How do we exist?

[xisnotx]

everything. like how do we know what we know about the universe, and does the universe actually exist (yes I know this is a common question) and if it does what was there before?

Humans and what humans are perceiving are two different things, don't you think? The universe exists outside of us. We're here...but when we all go extinct..."the universe" (what we perceive) will still be here.

What do you mean by "there before"? It's always "been there". Do you think that all you see around you wasn't there before "perceiving beings" could see? We're discovering it as we go. Amoeba don't have eyes, for example. That doesn't mean what we see isn't there for them. They just don't know it..

Do you think, for example, the imperceptible spectra of light "wasn't there" before we discovered it? It's always been there, I thought.

I said if I was guaranteed to come back. But if I chose to stay, I would. I'm actually not one to cling to this existence for as long as possible. I'm actually not as far as I want to be and I'm approaching 30...so I might go into the after life some entity offered, even if I wasn't guaranteed on coming back. though if I did come back I'd write a book, unless there's a contract saying I can't. Probably is. but i'll know, and people won't believe me, so there's no point.

I don't even know how to respond to you sometimes...book? If you go and come back, I doubt "book deals" would be on the list of the world's concerns for it. You're too funny.

 

[prplchknz]

Humans and what humans are perceiving are two different things, don't you think? The universe exists outside of us. We're here...but when we all go extinct..."the universe" (what we perceive) will still be here.

What do you mean by "there before"? It's always "been there". Do you think that all you see around you wasn't there before "perceiving beings" could see? We're discovering it as we go. Amoeba don't have eyes, for example. That doesn't mean what we see isn't there for them. They just don't know it..

Do you think, for example, the imperceptible spectra of light "wasn't there" before we discovered it? It's always been there, I thought.




I don't even know how to respond to you sometimes...book? If you go and come back, I doubt "book deals" would be on the list of the world's concerns for it. You're too funny.

before the universe

it could be, they like mystery. If everyone knew the secrets, than we could all rig life to have the outcome be they way we want it. It's like a surprise party, when we die. we don't know what we're getting into, so it's like you die, then, "surprise! this is where you're gonna spend eternity"

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

We exist simply because non-existence in the first person is impossible due to a paradox created by the infinite potential that comprises non-existence. (Non-existence is only achievable in the third-person reference frame provided by existence, i.e. conceptual non-existence)

Assuming that this presupposition is correct, we are here because existence operates on the foundation of circular reasoning (existence exists simply because it is impossible for existence to not exist).

God that's so depressing.

Thinking about all those gravestones that have "RIP" written on them.. Nope.

If that's true, which I believe it is, existence itself is hell.

 

[prplchknz]

We exist simply because non-existence in the first person is impossible due to a paradox created by the infinite potential that comprises non-existence. (Non-existence is only achievable in the third-person reference frame provided by existence, i.e. conceptual non-existence)

Assuming that this presupposition is correct, we are here because existence operates on the foundation of circular reasoning (existence exists simply because it is impossible for existence to not exist).

prove that it's impossible for existence not to exist, because i'm not convinced

 

[Qlip]

Humans and what humans are perceiving are two different things, don't you think? The universe exists outside of us. We're here...but when we all go extinct..."the universe" (what we perceive) will still be here.

What do you mean by "there before"? It's always "been there". Do you think that all you see around you wasn't there before "perceiving beings" could see? We're discovering it as we go. Amoeba don't have eyes, for example. That doesn't mean what we see isn't there for them. They just don't know it..

Do you think, for example, the imperceptible spectra of light "wasn't there" before we discovered it? It's always been there, I thought.




I don't even know how to respond to you sometimes...book? If you go and come back, I doubt "book deals" would be on the list of the world's concerns for it. You're too funny.

I agree that things are, that's a tough one to dispute.

But I also believe that things are only important as to their relationship to us. The only reason why we care so much about what is, is because we use it to propel and sustain our subjective experiences.

Things exist, but without us they don't matter.

 

[Mole]

Wrong I'm surprised you still haven't understood how string theory provides a good explanation on how black holes and gravity work.

Quantum Mechanics is our most accurate fact about the physical world.

And Quantum Mechanics says there are no black holes because at the edge of a gravity-well time and space become chaotic.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

prove that it's impossible for existence not to exist, because i'm not convinced

If we follow the principle that something did in fact come from nothing (i.e. existence sprang from non-existence), then we see that due to nothing's lack of intrinsic properties (because nothing is nothing after all) along with the added principle a paradox is created.

If something came from nothing, then there is infinite potential for something to spring out of nothing. If there is infinite potential for nothing to become something, then nothing will always become something. This creates a question, if there is infinite potential in nothing, and nothing is ultimately infinite, wouldn't this create some sort of equilibrium where nothing exists and still feeds existence (denoted something)? This question, however, is easily answerable. Nothing is unfettered from universal laws, and is therefore unfettered by any mathematical explanation for universal laws, which subsequently means that nothing has no mathematical structures such as infinite due to the fact that it would exist outside structures posited by existence.

Ironically, this postulates that non-existence itself is non-existent (conceptual, and also a paradox), and this loop-hole can be used to explain reintegration.

 

[Mole]

If something came from nothing, then there is infinite potential for something to spring out of nothing.

We perceive by making distinctions. So what do we see with the distinction exist/not exist? And what do we see with the distinction being/non being?

Well, we can say we would see nothing without these distinctions.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

"Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate."

 

[Evo]

We exist simply because non-existence in the first person is impossible due to a paradox created by the infinite potential that comprises non-existence. (Non-existence is only achievable in the third-person reference frame provided by existence, i.e. conceptual non-existence)

Assuming that this presupposition is correct, we are here because existence operates on the foundation of circular reasoning (existence exists simply because it is impossible for existence to not exist).

I would not have been able to articulate this as well as you have. But this is the deductive reasoning I have come to as a conclusion when I've pondered this in the past.

 

[Eugene Watson VIII]

To add to the OP, how is it that we have a beginning of time? Surely something existed before all of this happened? Because even if there was NOTHING, it still existed before the existence of something. That brings me to the paradoxical conclusion that our environments has already existed for forever. But if we already existed for forever, then that must mean that we cannot exist simply because time continues to go forth into the past and must mean somehow, the universe has been created from nothing. Only one of these things will be true. Or if both aren't, we were somehow skipped to infinity o clock.

This (the infinite past) would have meant the night sky would be as bright as the surface of the sun. At this time, the big bang, all the matter in the universe would exist as an amount that has cometh to the end of infinity, which would mean it is a singularity and directly contradicts the laws of physics. Though since events before the big bang have no observational consequences, it is better to assume we DID have a big bang that began the life of everything. The previous events are not defined and thus not measurable. These questions have been pondered on throughout the 19th and 20th centuries by all sorts. No solid conclusion has been formed, but I can direct you to a website which has a plethora of information about the epoch of our time that is, Stephen Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html.

I've read somewhere that we are only infinite to ourselves. What I mean by this is that, for example, a 2d drawing can walk around a circle forever but seemingly travel for an eternity. To us, the circle is observed as a finite two dimensional figure with no starting point. The fourth dimension observes us the same way. Then the fith. Then the sixth.

What I'm interested in is how the universe will eventually collapse (oh noes D: ). How will it reach out to the infinite spectral building that is the universe? Will it end up collapsing faster than it is expanding? And how is it even suppose to collapse exactly?

So what do you think?

 

[jixmixfix]

"Explanation" does not mean "Theory" or "Model" -- it's a semantic issue. Put down your bong, I repeat.

The explanation is embedded within the theory, you're slow.

 

[jixmixfix]

Quantum Mechanics is our most accurate fact about the physical world.

And Quantum Mechanics says there are no black holes because at the edge of a gravity-well time and space become chaotic.

There are black holes everywhere in the universe. It's not a theory it's a fact.

 

[grey_beard]

The explanation is embedded within the theory, you're slow.

You were careless in your language.

 

[Mole]

There are black holes everywhere in the universe. It's not a theory it's a fact.

The theory of black holes is based on the Relativity of Albert Einstein. Albert rejected Quantum Mechanics saying God does not play dice.

However Quantum Mechanics is now our most accurate physical fact.

And Quantum Mechanics gives an entirely different picture of a gravity-well than Relativity.

Relativity gave us an impossible singularity at the heart of a so called black hole, while Quantum Mechanics gives us the physical facts about time and space at the edge of gravity-well.

So if you support Relativity you are left with a physically impossible singularity at the heart of a 'black hole', whereas if you support Quantum Mechanics you are left with the physical facts of time and space.

 

[Mole]

What I'm interested in is how the universe will eventually collapse (oh noes D: ). How will it reach out to the infinite spectral building that is the universe? Will it end up collapsing faster than it is expanding? And how is it even suppose to collapse exactly?

So what do you think?

We have recently discovered that our universe will not collapse, rather time and space will keep on expanding at an accelerating rate, even exceeding the speed of light.

 

[prplchknz]

if the universe is going to collapse, I hope it happens in my lifetime (I'd say ours, but some of you are going to die before me, so I have to make it selfish) because I want to see what'll look like

 

[Eugene Watson VIII]

if the universe is going to collapse, I hope it happens in my lifetime (I'd say ours, but some of you are going to die before me, so I have to make it selfish) because I want to see what'll look like

It will be pretty grand and badass if it were to.

 

[WALMART]

science answers some questions, but not all.

"Science" encompasses all existence, as abstracted from the noumenon.

It was a fallacy when [MENTION=20790]Zangetshumody[/MENTION] said science cannot equal truth given the confines of its own scope, but what he failed to take into account was that science never sleeps - his argument would be like subtracting one from infinity.

 

[Ginkgo]

this is something that's always blown my mind. The universe's existence, It's like how did we get here? I'm not sure, how can something come from nothing? it has to be a trick. Maybe we're part of some dmt thing and we're just a dream and trillion years for us is like 5-10 minutes. I don't get it. If you think about we shouldn't exist. Like the universe use to not exist and now it does. How does that work?If there's a creator, he/she came from nothing if there's a lineage of them (which is what I believe) where did the first one came from? I don't fucking know. I'll never know, I don't think ghosts even know. The only thing ghosts have privvy to that would partially answer this question is what happens once we're dead

A far more approachable question than "Why do we exist?".