79
   

Why does the Universe exist?

 
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 06:05 am
@Ding an Sich,
One does not simply going along with an individual's definition, but an entire group of individuals (das Man or, the 'They'). It is by convention that we understand 'nothing' to mean such-and-such. But there are two meanings when we say 'nothing' (although I am sure there are others).

1) The absence of everything - This is what most philosophers incessantly bicker about. Heidegger brings this up in "What is Metaphysics".

2) The absence of a particular something, e.g, "There does not exist a banana in my refrigerator". This use of 'nothing' has some philosophical baggage, but not of the supposed profundity found in 1).
0 Replies
 
Alexandergreat3
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 07:37 am
To simplify the question a bit: Why does the PHYSICAL Universe exist? (instead of a big empty vacuum?)
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:15 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
Hence, you cannot have nothing.
Interesting Tur that you should so assert. Midways between Earth and Mars let’s say we somehow establish a big spherical volume. Now assume it is made to contain nothing. Obviously there might be some repercussions as it “folds in on itself" given nearby space debris, but can we now assert that at the point formerly constituting the center, there is now nothing

Quote:
There is no reason why the universe exist as it does;
Yes there is. Eventually it will be shown that the idea of nothingness being contradictory or paradoxical , matter is a necessity. There can’t not be a Universe

See my post #523 above
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:20 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Hence, you cannot have nothing.
Interesting Tur that you should so assert. Midways between Earth and Mars let’s say we somehow establish a big spherical volume. Now assume it is made to contain nothing. Obviously there might be some repercussions given nearby space debris, but can we now assert that at the point formerly constituting the center, there is now nothing


Of course not. There is empty space. Space (empty or not) is something.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:23 am
@Lustig Andrei,
He who is aware of this 'space' is the 'nothing' from which all comes out of.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:25 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Of course not. There is empty space. Space (empty or not) is something.
Yes space definitely is something. However I removed all the space in the sphere. Presumably surrounding space will rush in to fill the void; hence its effect on nearby objects. Now there is an imaginary point at the center of what was a ball of space
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:27 am
@JPLosman0711,
If this 'nothing' has awareness, as you suggest, then we cannot define it or describe it as 'nothing.' That's just nonsensical use of language.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:30 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
If this 'nothing' has awareness, as you suggest,
No Lust I didn’t so suggest. How can a point in space have awareness, the property of a solid object

Doesn’t make sense
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 11:10 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Who you really are is no 'thing', you are taking what I am saying as if it were the concept of 'nothing'.

That is why I put 's around the word 'nothing' so as to indicate that I was merely using that word to indicate something.

Apparently being 'old' and 'wise' do not go hand-in-hand, you are a prime example of this.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 11:12 am
@dalehileman,
I'm talking about who you really are, you are not a 'point in space' are you? Do you really think that's all you are? Surely not.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 11:40 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Hence, you cannot have nothing.
Interesting Tur that you should so assert. Midways between Earth and Mars let’s say we somehow establish a big spherical volume. Now assume it is made to contain nothing. Obviously there might be some repercussions as it “folds in on itself" given nearby space debris, but can we now assert that at the point formerly constituting the center, there is now nothing

Quote:
There is no reason why the universe exist as it does;
Yes there is. Eventually it will be shown that the idea of nothingness being contradictory or paradoxical , matter is a necessity. There can’t not be a Universe

See my post #523 above


1) If we assume that a spehere with a given volume contains nothing, we would be mistaken; for it is the very form of the sphere that this "nothing" takes on. Hence it is something. Q.E.D

2) But the idea of nothingness is not contradictory or paradoxical; the problem is the following: could nothing be actual? That is where one finds contradictions and paradoxes.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 11:41 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

I'm talking about who you really are, you are not a 'point in space' are you? Do you really think that's all you are? Surely not.


Are you claiming that human beings are a process and not a 'thing' like other things we come across in our every day dealings?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 11:50 am
@Ding an Sich,
'process' is another conception(thing) and doesn't do who you really are any justice. Stop re-presenting yourself as a 'thing' of the 'world'
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:00 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

'process' is another conception(thing) and doesn't do who you really are any justice. Stop re-presenting yourself as a 'thing' of the 'world'


But are concepts 'things'?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:06 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Yes, they are mis-representations of 'life'.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:09 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
1) If we assume that a sphere with a given volume contains nothing,
Of course, Ding, if it has a specific volume then it contains space, which I had proposed to remove

Quote:
2) But the idea of nothingness is not contradictory or paradoxical;
You misunderstand. You had asserted
Quote:
There is no reason why the universe exist as it does;
and I was merely speculating that eventually you’ll be proven wrong in that respect, for the reason given
TuringEquivalent
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:35 pm
Suppose first that the Universe has always existed. Some
believe that, if all events were caused by earlier events,
everything would be explained. That, however, is not so.
Even an infinite series of events cannot explain itself. We
could ask why this series occurred, rather than some other
series, or no series. if the Universe had
no beginning, there would be nothing for a Creator to explain.
But there would still be an eternal Universe to explain.

Suppose next that the Universe is not eternal, since nothing
preceded the Big Bang. That first event, some physicists
suggest, may have obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics, by
being a random fluctuation in a vacuum. This would causally
explain, they say, how the Universe came into existence out of
nothing. But what physicists call a vacuum isn’t really
nothing. We can ask why it exists, and has the potentialities it
does. In Hawking’s phrase, ‘What breathes fire into the
equations?’

There could not be a causal explanation of why the Universe
exists, why there are any laws of nature, or why these laws are
as they are. Nor would it make a difference if there is a God,
who caused the rest of the Universe to exist. There could not
be a causal explanation of why God exists.

dalehileman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:43 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
Suppose first that the Universe has always existed.
Yes Tur I have always so supposed as it neatly skirts so many contradictions and paradoxes

Quote:
Even an infinite series of events cannot explain itself. We could ask why this series occurred, rather than some other series
Because this is the only way it could work; any other way would entail all those anomalies. It’s the way it is because it can’t be any other way

Quote:
if the Universe had no beginning, there would be nothing for a Creator to explain.
I don’t require Her to explain it. The pantheist replies simply that She has always existed

Quote:
Suppose next that the Universe is not eternal, since nothing preceded the Big Bang.
Okay. So I propose the problems with a “state of nothingness” are easily resolved by asserting its duration to be zero, reducing the question to a mere matter of semantics and incidentally allowing for serial Universes

Quote:
There could not be a causal explanation of why the Universe
exists,
Sure there could, the fact it hasn’t been done yet doesn’t mean it can’t be done. At risk of repetition, it’ll be shown that it has to exist because non-existence is impossible


Quote:
why there are any laws of nature, or why these laws are as they are.
Easy: It will be shown that a law or constant adopts the value that it does because it depends upon all the other values. This is illustrated dramatically in the case of a moving clock. All its apparent peculiarities though counter-intuitional are proved by actual measurement and if you try to assign a different value relativity would fall apart
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 01:04 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
There could not be a causal explanation of why God exists.
That’s because She is uncaused and has existed forever and will continue to so exist
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 01:13 pm
@dalehileman,
You're not fooling anyone with your 'She' as God business. If God was a woman she would have stopped all those mean 'kitchen' jokes! LOL
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/26/2019 at 08:55:54