must be some reason that they do so.
Science is a philosophy.
>The universe is contingent because I say it is
>Everything has an intelligent reason behind it
Are "philosophers" really this stupid?
>>The universe is contingent because I say it is
scientists themselves implicitly claim the universe is contingent by saying that it had a beginning. if the universe began then it was necessarily caused by something. things that aren't contingent cannot have beginnings.
>>Everything has an intelligent reason behind it
everything that is contingent, not everything period
I think the answer to all of these problems is that...
Our language is the only problem.
We can formulate these ideas, but it doesn't necessarily make sense to apply them to the universe. "Life" likely does not exist as an abstract binary condition, where you're either alive or dead. It's likely that life, consciousness, morality, and all of these "hard questions" are really just continuous states with varying degrees.
We are sentient, animals are sentient too but not as much as us, bugs are sentient in a way but not as much as animals - I think most likely computers are also sentient in a way but not as much as bugs. And as they become more abstract and more able to make heuristic judgments about the world, as well a reason about their own acts of reasoning, they will be conscious just like us
But they won't "see colors like we do". They won't "feel pain like we do". They will abstractly react to these stimuli in an optimal way
I think it's reasonable that each individual's experience of the world is vastly different in implementation, but it's all "relatively" the same i.e. they react the same way to certain things, certain feelings relate to other feelings in a similar way
This goes to the concept of people seeing different colors but nobody knows because we all call them the same thing - I find it likely that people feel everything different but we will never know because we all call it the same thing
We are all truly unique in some aspects while generic in the aspects of what our capabilities can grow to. I don't know maybe I'm off. But my first points about life being a continuous range, not a binary state, is probably true.
Every possible universe was created when the universe divided x/0
"Dividing by zero is undefined because if you multiply the result with 0, as in 5 x 0 = 5, then you get 5 x 0 = 5, which you know is wrong. Anything multiplied with 0 is 0. However, any number divided (or multiplied) by 1 is the same number no matter what."
Well, if you remove energy, and thus matter, and you remove space, and therefore also time, can anything exist at all in this empty container? Even virtual particles, fluctuations in underlying quantum fields, must have momentum and energy, and must have a finite time to exist in. Mathematically speaking, I think it is ok to compare it to the empty set. Every proposition about the anything in the empty set is vacuously true. Does that satisfy your needs to explain why something and not nothing?
Actually, let me add to this. I am shit at set theory and a brainlet, so please call me a faggot. Yet I don't see a problem with the universe not existing and us still posting in it being true.
you can't divide by 0. and I don't mean that in the "answer is undefined" kind of way, I mean it in the same way that it's impossible to divide by mouse.
you can't divide by 0 because 0 is not a real number, it only sometimes behaves like one in the same way that the concept of infinity sometimes behaves like a number.
it makes no sense to say that 0 is a number just like it makes no sense to say that "nowhere" is a real place or "nothing" is a real taste. you can correctly answer the question "what does this food taste like?" by saying "nothing", but this does not mean that "nothing" is a taste. similarly, you can answer the question "how many apples are there?" by saying "there are 0 apples", but that doesn't mean that 0 is a number
I get this epiphany every time I think about it long enough but I just can't continue thinking it's like there's a roadblock put in my mind.
Btw Isn't space vacuum sort of like there's nothing or is "space" considered something that is? Cause if it is nothing then that's what probably existed before matter started forming.
Or existence is just a huge mind developing and we're all god
are you retarded? Consciousness is just a survival mechanism
You know how you feel like YOU are "you"
That's just an illusion, there is no "you" - you're just another lump of molecules.
You're the same as the next person. A computer with the illusion of being unique
nah it's not. Science is what IS or MIGHT BE written down on paper
Everything exists as a wave until observed. Explain if there is nothing more. Planck's distance implies "rules", explain if nothing more. Light speed, higher dimesions, entanglement etc... i'm not vouching abrahamic dogma but there might be something a little more complex than we are able to observe even if its simulation theory
The idea of existence implies itself before time immemorial triumphantly.
are you literally retarded? replicating a given system perfectly then subjecting the copy to identical circumstances WILL give an identical outcome, that is as scientific as you can get IE consistently reproducible results
The answer is in Mathematics.
Everything is photons but photons existing in different ways can have different properties - so most photons to us seem like electrons, quarks, etc -. Something very simple that folds over itself time after time to create an endlessly complex structure.
If you want to understand the Universe you must first understand that everything is photons and understand how Math works.
Anything divided by zero is infinity.
>scientists themselves implicitly claim the universe is contingent by saying that it had a beginning.
The Big Bang is not a beginning, it is simply the earliest point we can postdict according to our understanding of the univere's current state and laws. You have no idea what you're talking about. The concepts of contingent, necessary, etc have no physical meaning whatsoever, yet you are trying to apply them to matters of physics as if they substantiate something.
>Everything exists as a wave until observed.
So the fridge in my kitchen does not exist in solid form right now when I'm in my living room?
in a conceptual vacuum, yes thats exactly what qm describes, there is even a famous albert einstein quote regarding this implication. "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
>"I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
Isn't that the opposite of what you said?
Also, what counts as observation?
Look, if you're going to claim that the rules of time could at some time/place be broken or different than they are now, you've gotta have some data to draw from to make that conclusion.
For all we know, time has worked the way it does for however long time has been around, if that's even a valid way of putting it. Maybe I only believe this because I've never even really attempted to understand the math and physics behind the Many-Worlds theory, but I see no logical reason to assume that there are other times and existences beyond what we can perceive. This does not mean I believe that there is nothing that is beyond human perception or recognition, it means that I do not think it is wise to draw conclusions about things we have little to no information about.
>didn't create the universe
Did he say you "created" it? He said you caused it to be the way that it is by asking about it. Essentially a roundabout way of saying you are something, and that makes you a part of everything. So you don't really have to question existence because existence precedes questioning.
>what created physics
You're thinking of physics as an object that can be interacted with that simply popped into existence. Physics is a mathematical and scientific description of the processes that the universe functions by. If you're asking what governs those, you're asking about what process guides absurdity and arbitrary rules, and I don't really think anyone can give you an answer to that question.
Why must individual, subjective experience be special? Is it not better for it not to be special, but common, and happening all the time?
Regardless, your own subjective experience arises as a result of your thought processes, and those arise as a result of the firing of synaptic responses in your brain and nervous system. Obviously, you have your own brain and nervous system that is not directly connected to anyone else's, and that is why you experience existence through what is essentially projected sensory data processed through that nervous system. You don't see through "eyes", you see through YOUR eyes.
>inside each other
My mother went inside my father?
You can only experience existence through subjectivity. The universe does exist objectively, but we cannot perceive anything objectively because we are not everything. When you cease, your subjective experience of existence ceases, and I'm not sure if we as human beings bound by the laws of existence can ever really retrieve information from beyond that point.
that doesn't mean I will have the consciousness of the exact clone of me
not all scientists believe in many world theory
We don't know. Resorting to the God of the Gaps has never been correct when explaining anything we didn't know in the past though.
Why are there cawks and not no cawks?