Why is there anything at all?"Why is there anything at all?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question about the reason or explanation for basic existence which has been raised or commented on by a range of philosophers and physicists, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[3] Ludwig Wittgenstein,[4] and Martin Heidegger,[5] who called it "the fundamental question of metaphysics".[6][7][8]Introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_is_there_anything_at_all%3F
Because I experience it, duh!
Because nothing doesn't exist outside of an abstract concept, the abscence of something is a fundamental impossibility.
>>17087870The concept of cause and effect is, itself, a "something." So in a state of "nothing," there need not be any causal linkage between the thing that "causes" a "something" and the "something" which is "caused." Therefore, there need not be a reason at all for anything to exist because demanding such a thing presupposes some form of existence.This is arguably the most retarded sophistry I have ever wrote but you're probably too stupid to dismantle it in any meaningful way. So I'll just declare myself right.
Problems being realised and worked on
Are you even sure that there is this supposed "Anything" that even exists at all? The more we zoom in, the less slop there is.....Well?Where the fuck is it?This mysterious supposed "Anything"Point to the anything, show it to me please
>>17087870because you touch yourself at night
>>17087890>there is a me?low iqThere is only me.
>>17087907Me > you
>>17087870Everything is at least a Fermion (electron or quarks in the atom, and others exotic shits).In the vacuum, a Fermion is created naturally constantly with "vacuum fluctuation" : "Nothingness" doesn't exist in reality.In the Proton or the Neutron, quarks are created constantly because the sum of the Energy of only the Quarks are below the Energy of the whole Neutron or Proton.Ex. for Energy of a whole Proton : 938 MeV/c2Proton = 2 Up Quarks + 1 Down Quark.Energy of a Quark Up : 2.2 MeV/c2Energy of a Quark Down : 4.7 MeV/c2To get to 938 MeV/c2, everything inside the Proton beside binding energy, is just vacuum fluctuation : That's more than 99,9% of its mass (or Energy).So in reality, at quantum level, there is really nothing at all, just some "vacuum fluctuations" which can order sometimes as an Atom.
>>17087971Why does vacuum and "vacuum fluctuation" exists? Why does 3D space exists where vacuum can exist in?
>>17087977>whyAsk god
>>17087870and how strange it is to be anything at all
>>17087977Perhaps "vaccum" doesn't exist at all, it's just a concept that's true only at human level.Since it's known that there is no such things as an "ether" in the "vaccum" (Michelson-Morley experiment), the "vacuum" itself has no need to exist.3D exist because it's full of fermions or photons (or other exotic particles) : After the limit of the universe (14 Billion L*Y), there is no 3D space, perhaps a true "vacuum" without fluctuations.Some say that's there is no more "vacuum fluctuation" after the Planck size too.
>>17087989>Michelson-Morley experimentQuoting thos as a disproof for "aether" (aka the electromagnetic field) is probably one of the biggest blunders in science, the error from the experiment comes from the fact that we are comoving with the earth and the em field fluctuations, it's like trying to measure the speed of a car while sitting in it.
>>17088014>it's like trying to measure the speed of a car while sitting in it.>It was not done multiple times more precisely since.
>>17088014Or "aether" was conveniently replaced by the "Higgs field".
Define "nothing"To me, it's most rigirous definition is contextual to the expectation of something to be there, and it not. Not a thing in itself
>>17088025Yes, I am not sure what "nothing" means. Maybe opposite of something, of existing.
>>17087870My headcanon is that reality is like the library of babel. Every universe is a book in the library. If you only look at one book it seems like the book contains actual information but the entire library doesn't.
The universe randomly appeared from nothing.Now ask yourself, what else can nothing do?
>>17087875Nothing is something since it is the thing that proves your theory.
>>17088025Nothing is the smallest possible amount of anything and everything whose value is directly represented by the number 0.
>>17087870where else would you be able to whine at?
>>17087870>Why is there anything at all?It's fun
pretty bizarre thing to ponder about, as factually there always will be another "why" at the end
Anthropic principle. If there were nothing you wouldn't be around to ask why there's nothing instead of something.
>>17088187>Nothing is the smallest possible amount of anythingyou're thinking of an iota, or maybe epsilon.
>>17088465You're kinda misapplying the principle here.You're right that we wouldn't be here to ask the question if there really was nothing, but that doesn't answer the question of why there's something at all.Anthropic principle explains why we exist in a region of the universe that appears fine tuned for us, but it doesn't explain the viability of such a region existing in the first place.
>>17088486No, an infinitesimal is infinitesimally larger than nothing, by definition.
>>17088025the lack of anything but itself
>>17087875>Because nothing doesn't exist outside of an abstract concept, the abscence of something is a fundamental impossibility.how can something happen before time existed? that would be a fundamental impossibility to youyettime must have had a beginning, otherwise, time would have always existed, but then that would mean sequences of events always existed, but if sequences of events always existed, any separation of instances of events would become meaningless since they all repeated already in infinite time periods, as such, time wouldn't exist, yet time must existtherefore, by contradiction, fundamental impossibilities much be possible so that time can have a beginning where it started to operate in reality and hence allow causality (sequences of events) to taken place
>>17087870>Why is there anything at all?Truly nonsensical question. There is no possibility of everything not ever existing. As far as we know this shit always existed, statement which holds up in both infinite and finite past versions.Either way, the question itself is stupid, not logical, and it's based on chimp intuition. But wrong nevertheless.
>>17089168 MeLet alone the whole issue with causality outside of time itself, concept which makes sense as long as there is anything that can change.Time is a property of "stuff", it is actually a measure of change for "stuff". Cause and effect needs stuff in the first place. Thus time belongs to this universe, not outside of it.
>>17087870There are infinite ways to rewrite 0
>>17089086No nothing can be nothing in addition to nothing else.
>>17087971have an upquark
>>17087870Kys
>>17087870>Why is there anything at all?Same reason there isn't nothing
>>17089462not really. I am not even sure there can be nothing. how does anyone know that can be possible? as it stands it cannot
>>17089462The is nothing, there must be nothing, if you couldn't hold nothing at any point, you would have to be holding everything all the time, its why x must equal x+0, each thing must is itself plus nothing or each thing would have to be every thing and there would be no way to have individual things.
>>17089879this moron again
>>17089911this concession again
>>17089916last time I noticed you cannot understand why you are wrong. so it's useless
>>17089937Last I noticed, you are still mad you can't disprove x=x+0, so your need for izzat compels you to spout meaningless insults instead of actually trying to disprove anything.
>>17089941>you cannot disprove eye of sauron is real in lord of the rings universeI literally don't care for your brainrot. nothing as a concept makes no sense without something (it's defined as relative to something). it cannot exist on its own. end of.
>>17089943>please believe me, I definitely know all about a thing that can only exist if it doesn't exist.
>>17089113Time is a human concept. You can imagine a click ticking on absolute non existence vacuum. Time exists only inside human minds
>>17089957*clock
>>17089957Sure, its not like all the other animals and even plants and fungus exploit time, its only something humans use.
>>17089959> all the other animals and even plants and fungus exploit timeHe's right, that's literally just your head canon.
>>17089964No, its literally how the circadian cycle of the earth's movement around the sun dispenses solar energy to plants so they can grow and have their seeds be eaten by animals who later poop them out and spread the seeds. It happens regardless of the fact you don't have a very good grasp of the concept of photosynthesis.
>>17089965>retard can't grasp the difference between raw reality and human descriptionsHow the fuck is it possible that 99% of the posters on a "science" board are sub-90 IQs with no literally prefrontal cortex?
>>17089966By that logic everything only exists in the human mind, so it still doesn't make sense to separate it from raw reality since that is also just your head canon.
>>17089966So "in raw reality" the earth doesn't spin around the sun and plants don't take in solar energy over time? The sun and plants and animals only exist if you are there to say they are allowed to exist?
>>17089969>So "in raw reality" the earth doesn't spin around the sun and plants don't take in solar energy over time?Do you believe they need a clock to do this or something?
>>17089970If time just follows your descriptions, then why don't you just use a different description that makes time cease to behave how it does and makes plants able to grow without photonic energy over time? Also the sun is the original clock, and yes, plants need the sun for photosynthesis
>>17089971>If time just follows your descriptions, then why don't you just use a different description that makes time cease to behave how it doesWhat the fuck are you on about, schizo? Reality is what it is regardless of how you describe it. It doesn't care about your abstract concepts.
>>17089974>Reality is what it is regardless of how you describe itDid you forget "that's literally just your head canon" or you are conceding that reality, animals, plant, and planets really do exist with similar time constraints as humans, so time isn't just something that exists in your human mind?
>>17089976>90 IQ keeps getting filtered by the same basic distinction over and overThis is what a total lack of metacognition looks like and it's pretty grim.
>>17089966Ur the one who thinks humans are somehow a special entity lmao
>>17089977No, your 80 IQ argument keep nonsensically switching between "reality is just a human construct" to "reality is what it is regardless" whenever it suits your whims.
>>17089980You're just psychotically ill and retarded, so you perceive a basic map/territory distinction as a contradiction. Then your primitive brown mind hallucinates an alternate reality where I actually said the contradiction you incorrectly perceive.
>>17089981Then why are you forced to devolve to insults after realizing you can't actually explain how plants using solar energy over time is just a map thing and has nothing to do with the actual territory of plant growth that has nothing to do with time in the sun?
>>17089982>a map thing has nothing to do with the actual territoryNotice how your psychotic illness causes you to get stuck in this bizarre bargaining loop, where you keep addressing hallucinated statements no one made, trying to postpone the inevitable conclusion that you shit the bed again because you're genuinely low IQ.
>>17089983Nope, I still notice you say reality is just head canon when its convenient, then you say reality is what it is regardless when that is convenient instead.
>>17089984>you say reality is just head canonProvide a specific quote. Notice your psychotic episode escalating as you struggle to find any evidence of your claims.
>>17089987>>17089964>literally just your head canon.>>17089974>is what it is regardless of how you describe it.
>>17089990>literally repeats the same mistake againYou're simply too far below me on every metric for us to communicate meaningfully. Not gonna read any of the your broken bio-LLM wordslop.
>>17089981>a basic map/territory distinctionYou can have that distinction but how does it help your case? The assumption behind a map is that its features have analogous counterparts in reality, not that it's identical to reality. Are you implying that in reality, there's nothing analogous to time? Not that retard btw.
>>17089994>The assumption behind a map is that its features have analogous counterparts in reality, not that it's identical to reality. Are you implying that in reality, there's nothing analogous to time?You can have an accurate map of reality without reference to time. That implies time is a feature of your approach to mapping rather than of what's being mapped.
>>17089991I was just quoting you and your posts as you demanded are you admitting you are a confused bot outputting broken slop?
>>17089998Must be why we are still waiting and will forever wait for you to accurately describe how the planet spins around the sun and exposes plants to solar radiation over time without referencing time.
>>17089998>You can have an accurate map of reality without reference to time.Yeah, in the form of absurdly abstract and impractical physical theories. If the map is not the territory, why cherrypick such a description and pretend it has ontological implications?
>>17089113Lets first start by defining time
>>17090009>why cherrypick such a description and pretend it has ontological implications?I'm not cherrypicking anything. The fact that such theories are possible proves time isn't strictly necessary as a concept for a physical description. So why would it have backing in reality? If anything, it's frameworks like Idealism that elevate time into an ontological given, but even that's flawed because conscious beings experience duration, not a strict timeline. And the experience of duration is pretty elastic.
>>17089958time is merely a description. it's a human concept. such as clocks. we say time is the measure of change. or some kind of standalone entity if you are mentally afflicted
>>17090014>The fact that such theories are possibleThe fact that you don't have any theories to actually point to and are just impotently flailing by saying they are "possible" proves that you don't actually believe what you are saying because you won't even bother to collect evidence to back it up. Also, duration is a timeline segment, so it still depends on timeline, you have no idea what you are talking about, you just believe it is possible you do.>it's a human conceptNo, humans are not the the only things that are subject to time, animals all have internal clocks of their own and the more sophisticated ones can obviously conceptualize time and use it to their advantage against the less sophisticated ones.
>>17090448Who was talking to you, mentally ill monkey?
>>17090479Functional people who don't live in retard care homes like the one that takes care of you, don't have to ask permission to speak.
>>17090489>mentally ill monkey keeps begging for (You)sYou're genetically incapable of carrying anything resembling an intelligent discussion, unlike the other poster, so you can sit in the corner and watch.
>>17090494I did watch as you once again completely failed to actually explain how these things work without time and just implied that it is probably possible you could explain it if you weren't mentally deficient and easily distracted with the constant projection of your own mental problems.
>>17090495>you "failed" to explain advanced theoretical physics to a 70 IQ monkey in a 4chan postHow could I fail at a task I never took up?
>>17090504The same way you are conceding without conceding, but I accept your concession you can't back up your claim >>17089998 because you know you can't actually map the time it takes to photosynthesize without using time or a direct time analog.
>>17090509Tell you what: when someone intelligent but ignorant challenges this, I'll point them to the relevant sources. All the likes of you get from me is a giant piss all over your monkey face. No further spam from you will be read, but your inferiority complex will force you to reply again. And again. And again. Even when no one's talking to you. :^)
>>17090511>>17090495
>>17090511>when someone intelligent but ignorant challengesThe anon you already called intelligent >>17090494 did challenge you and you still failed to actually map anything and still just implied you could while actively disagreeing with them and completely failing to back up your claims.
>>17090511>when someone intelligent but ignorant challenges this, I'll point them to the relevant sourcesNo, you will have another mental breakdown like you always do and start ranting about how everyone else is inflicted with your various mental illnesses.
>>17087870This is philosophical, not scientific though. Also, it's because an eternal God created the 'ternal' world; but so few midwits understand the concept of eternality.p.s. It was White Christian men who pioneered modern science because we wanted to understand and conquer the unknown. Same reason we went to the moon.
>>17090537Then why do numbers start at 0 instead of infinity if an ultimate origin point lies in the eternal rather than the void?
>>17090014>The fact that such theories are possible proves time isn't strictly necessary as a concept for a physical description.Only if you can convince me some such theory is correct. For example, it's possible to derive the Einstein field equations and the Schrödinger equation from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, and that's your closest candidate to mainstream physics. But then it predicts a bunch of other stuff, all untested and unproven, so you can't use it as "proof".>conscious beings experience duration, not a strict timeline. And the experience of duration is pretty elastic.AKA they experience the passage of time. So what are you actually disputing?
>>17090542If you can't tell from the ensuing mental breakdown, he wasn't actually coherently disputing anything, he was just trying to maintain his izzat from having one of his own posts successfully refuted.
>>17087870Why not lolThere doesn't have to be meaning to any of it. It simple just is. Enjoy what is around you. There is beauty to be seen.
>>17090542>it's possible to derive the Einstein field equations and the Schrödinger equation from the Wheeler-DeWitt equationWell, there you have it. Or how about Shape Dynamics? Or how about the fact that you can do classical mechanics using Jacobi's principle and drop time from the equations entirely? >But then it predicts a bunch of other stuff, all untested and unproven, so you can't use it as "proof".This is always going to be true of any theory, but the point still stands that physicists keep coming up with timeless representations for systems conventionally parametrized by time.>AKA they experience the passage of time. So what are you actually disputing?That the experience of durations implies objective time. For starters, subjective durations aren't necessarily commensurable. The subjective duration of a breath isn't meaningfully related to the subjective duration of a season. You can judge that one is very long or very short relative to the other, but this vague judgment is nothing like timing one "objective" duration in terms of another, the way the abstraction of time invites you to do.
>>17089971Time is just a human classification for the constant transformation/moving of matter, it doesn't exist without humans. It's like numbers, they don't exist in nature but nature still follows principles like the golden ratio
By that logic neither does this post exist and nor my reply to it
Knowledge must have a means to end to it. What does knowing why there is anything at all tell you?What would you do with that information?
>>17090537>p.s. It was White Christian men who pioneered modern science because we wanted to understand and conquer the unknown. Same reason we went to the moon.it was also a gay (very faggot) man who pioneered the current computing architecture you are now using to spread your "word".
