Why does anything exist?
>>16933512Loads of presupposition baked into the question. First is the notion of purpose/reason when the "why" questions are asked. Its seeking an intention, a direction which is oriented towards the subjective person asking. Its a common sense that we seek that reason/purpose to orient towards us, but the common sense making function isn't sufficient/valid enough on its own. This smuggles in few more presuppositions, and as you may have guessed, the first is \the notion of subjective person, second is the contextual framework in which the subjective person fits in with the existence that is separate from the subjectiveness, and third is the ties to which the subjective person, the existence and the orientation/purpose are bound by. There is plenty of groundind/self evident questions to the entire chain of presuppositions that breaks the question entirely.
>>16933512>four words drove this man insane
>>16933519bruh....make sense next time you become existential
>>16933519Load of bullshit. You can't dance around what is the most fundamental question of existence. Why does not inherently imply intent. I could ask why is the ground wet, and it's wet because it rained, and it rained because of the weather cycle, and so on. But at the core of it, it ends up, why does anything exist at all.
>>16933531How should be the ladder to Why
>>16933512The answer is currently no one knows. But you can try to imagine different possibilities, even though there are probably an infinite amount of unknown unknowns that would completely change our perspective. I've thought about about it, and it really does seem like pure nothingness is the only sensible option, and existence is absurd and arbitrary. No matter what reason or cause, it just doesn't seem to make sense, but maybe that is just reality. If existence is necessary (not arbitrary), what does that actually mean, what is the mechanism for that. It is easy to say, but it seems nonsensical. Same problem with god, which is essentially just kicking the can up a level to a necessary being. The only way it wouldn't seem arbitrary is if everything exists, but then the problem is what does that even mean, what is everything. Even a multiverse isn't literally everything.And all of this only matters because we are conscious, which is probably the second biggest mystery of the universe. And when we die, it will probably be like before we were born, back to a state of true nothingness. Which makes existence all the weirder, just a temporary dream in a sea of nothing.
>>16933512If it didn't, then time would increasingly propel forces.
>>16933546why do time and "forces" exist?
>>16933549The AI said it's a fundamental force, and Einstein made it so.I was thinking about the inflation of space expansion and thought it might be the top of the wormhole cutting off and the remainder extra space falling on us.
>>16933554>muh ai1) KYS. Like NOW.or2) Put down the fucking chatbot and read a physics textbook, numbskull.
Because of God. And if you disagree you're a fucking retard and will never be a real thinker.
>>16933577I said it like that because they don't really have an answer; it's all playback.It has to because if you only had one person existing, it would break causality. So in order to stop the final superposition, like particles, it would collapse out between other timings.
No one knows.
Because existence insists upon itself.It JUST DOES, okay?!
>>16933512As an intellectual inquiry, your question is incoherent. It effectively asks to describe a state of affairs that precedes any state of affairs and then to show how existence logically follows from it. But by definition, there is no state of affairs that precedes existence. 'Nothing' is no state of affairs but the exclusion of every conceivable one. It imposes no constraints on what may follow and therefore carries no logical implications. Asking "why" presupposes a reason, which presupposes prior existence. You're gonna have to find a more intelligent way to formulate your incredulity or accept it as nothing more than such.
It just does. Deal with it.
>>16933592>Because of God.During certain times of my early ascension I could literally feel my atoms decaying, that matter itself dies and life exists in resistance to it...but an antipole has advantage (mean bad man).
>>16933512"why" implies motivation which is a human concepttheres no why for anything outside the human life scopeit just is
To exist forever, everything is trying to function as long as possible because of universal cosmic natural selection.>atoms 10^32 years>stars 10 billion years>humans 2.2 billion seconds
>>16933692denying the anthropocene in nature because your puny human mind cannot grasp its true form is also delusional, and typically rooted in feelings of narcissistic grandeur over perceived successes.
>>16933838meant for >>16933675
>>16933512It exists because of catalysts
>>16933838That's a lot of gibberish just to say that your mother is a narcissist. Protip: it's genetic, heritable and everyone but you knows what you are. :^)
First, you have energy, then you take the energy create time to contain the energy, over time, the energy forms structure by itself. That sums it up, any other questions?
>>16933876>narcissist because I imply humans can't make their own meaning and there are other agents at workleast delusional humanist
>>16933538>And when we die, it will probably be like before we were born, back to a state of true nothingness.the "now" that we're all experiencing continues after death but without the subjective experience of the self that we each all have. That empty nothingness of awareness but instead of the illusion of individual human sensory input it's an awareness that encompasses all of reality. Death is just transitioning from the individual role we each play back into our universal consciousness. I think the process will be VERY similar to how optical illusions work where the information is unchanged but takes on an entirely new perspective when you become aware of the new dimension. For each of us in those very final moments everything will become clear and the illusion of the individual fades away. What comes next, well... it will certainly be interesting
>>16934061copeYou'll return to your pre birth state. Non existence.Source: try to remember anything pre birth.
>>16934064we are saying the same thing but just in different ways, the subjective experience of "you" no longer exists and there are no things like individual memories that carry over because there's no self for them to be contained in
>>16934066You used to call me on my self phone. You used to you used to...
>>16934064>Source: try to remember anything pre birth.that's exactly why it's impossible to not respawn, but you didn't think that one through.
>>16934061Edited up
>>16934107I know that shit about Pepe.. Hey can u believe psychiatry are calling schizos sub human when we dominate a Taylor Swift with Pepe?
>>16934066The idea of a self gets strange with death. We popped into existence in this life, so of we return to the state before we were born, whos to say that can't happen again. This gets into the problem of personal identity, "why am I me", which relates back to the problem on consciousness. Consciousness really throws a wrench into thinking about this stuff, it is completely inexplicable
>>16934114AND A SCHIZOPOSTER WILL DO PENIS IN VAGINA WITH TAYLOR SWIFT TODAY, RIGHT STEGGASAURS?
>>16934118BLESSEDA!
It will be "fuck to win" the lead for schizophrenia
She is cowgirl teen standard
Where just honing your powers I relate to
We can wear lips and cheek bones like a tranny in a suit for giving her a rose
>>16933512>anythingIt doesn't, only certain specific things with the potential to be actualized exist, there are infinitely more things that don't exist and never will.
And we don't leave it to girl without her saying
Will you please go out with a SCHIZOPOSTER?
>>16934128It's this arvo Missus Taylor Swift
>>16934123Young Jaggers
>>16934124Anything doesn't mean everything, or the possibility of everything. Anything is any thing: the universe, a chair, you. Why does any thing exist, instead of nothing, that's the question
*grumbling stomach day* cover for me
>>16934132Plus I am no retard
>>16934131>Anything doesn't mean everythingAnything means any arbitrary single unit of everything and like I said, most things are imaginary and nonexistent rather than real.>instead of nothingBut nothing is one of the things that does actually exist, it is a foundational aspect of every other thing and the only way to tell where one thing ends and the other begins.
>>16934136Yes, everything doesn't exist. But stuff does exist, the fact that you exists means something exists. In the context of the question, anything means something. They aren't saying why can anything exist (which means the potential for everything to exist), they are asking why does the stuff that currently exists, exist. There is no point in this semantic argument when it is obvious this is what OP means. >Nothing does existNothing, by definition, does not exist. Nothing is the lack of existence. Some things do not exist, but not everything. Things exist, and therefore there is not nothing. Even if you imagine empty space, that is still nothing. True nothingness is harder to picture
>>16934148>they are asking why does the stuff that currently exists, existAnd I told them why that stuff does exist, but you are too busy confusing stuff that doesn't exist with stuff that does.>Nothing, by definition, does not exist.No, by definition, I am literally holding nothing in my hands right now, not only does it empirically exist, but there is a word to describe the empirical sensation in every single traditional sense.>Nothing is the lack of existence.No, nothing is the smallest possible amount that can exist, its why we assigned it the number 0.>Things exist, and therefore there is not nothing.There is nothing because two things can't exist directly next to each other without nothing being directly between them both, otherwise each thing would have to be every thing.>Even if you imagine empty space, that is still nothing.The smallest unit of empty space, ie the 0D origin point is the base unit of nothing, empty space is just an infinite field of blank points of void.
>>16934150If we want to be thorough, and reduce things down, then your hand is an idea, it is just a collection of subatomic particles that interact with each other through fields, and are surrounded by other particles that make up the air and everything else. There is no room for nothing in this picture, it is just fields. Even if space WAS truly empty, it would still not be nothing, because the space exists. Nothing has no dimensions, it doesn't exist, proven by the simple fact that we exist. If you are dead set on that point of view, then let me ask you this question. Why is nothing not the only thing?
>>16934152>There is no room for nothing in this picture>a collection of subatomic particles that interact with each other through fieldsSo what is between the particles and the field if not nothing, more fields and particles?>Nothing has no dimensions, it doesn't exist,So you know for an absolute fact that it has exactly 0 (like all points) dimensions because it doesn't exist and can't be examined and determined to have 0 dimensions?>Why is nothing not the only thing?0! = 100%, 0 = -1 +1, nothing is the smallest possible amount of everything, so an infinite amount of nothing eventually becomes indistinguishable from other things since nothing can be divided into two equal run away symmetries.
>>16934150Nothing just exists as an idea in humans heads, a kind of hallucination, not as an actual thing.
>>16934159You said the same thing about hands, though, so I don't trust your unnecessary reductions since they aren't based in any kind of empirical observation and I just have to trust what you are saying instead of being able to see for myself, but I can see nothing, its the only I can possibly see with my own two ears, so I will trust my own senses instead of your nonsensical delusion that you are just a hallucinatory illusion to yourself because of semantics.
>>16934162You cant see nothing. You can only see your own expectation failing and then concluding there being nothing. This doesnt prove the existence of nothingness, but it does prove the existence of a wrong expectation on your part.You're probably confusing me with another anon.
>>16934163>You cant see nothingThen what do my ears see?>You can only see your own expectation failingNo, I have no idea what to expect over there because I nothing except what is in front of my eyes.>hen concluding there being nothing.No, I am not making any conclusions, I am reporting what is self evident by way of empirical observation, you are the one making leaps of logic, I am must explaining exactly what I see with my own two ears.>This doesnt prove the existence of nothingnessI don't need to prove anything, I know I see nothing with my own two ears and I would be very skeptical that you see something besides nothing with your ears since the biological and physical makeup of ears is well documented does not support visual phenomenon by way of collecting light and seeing what objects exist by analyzing the absorption and reflection of light.Nope, you are definitely trying to claim that one's own senses are just illusions and don't count as empirical proof, so you are the one who is openly confused and can't tell illusion from sensation.
>>16934159True, even in a vacuum, virtual particles pop in and out, known as vacuum fluctuations. Also between two close plates of metals. Nothing isn't possible.
>>16934166Ears dont see (usually?). This is a wrong expectation on your part.
>>16934169>Ears dont see (usually?)I am not talking in the negative about what they don't do, I am talking in the positive about what they do, you are one using the wrong polarity for the discussion being had.>This is a wrong expectation on your part.No, you just admitted I see nothing with my ears, so it was wrong on your part to claim I can't see nothing with my ears when nothing is exactly what ears usually see.
>>16934170You can apply any attribute to anything, but this does not prove their existence, only their existence as a thought in your mind.
>>16934172>this does not prove their existenceThe empirical evidence does that, but you don't accept actual evidence because you think you are just an illusion and your empirical experience doesn't actually exist, so all conclusions you could ever possibly draw are admittedly nothing more than nonsensical and self-defeating delusions which can simply be discarded by people with actual standards of proof that don't immediately negate themselves as trash opinions that don't even make sense.
>>16934174You are so rude.
>>16934175You can apply any attribute to anything, but this does not prove their existence, only their existence as a thought in your mind.
>>16934176You are delusional.
>>16934180Sure, sure, you think everything is a delusion, you made that clear, but you also made it clear you don't even actually believe anything you say since you still go around declaring things like people who disagree with you's rudeness to be objective facts.
>>16934182You are just a bad person
>>16934184So people don't actually exist because they are all just particle's illusions, but there are still objectively bad people anyway?
>>16934185You are lying and you are disingenious.
>>16934193You are so retarded and self-defeating that you don't even attempt to take your previous declarations into account when making new ones.
Nothing actually exists, everything is just a thought. And the things that appear in your thoughts don't appear even then.
>>16934206Ok, then you and your retarded post don't actually exist, so I will actually just disregard you completely and continue believing that other sensible things that aren't self defeating exist too.
>>16934103nonsense
>>16933592>because of godwhich one, though?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds
>>16934064>Source: try to remember anything pre birth.So if just one person has a past life recollection, your premise is disproven?
