Why is there Something instead of Nothing?

[Zangetshumody]

Seriously?
'pretending to go through the notion of intellectualism' you recycled 3 century old ideas without the kind of elegant discourse already existing on the topic.
Back then men didn't know what we know now. You do not have that excuse.

I answered in kind. I understand this may be infuriating to you but what I'm offering is simply fair treatment.

As I said, you start with a conclusion. So what is there to discuss exactly? If you do that your opinion is by default meaningless.
I assume that because assuming your theories are overcompensated cognitive dissonance is the kinder of two options.

So again? what is there to discuss?

When that 'science' you demonize for whatever personal reason does exactly what you mock it for not being able to achieve (predictive power) it becomes obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.

So.. again and a last time. What is there to discuss, if you do not seem to know anything about the subjet at hand?

Oh I see, your excuse is that you weren't and still aren't even being serious.

gotcha
and good luck with that.

 

[EcK]

my.guess.would be because nothing cant exist.

 

[EcK]

Oh I see, your excuse is that you weren't and still aren't even being serious.

gotcha
and good luck with that.

I don't 'need' to be serious.
Go on, show me that your arguments are in any way substantiated.

Or do you prefer to retreat in the 'no! YOU prove my statement' fallacy?
The burden of proof is on you, so please go on. Don't run off just yet, the play isn't over.

here's a pointer: The energy you put in something is not equal to its value.

 

[Olm the Water King]

The fundamental problem is that even if we find out exactly how big the universe is, how it functions, what are its laws, we still can't answer why it exists in the first place.

And in the case of a kind of space where "nothing" exists except the probability of something appearing, it's not true that nothing exists. Obviously, the probability exists. Probability is not nothing. Why does the probability exist?

P.S.: Oh and in the very unlikely case that something like a God exists, it still wouldn't change much. The article itself explores that a bit: Why does god exist?

 

[JocktheMotie]

If the rest of your responses are as pretentious as this last one, I won't bother wasting my time with further replies.

Irony.

 

[EcK]

Irony.

Ah. good times

 

[indra]

Mr Have
Kills
Mr Emtpy Hand

 

[á´…eparted]

There are some questions in science that really genuinely can't be answered, because the laws of physical ironically prevent that from happening. You can't measure something that doesn't interact with anything else. We should still try to answer them though. We might eventually find something that does interact, even if weakly (such as the case with neutrinos). The old saying "jump at the sun, and if you miss you can't help but grab some stars" applies here.

@Coriolis I'd be curious to hear if you have any insight/thoughts related to this article.

 

[Coriolis]

There are some questions in science that really genuinely can't be answered, because the laws of physical ironically prevent that from happening. You can't measure something that doesn't interact with anything else. We should still try to answer them though. We might eventually find something that does interact, even if weakly (such as the case with neutrinos). The old saying "jump at the sun, and if you miss you can't help but grab some stars" applies here.

@Coriolis I'd be curious to hear if you have any insight/thoughts related to this article.

No time for a thorough consideration right now, but at first glance it seems that "something" and "nothing" are semantic distinctions more than anything else. Reality is what it is. It then comes down to how we will categorize and label what.

 

[Olm the Water King]

No time for a thorough consideration right now, but at first glance it seems that "something" and "nothing" are semantic distinctions more than anything else. Reality is what it is. It then comes down to how we will categorize and label what.

Well, words are semantic...But I'm not sure if you could find two words with as radically different meanings as something and nothing. It's a giant leap from nothing to something. An infinitely big one.

And saying that reality is what it is doesn't explain why it is that way, let alone why it is at all (see nothing vs something question).

So we have space, we have all these weird particles, and they behave a certain way...Awesome. Why?

Besides, science has always tried to explain the origin of things, whether life, our planet, solar system, etc... It hits a brick wall when it comes to Reality itself. And yes, you can give up at that point and say that reality is what it is, but you could have said that same thing for life and everything else as well. So there's this planet, and we can categorize it and label it and it is what it is. It doesn't matter how it became that way, or how it came into existence in the first place. Or does it?

P.S.: And again, a deity wouldn't explain much. If a deity exists, there's still the question of why does it exist. : - )

 

[Zangetshumody]

A few more points to be pointed out:

The claim that Science has even accomplished anything, is based on the weak claim that Science is valid in a separable way, in fashioning different parts to the presumed truth of "Science" (that correspond to spheres or levels of 'the total "scientific-reality"'); which is clear evidence that a fundamental feature of Scientific-dogma, is blind reliance (and bias) for the presumption in [the truth of] physicalism.

There is only one Science, and the source of any validity must come from some umbrella of sheltering validity, vindicated and rooted in the deepest study of 'physical observation'. Its trite, but worth spelling out: without being covered by the umbrella of physicalism, we can safely conclude Science has provided no answers in any question, only rendering itself useful in various technical respects (wherever Science has paved the way for manufacture or delimiting various kinds of guesswork in some kind of technical application (in the same way, a cook can know when the cake can expect to be ruined by an oven and how it might taste, by a rigor applied to reading his experience, not because he has the authority to know a full deterministic account for time and space)).

Now...

Scientific description of Quantum Mechanics is nebulous; but not only this, it is exactly nebulous to the exact manner that Science construes it's treatment of time through its methodology; anyone who dismisses this coincidence, is somewhat philosophically inept;- to say the least.


Summation:
If there is something, it can never have come from nothing;
And, something can be the displacement for nothing,
and thus, by scientific description, the full account of anything, is not a resolvable mystery.

Again: it's not a coincidence, that scientific description of quantum mechanics, mirrors exactly: science's treatment of time- the treatment woven into the structure of the scientific method. "Woven" in this context means hap-haphazardly presumed.

-----
The math-model does not determine occurrences, it can't, then any greatest statistical outcome must always prevail in some sense, and yet it can easily persist with no tangible expression, only by a Scientific-placebo-expression. The wave-form is just a projection cast by Science, it is in fact only the void of nothing, that nothing, always being then conforming to one-single displacement by something; something that has not come from statistics, neither through a statistic:- a position in favour of the statistics, can only be made reliable by extrapolating outside of the occurrence, or even further from the real empiricism, into a hypothetical empiricism (which is the deceptive-craft of the Science-domain).

Remembering whole virtual particulars are empirically manifest, not just the course of matter, that has already been taken for granted to subsist (and vulgarly accounted for under the guise/auspices of physicalism).

 

[Coriolis]

Well, words are semantic...But I'm not sure if you could find two words with as radically different meanings as something and nothing. It's a giant leap from nothing to something. An infinitely big one.

And saying that reality is what it is doesn't explain why it is that way, let alone why it is at all (see nothing vs something question).

So we have space, we have all these weird particles, and they behave a certain way...Awesome. Why?

Besides, science has always tried to explain the origin of things, whether life, our planet, solar system, etc... It hits a brick wall when it comes to Reality itself. And yes, you can give up at that point and say that reality is what it is, but you could have said that same thing for life and everything else as well. So there's this planet, and we can categorize it and label it and it is what it is. It doesn't matter how it became that way, or how it came into existence in the first place. Or does it?

In one sense, "nothing" is simply the absence of "something", much as darkness is the absence of light. Why isn't there darkness in places that are lighted? Because light energy (photons) has found its way there. Similarly , we don't have "nothing" because something - in fact very many things - have found their way here. So the question then becomes: where did these things come from?

Science does much better at explaining how things came into being than why. Note that August Compte's question was even easier: it asked "what". If you are focusing on the reality of nothing vs. something, than it would be enough to explain why any specific, individual, even infinitesimal thing exists, because however small and isolated it is, its very existence takes "nothing" out of the equation. The how and why can be convolved with each other. Consider the question: why does our universe exist? Answers usually have the form of, well first this happened, and it led to that, etc. which is really more of a "how" explanation. So, I would not be surprised if these "why" questions cannot be answered by science.

 

[Mole]

We were nothing before we were conceived, then we were thrown into being, and have been becoming ever since.

 

[sorenx7]

We were nothing before we were conceived, then we were thrown into being, and have been becoming ever since.

This reminds me of Heidegger. "Thrownness" (Geworfenheit)

In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't already been mentioned in a discussion like this, although maybe he has and I didn't see it.

 

[Mole]

This reminds me of Heidegger. "Thrownness" (Geworfenheit)

In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't already been mentioned in a discussion like this, although maybe he has and I didn't see it.

Can one's soul not bear to read Being and Time?

If members can't contain their soul, they can click on http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/t...r, Martin - Being and Time/Being and Time.pdf

 

[great_bay]

Ask the question again.

This time, don't use the words something or nothing.

My English teacher said if a person were writing a serious paper, they should avoid using something. Something doesn't refer to the noun. Please specify what the person is talking about.

Nothing is arbitrary and a vague word.

Why is there space instead of no space?

 

[sorenx7]

"Being and Nothingness"

Jean-Paul Sartre

 

[Zangetshumody]

Ask the question again.

This time, don't use the words something or nothing.

My English teacher said if a person were writing a serious paper, they should avoid using something. Something doesn't refer to the noun. Please specify what the person is talking about.

Nothing is arbitrary and a vague word.

Why is there space instead of no space?

I would suggest then, to replace "something" with "anything".

You must be careful that you aren't introducing the faulty scientific thinking into the grammar of your question though.

For science is entirely predicated on the erroneous assertion that time is fungible; if your question removes the possibility of time being construed vaguely, then you might have just created a framework that can cleverly disguise the presumptuous fungibility overlay-ed upon the concept.

---
I'm glad I caught this, I just made a similar point on a /his/ thread .

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Because DOG... duh.


P.S. I'm dyslexic, sometimes.

 

[Ingrid in grids]

Because DOG... duh.


P.S. I'm dyslexic, sometimes.

Doge?