First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
How is there actually an existence?
Posted 8/14/15

foraslan wrote:

Lol, I love threads like this that are totally based in speculation- no sarcasm, I really do love them!

At first, I thought it was very much unfair for you to immediately exclude religion from your topic, but I finished your opening post anyway, and I think I see what you're getting at. You are not asking WHAT the first object is, or exactly how WE came to be here, but how anything at all, whether it be the universe or God, can possibly exist. Is that right?

I'll wait for a reply, because I don't want to write a long-winded answer if I misunderstood you.


Yes and no. The main reason I didn't want people to put religion is because I didn't want to see a short winded answer like god, without thinking outside out the bounds of what could and couldn't be.
Posted 8/14/15
we are hive mind
804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/14/15 , edited 8/14/15

furytime wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Lol, I love threads like this that are totally based in speculation- no sarcasm, I really do love them!

At first, I thought it was very much unfair for you to immediately exclude religion from your topic, but I finished your opening post anyway, and I think I see what you're getting at. You are not asking WHAT the first object is, or exactly how WE came to be here, but how anything at all, whether it be the universe or God, can possibly exist. Is that right?

I'll wait for a reply, because I don't want to write a long-winded answer if I misunderstood you.


Yes and no. The main reason I didn't want people to put religion is because I didn't want to see a short winded answer like god, without thinking outside out the bounds of what could and couldn't be.


Hmm. I'm not sure I understand 100%, but I think I understand enough to go ahead and try to answer. So here it goes.

Like you said, there are two possibilities: either something has existed for eternity, or something came from nothing. Some people would say that infinite regression constitutes a third possibility, but I personally think it falls into the "something existing for eternity" category. I will discuss each, but the first possibility will only be considered briefly, because I cannot even pretend to understand how it is possible.

So, as for something existing forever. Like I said, I have no idea exactly how this is possible, although it might be- after all, we know that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed through natural means. That would seem to imply that it (or whatever its fundamental substance is, be it quantum fluctuation or something else), has always existed. If you don't want to admit that it has always existed, the next alternative would be God, but again, I have no idea how He could exist forever, either. The idea is mind-boggling to me.

Now then, think about something coming from nothing. It sounds impossible, but to me, it actually makes more sense than something existing forever. Now, the rest of this post might be a little bit hard to read, because I am adapting it from various journal entries and discussions with friends, and it is highly abridged. If something doesn't make sense, tell me, and I will try to explain. Here we go:
In order for this to make any sense, I need to make it clear that the laws of science do not exist without the objects they govern. They are simply our way of describing properties inherent to those objects. In other words, the objects contain, in their own being, the laws of science; they behave how they are- we made up the external "rules". Now, if the rules an object follows do not exist without it, then anything goes until the moment said object exists, right? I would also argue that the laws of logic fall under the same stipulation, thereby doing away with the need for causation. If science and the law of causation do not apply, then it is possible for something to come from nothing.

Huh. That was actually a lot shorter than I thought it would be.
2026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 8/14/15
Being a philosophy student, I'm a big fan of these discussions. Socrates said "the unexamined life is not a life worth living." Pretending like this question doesn't matter is just fear of finding an answer you don't like. So it's awesome that this is carefully considered. I know you said not just to say "God," which I totally get because that's just an opt-out, in the end there is something that cannot be comprehended. That is why the image of God as an old man sitting on a cloud is absurd. As is the thought that nothing turned to everything because nothing happened to nothing. As far as the Big Bang goes (which was originally proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre) I tend to pair it with Thomas Aquinas' argument from motion. Aquinas states that because everything is in motion, and everything in motion has to be initially moved, and because this cannot possibly be traced back infinitely, there must be an unmoved mover. But to answer the original question, I'd look to Rene Descartes who said "I think therefore I am." So the very act of analysis proves that we exist. And if we exist, then we are in motion.
Posted 8/14/15
Death stole the knowledge and in its place gave us the word 'nothing'.

lol jk.
Posted 8/14/15 , edited 8/14/15

foraslan wrote:


furytime wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Lol, I love threads like this that are totally based in speculation- no sarcasm, I really do love them!

At first, I thought it was very much unfair for you to immediately exclude religion from your topic, but I finished your opening post anyway, and I think I see what you're getting at. You are not asking WHAT the first object is, or exactly how WE came to be here, but how anything at all, whether it be the universe or God, can possibly exist. Is that right?

I'll wait for a reply, because I don't want to write a long-winded answer if I misunderstood you.


Yes and no. The main reason I didn't want people to put religion is because I didn't want to see a short winded answer like god, without thinking outside out the bounds of what could and couldn't be.


Hmm. I'm not sure I understand 100%, but I think I understand enough to go ahead and try to answer. So here it goes.

Like you said, there are two possibilities: either something has existed for eternity, or something came from nothing. Some people would say that infinite regression constitutes a third possibility, but I personally think it falls into the "something existing for eternity" category. I will discuss each, but the first possibility will only be considered briefly, because I cannot even pretend to understand how it is possible.

So, as for something existing forever. Like I said, I have no idea exactly how this is possible, although it might be- after all, we know that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed through natural means. That would seem to imply that it (or whatever its fundamental substance is, be it quantum fluctuation or something else), has always existed. If you don't want to admit that it has always existed, the next alternative would be God, but again, I have no idea how He could exist forever, either. The idea is mind-boggling to me.

Now then, think about something coming from nothing. It sounds impossible, but to me, it actually makes more sense than something existing forever. Now, the rest of this post might be a little bit hard to read, because I am adapting it from various journal entries and discussions with friends, and it is highly abridged. If something doesn't make sense, tell me, and I will try to explain. Here we go:
In order for this to make any sense, I need to make it clear that the laws of science do not exist without the objects they govern. They are simply our way of describing properties inherent to those objects. In other words, the objects contain, in their own being, the laws of science; they behave how they are- we made up the external "rules". Now, if the rules an object follows do not exist without it, then anything goes until the moment said object exists, right? I would also argue that the laws of logic fall under the same stipulation, thereby doing away with the need for causation. If science and the law of causation do not apply, then it is possible for something to come from nothing.

Huh. That was actually a lot shorter than I thought it would be.


Well theoretically speaking lets say outside the big bang the rules of our universe do not apply. The rules here state that matter cannot be destroyed or created, if there are multiple universes then maybe they have different rules. It doesn't seem out of the ordinary. Maybe outside of the bounds of the universe there are no rules and both something becoming of nothing and existing for eternity are true outside our 'realm'. I know that seems like an impossible concept but maybe impossible concepts can exist outside of the bounds of the universe. Maybe we humans just can't understand that yet. Like you said if the objects with the law of science do not exist, the laws would not exist. It's kind of weird to speculate with out real facts but it's also fun.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 8/14/15

foraslan wrote:

Now then, think about something coming from nothing. It sounds impossible, but to me, it actually makes more sense than something existing forever. Now, the rest of this post might be a little bit hard to read, because I am adapting it from various journal entries and discussions with friends, and it is highly abridged. If something doesn't make sense, tell me, and I will try to explain. Here we go:
In order for this to make any sense, I need to make it clear that the laws of science do not exist without the objects they govern. They are simply our way of describing properties inherent to those objects. In other words, the objects contain, in their own being, the laws of science; they behave how they are- we made up the external "rules". Now, if the rules an object follows do not exist without it, then anything goes until the moment said object exists, right? I would also argue that the laws of logic fall under the same stipulation, thereby doing away with the need for causation. If science and the law of causation do not apply, then it is possible for something to come from nothing.

Huh. That was actually a lot shorter than I thought it would be.


The answer is probably more concrete than that. The only constraint on "something from nothing" are conservations laws. The problem is that most of the conservation laws that people are familiar with (e.g. energy, momentum, and angular momentum) aren't exactly conserved whereas most fundamental conservation laws (charge, leptons, and color) tend to not form an issue.

So let me back-track. Energy, momentum, and angular momentum are conserved on average. The problem is that, at a quantum mechanical level, energy, etc. can be random variables. For large-scale interactions, we can ignore the random nature and just use the average values. That said, these conservation laws are still extremely useful in quantum mechanics, as the probability of an interaction occurring given that it requires more energy than is present in the components is often so close to zero as to be unattainable in practice. But there's nothing stopping an tom from, say, obtaining enough energy to split into two. In fact, this is the fundamental reason why radioactive decay happens: an individual atom has a small (but non-zero) probability of splitting into two.

As such, the question of where energy comes from isn't really a big deal. Provided that quantum mechanics still operate in a void that would be before the big bang, then the energy could just show up out of nowhere due to probabilistic considerations. The difficultly arises with the fundamental conservation laws--the ones we can't violate. For example, conservation of lepton number would require for every electron created, there would also be an anti-electron ("positron") created; likewise, conservation of color would require every quark would create it's corresponding anti-quark. I do recall in my particle physics books some discussion on how there could be a net gain of "regular" matter, but I'm too lazy to dig out the book. This is why the latter is a major concern (i.e. how did matter win over antimatter) but the more innocent sounding "where did the energy come from?" is often shrugged because the most intuitive answer would be, quite frankly, "by chance." The problem is, however, most people don't realize energy is usually a random variable so "by chance" isn't postulating any new laws of physics; it's just making use of already existing ones.

Anyway, I have no idea if this provides any clarity, particularly since I find most of what happens "before the big bang" to be speculation anyway in the absence of experimental evidence to confirm any possibilities. But, eh.
Posted 8/14/15

cirvin222 wrote:

Being a philosophy student, I'm a big fan of these discussions. Socrates said "the unexamined life is not a life worth living." Pretending like this question doesn't matter is just fear of finding an answer you don't like. So it's awesome that this is carefully considered. I know you said not just to say "God," which I totally get because that's just an opt-out, in the end there is something that cannot be comprehended. That is why the image of God as an old man sitting on a cloud is absurd. As is the thought that nothing turned to everything because nothing happened to nothing. As far as the Big Bang goes (which was originally proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre) I tend to pair it with Thomas Aquinas' argument from motion. Aquinas states that because everything is in motion, and everything in motion has to be initially moved, and because this cannot possibly be traced back infinitely, there must be an unmoved mover. But to answer the original question, I'd look to Rene Descartes who said "I think therefore I am." So the very act of analysis proves that we exist. And if we exist, then we are in motion.


Yes I love these topics too lol. I love that though, "I think therefore I am". And I actually did not know the big bang was thought up by a priest. That's pretty ironic in a sense. And if you take what Aquinas said, that could also lead to the big bang in terms of what started the first motion. And you can still trace beyond that. So the first motion was before that or something we can't comprehend/really go out of the bounds of what we consider logical.
131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 8/14/15
This may sound strange, but me and a friend had a pretty deep conversation about this before and I came out with the possible outcome of we're made by "Aliens" and are placed on the earth as an experiment and that goes through cycles
Posted 8/14/15 , edited 8/14/15

KItsuneDeLuna wrote:

This may sound strange, but me and a friend had a pretty deep conversation about this before and I came out with the possible outcome of we're made by "Aliens" and are placed on the earth as an experiment and that goes through cycles


Doesn't sound strange. I've told my friends that I believe that if there was a 'god', that it would most likely be a group being who advanced past what we think is possible. So essentially an alien whose mind trumps ours. Rather than a god from lets say, the bible or so, it would be a being. A being that has the ability to create a universe with technology that we cannot begin to understand. That though is a different discussion entirely.
804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/14/15

cirvin222 wrote:


Socrates said "the unexamined life is not a life worth living."


Yes, but Fiyero said "Why invite stress in? Stop studying strife, and learn to live the unexamined life."


cirvin222 wrote:

But to answer the original question, I'd look to Rene Descartes who said "I think therefore I am." So the very act of analysis proves that we exist.
Yep, someone really should have brought that up sooner. I didn't think about it, since I take it for granted that we exist, but some people want to argue the point. However, as Descartes himself says, even though 'I' exist, the simple act of thinking does not prove that 'I' exist as I perceive myself to be (i.e. I might not have a body, or the universe might be a construct of my own imagination.) ...Now I'm just going off track.

I agree with you that these philosophical topics are a lot of fun. Thanks to the OP for posting it.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 8/14/15 , edited 8/14/15

furytime wrote:

Yes and no. The main reason I didn't want people to put religion is because I didn't want to see a short winded answer like god, without thinking outside out the bounds of what could and couldn't be.


Then you are being closed minded by excluding answers you don't believe in. For all you know the truth is short and simple.
Posted 8/14/15

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


furytime wrote:

Yes and no. The main reason I didn't want people to put religion is because I didn't want to see a short winded answer like god, without thinking outside out the bounds of what could and couldn't be.


Then you are being closed minded by excluding answers you don't believe in. For all you know the truth is short and simple.


Like someone said above, which I also believe. In a discussion like this 'god' is an opt out. I could just as easily say you are too simple minded to expand your mind to understand that god may not be the answer. It's a pointless argue that I tried to avoid with the first statement.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 8/14/15

furytime wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


furytime wrote:

Yes and no. The main reason I didn't want people to put religion is because I didn't want to see a short winded answer like god, without thinking outside out the bounds of what could and couldn't be.


Then you are being closed minded by excluding answers you don't believe in. For all you know the truth is short and simple.


Like someone said above, which I also believe. In a discussion like this 'god' is an opt out. I could just as easily say you are too simple minded to expand your mind to understand that god may not be the answer. It's a pointless argue that I tried to avoid with the first statement.


That is a moot point.
You could make that same counter argument about anything posted.
Posted 8/14/15 , edited 8/14/15


Seriously man? Come on.. If you really want to go that far then tell me what happened before god. That is essentially the same question as this thread in your own belief. I am neither denying or believing in the exist of god, this thread isn't about that.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.