Total Posts:166|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 11:45:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 11:30:17 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
How does the conception of mathematics justify reality?

Because the conception of mathematics requires a mind to carry this platonic information. Thus, the universe as we experience would sort of be an emergent illusion unfolding from equations inside the mind of a deity.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 1:17:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



If there was nothing you would still be complaining.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 3:15:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is there something rather than nothing ?

That's a fair enough question and a common one. But what about the other side of the equation.....

Why doesn't more stuff exist ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 9:03:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 1:17:31 AM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



If there was nothing you would still be complaining.

If there was nothing, I wouldn't exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:10:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 3:15:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing ?

That's a fair enough question and a common one. But what about the other side of the equation.....

Why doesn't more stuff exist ?

The universe gets bigger as it expands. So, I suppose the answer to that question is the rate of expansion. More stuff would exist now, at time t, if the universe expanded more.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:23:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



That is not an answer to your question. The video just says reality = mathematics.
It doesn't say why there are mathematics.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:37:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 11:23:09 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



That is not an answer to your question. The video just says reality = mathematics.
It doesn't say why there are mathematics.

Well, philosophers acknowledge mathematical truths as necessary truths. So, the PSR is satisfied because the reason why math exists is due to the necessity of its nature (external causation would only be required for contingent being). However, this still has to boil down to Platonic information, which needs a mind. In fact, Alexander Vilenkin even flirted with this idea at the end of his book when talking about his quantum tunnelling model, which requires math:

"The picture of quantum tunneling from nothing raises another intriguing question. The tunneling process is governed by the same fundamental laws that describe the subsequent evolution of the universe. It follows that the laws should be "there" even prior to the universe itself. Does this mean that the laws are not mere descriptions of reality and can have an independent existence of their own? In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe?" - Alexander Vilenkin

Max Tegmark said in the rest of the video (that wasn't shown in this video) that the idea of a mind to ground these mathematical equations "makes a lot of sense".

It is different way at looking at the "God" answer (without applying any religious aspects to it).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:54:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 11:23:09 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



That is not an answer to your question. The video just says reality = mathematics.
It doesn't say why there are mathematics.

If you want a more Atheistic answer to the question. Here is an interesting video.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:59:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" So people can ask pointless questions that will get answers that solve nothing.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 12:01:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 11:59:24 AM, sadolite wrote:
"Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" So people can ask pointless questions that will get answers that solve nothing.

How is that a pointless question? It is one of the biggest questions ever asked in philosophy. Why are we here at all? What is the nature of the universe and ourselves? Why is there something, instead of absolutely nothing at all?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 12:31:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rational Thinker, it's my own believe that vacuum as all the necessary qualities to create "something". For my philosophical purposes, I define vacuum as the "state of existence that is lawless and chaotic". To me this is was genuine emptiness is ( formlessness, rule-lessness ).

As for your question regarding mathematics - "where does it come from?" - my own answer is that it comes from substance filling three-dimensional vacuum. There are rules that substance must abide by in order to fill the three-dimensional space in a consistent, logical way. These rules also materialize as the substance goes about doing it.

These rules would have to be geometric in nature - and thus mathematical! Math exist because geometry is something substance needs to cooperate with as it occupies three-dimensional vacuum in a coherent, disbursive, and homogeneous way.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 12:38:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's always interesting to see your posts.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 12:39:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 11:37:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 11:23:09 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



That is not an answer to your question. The video just says reality = mathematics.
It doesn't say why there are mathematics.

Well, philosophers acknowledge mathematical truths as necessary truths. So, the PSR is satisfied because the reason why math exists is due to the necessity of its nature (external causation would only be required for contingent being). However, this still has to boil down to Platonic information, which needs a mind. In fact, Alexander Vilenkin even flirted with this idea at the end of his book when talking about his quantum tunnelling model, which requires math:

"The picture of quantum tunneling from nothing raises another intriguing question. The tunneling process is governed by the same fundamental laws that describe the subsequent evolution of the universe. It follows that the laws should be "there" even prior to the universe itself. Does this mean that the laws are not mere descriptions of reality and can have an independent existence of their own? In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe?" - Alexander Vilenkin

Max Tegmark said in the rest of the video (that wasn't shown in this video) that the idea of a mind to ground these mathematical equations "makes a lot of sense".

It is different way at looking at the "God" answer (without applying any religious aspects to it).

But this only answers where our present universe comes from. It doesn't answer why it is the nature of mathematics to exist, nor why this supposed mind exists.

In the other video, Quentin Smith practically just talks about infinite regress.

Summarized, it boils down to two possibilities.

1. It is impossible that there is, or ever was, nothing.
But then why, is it impossible?
Or 2. It is possible for there to be nothing, but it just happens to be the case that there is something.
But if it is possible, then why is it not the case that there is nothing?

Maybe it is the very nature of nothing, that makes it impossible for itself to exist.
Maybe the concept, the idea of the existence of nothing is self contradictory.
Back in school we were sometimes joking about nothing. That, if it were to exist, it would be something and cease to be nothing. And therefore nothing could not exist.
Maybe there is some truth to it and nothing rules itself out and leaves something as the only alternative.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 1:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 12:39:17 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 2/8/2014 11:37:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 11:23:09 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



That is not an answer to your question. The video just says reality = mathematics.
It doesn't say why there are mathematics.

Well, philosophers acknowledge mathematical truths as necessary truths. So, the PSR is satisfied because the reason why math exists is due to the necessity of its nature (external causation would only be required for contingent being). However, this still has to boil down to Platonic information, which needs a mind. In fact, Alexander Vilenkin even flirted with this idea at the end of his book when talking about his quantum tunnelling model, which requires math:

"The picture of quantum tunneling from nothing raises another intriguing question. The tunneling process is governed by the same fundamental laws that describe the subsequent evolution of the universe. It follows that the laws should be "there" even prior to the universe itself. Does this mean that the laws are not mere descriptions of reality and can have an independent existence of their own? In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe?" - Alexander Vilenkin

Max Tegmark said in the rest of the video (that wasn't shown in this video) that the idea of a mind to ground these mathematical equations "makes a lot of sense".

It is different way at looking at the "God" answer (without applying any religious aspects to it).

But this only answers where our present universe comes from. It doesn't answer why it is the nature of mathematics to exist, nor why this supposed mind exists.

Yes it does. They are necessary to ground all contingent being.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason states:

"Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."

The answer to why this mind filled with math exists is because of the necessity of its own nature. Thus, there is a reason. The existence of math in this mind satisfies the PSR.

In the other video, Quentin Smith practically just talks about infinite regress.

Summarized, it boils down to two possibilities.

1. It is impossible that there is, or ever was, nothing.
But then why, is it impossible?
Or 2. It is possible for there to be nothing, but it just happens to be the case that there is something.
But if it is possible, then why is it not the case that there is nothing?

Maybe it is the very nature of nothing, that makes it impossible for itself to exist.
Maybe the concept, the idea of the existence of nothing is self contradictory.
Back in school we were sometimes joking about nothing. That, if it were to exist, it would be something and cease to be nothing. And therefore nothing could not exist.
Maybe there is some truth to it and nothing rules itself out and leaves something as the only alternative.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 2:14:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Quick Answer: Nobody knows for sure

It's not clear that the philosophical definition of 'nothing' (absence of anything, including laws of physics and spacial dimensions) is a state that's possible to 'exist'. Indeed many models which attempt to address the presence of the singularity predicted by the big bang model are ones that use a 'pre'-existing medium form which ours sprouted from.

Furthermore 'nothing' (philosophical definition) has never been tested/examined (a sad consequence of our four dimensional existence) - we simply do not know how it will behave if it did 'exist'. One interesting theory however that's quite well substantiated by evidence and it's respective predictions is that the net energy content of our universe is actually zero - we are in essence, nothing! (pretty cool if you ask me!)

However, addressing what happened at the singularity we're just not going to have a hope of explaining satisfactorily until we have a good theory of quantum gravity - which is necessary to explain what the behaviour of the universe will be when it's incredibly small. The various string theories (yes there are more than one), and other TOE's are attempting to find such a candidate as we speak - maybe in our generation we'll know - we'll see!

Recommended reading: A Universe from Nothing - Lawrence Krauss
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 2:25:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 9:03:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 1:17:31 AM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



If there was nothing you would still be complaining.

If there was nothing, I wouldn't exist.

Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 3:42:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 2:25:42 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 9:03:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 1:17:31 AM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:51:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Interesting answer to the question...



If there was nothing you would still be complaining.

If there was nothing, I wouldn't exist.

Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 3:44:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because this post and it's various responses are respectively considered "something."
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 4:12:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D

Well, that's just tautology. It doesn't answer the fundamental question. It amounts to "we are here, because we are here".
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 4:52:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 4:12:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D

Well, that's just tautology. It doesn't answer the fundamental question. It amounts to "we are here, because we are here".

No it means that it is unremarkable for there to be something because our universe must necessitate our existence to ask in the first place. In a possible universe of nothing, nobody would ask. In all the other possible universes which don't allow for conscious life they cannot ask the question either. Therefore, asking why our universe has something seems moot, were only asking because there must be something to ask.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 4:55:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 4:52:18 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:12:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D

Well, that's just tautology. It doesn't answer the fundamental question. It amounts to "we are here, because we are here".

No it means that it is unremarkable for there to be something because our universe must necessitate our existence to ask in the first place. In a possible universe of nothing, nobody would ask. In all the other possible universes which don't allow for conscious life they cannot ask the question either. Therefore, asking why our universe has something seems moot, were only asking because there must be something to ask.

That is laughable (no offense). We just so happen to be here to ask the question, that doesn't answer why it is that way. Thus, your explanation doesn't explain anything. It is useless and tautological.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 4:59:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 4:55:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:52:18 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:12:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D

Well, that's just tautology. It doesn't answer the fundamental question. It amounts to "we are here, because we are here".

No it means that it is unremarkable for there to be something because our universe must necessitate our existence to ask in the first place. In a possible universe of nothing, nobody would ask. In all the other possible universes which don't allow for conscious life they cannot ask the question either. Therefore, asking why our universe has something seems moot, were only asking because there must be something to ask.

That is laughable (no offense). We just so happen to be here to ask the question, that doesn't answer why it is that way. Thus, your explanation doesn't explain anything. It is useless and tautological.

Well the question is pretty ridiculous itself, there will never be any insightful answer to that question except for the anthropic or perhaps Lawrence Krauss's book.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 5:06:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 4:59:39 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:55:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:52:18 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:12:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D

Well, that's just tautology. It doesn't answer the fundamental question. It amounts to "we are here, because we are here".

No it means that it is unremarkable for there to be something because our universe must necessitate our existence to ask in the first place. In a possible universe of nothing, nobody would ask. In all the other possible universes which don't allow for conscious life they cannot ask the question either. Therefore, asking why our universe has something seems moot, were only asking because there must be something to ask.

That is laughable (no offense). We just so happen to be here to ask the question, that doesn't answer why it is that way. Thus, your explanation doesn't explain anything. It is useless and tautological.

Well the question is pretty ridiculous itself, there will never be any insightful answer to that question except for the anthropic or perhaps Lawrence Krauss's book.

The anthropic principle doesn't answer anything, as I already stated. We are here to ask the question, but that doesn't explain why that is so. It is useless. Also, Krauss is a scientist, not a philosopher. The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a philosopher question. Also, his book has been heavily bashed by philosophers as well (even Atheistic ones).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 5:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 4:59:39 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:55:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:52:18 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:12:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D

Well, that's just tautology. It doesn't answer the fundamental question. It amounts to "we are here, because we are here".

No it means that it is unremarkable for there to be something because our universe must necessitate our existence to ask in the first place. In a possible universe of nothing, nobody would ask. In all the other possible universes which don't allow for conscious life they cannot ask the question either. Therefore, asking why our universe has something seems moot, were only asking because there must be something to ask.

That is laughable (no offense). We just so happen to be here to ask the question, that doesn't answer why it is that way. Thus, your explanation doesn't explain anything. It is useless and tautological.

Well the question is pretty ridiculous itself, there will never be any insightful answer to that question except for the anthropic or perhaps Lawrence Krauss's book.

Person 1: "Why is there a dead body on the road?"
Person 2 "Well, if there wasn't a dead body on the road, we couldn't ask that question!"
Person 1: "No sh*t, but that doesn't answer my question dumbass"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 5:09:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 4:59:39 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:55:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:52:18 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/8/2014 4:12:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 3:51:31 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Hence the sarcasm and relation to the anthropic principle.

So, the reason there is something rather than nothing, is that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to ask the question ? lol

yes :D

Well, that's just tautology. It doesn't answer the fundamental question. It amounts to "we are here, because we are here".

No it means that it is unremarkable for there to be something because our universe must necessitate our existence to ask in the first place. In a possible universe of nothing, nobody would ask. In all the other possible universes which don't allow for conscious life they cannot ask the question either. Therefore, asking why our universe has something seems moot, were only asking because there must be something to ask.

That is laughable (no offense). We just so happen to be here to ask the question, that doesn't answer why it is that way. Thus, your explanation doesn't explain anything. It is useless and tautological.

Well the question is pretty ridiculous itself, there will never be any insightful answer to that question except for the anthropic or perhaps Lawrence Krauss's book.

Krauss commits the fallacy of equivocation many times on the word "nothing". When scientists talk about philosophy, they should at least have enough sense to discuss things in a philosophically and logically valid way. Krauss doesn't do this all the time.