My friend and I were nailing philosophical questions left and right this afternoon to celebrate finishing our final exams, and got stuck on this one.
Thoughts?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
My friend and I were nailing philosophical questions left and right this afternoon to celebrate finishing our final exams, and got stuck on this one.
Thoughts?
Yes. Why, instead of nothing, is there something. Universally speaking, why is there something when there could just as easily be nothing?
Is that really a philosophical question? Don't you think that would be more mathematical or scientific?BranKetrai think a question like that would fall into the realm of metaphysics, something beyond what math and physics can solve
Is that really a philosophical question? Don't you think that would be more mathematical or scientific?BranKetraPerhaps even religious given the perspective of the individual.
In my case, I simply respond with one word: Jesus.
This passage explains why I say such
Perhaps even religious given the perspective of the individual.[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Is that really a philosophical question? Don't you think that would be more mathematical or scientific?mindstorm
In my case, I simply respond with one word: Jesus.
This passage explains why I say such
This doesn't serve as an explanation for me at all. However, assuming it were true, it doesn't answer the question "Why is there God, rather than nothing?"I don't think we'll ever find the answer to that one. It's kind of hard to even ponder because from the moment we're born, we're surrounded by existence. You'd have to un-learn all that conditioning to really think about the existence of non-existence.
How could it not exist?
It's a great question. Honestly, the only way it makes sense is if you remove time from the equasion.musicalmacIt's true, you have to remove every conceivable thing from the equation, and including the act of conceiving itself because it's also a 'something'.
I asked this question of one of my deeply religious colleagues once, and he said "cause life would be quiet otherwise".
Doesn't exactly answer the question, but it sounds great :)
Such questions are on par with:
1. What happened before the Big Bang? Or what caused the Big Bang singularity?
Or...
2. Can something really come from nothing? Did Universe come from nothing?
3. Can something real be infinite?
And honestly I have no clue. Maybe we will never know the answer to such questions.
Is that really a philosophical question? Don't you think that would be more mathematical or scientific?BranKetraIt's a purely philosophical/metaphysical/religious question at this time, and probably always will be. Science is by definition an exploration of nature at every level, but it doesn't posit why there IS something to explore. Science ultimately explains HOW... any "why" question in science boils down to a series of "how's". This is a question of WHY... and that's not something science even attempts to address... it's not open to empirical analysis, experimentation, or any other tenant of the scientific method.
It's a great question. Honestly, the only way it makes sense is if you remove time from the equasion.musicalmacHow so?
If there was nothing, there would be no-one to notice.
That's my answer.
That's the Anthropic Prinicple, but not an answer.If there was nothing, there would be no-one to notice.
That's my answer.
That's the Anthropic Prinicple, but not an answer. I believe it's an answer. Well, if you add infinite universes or whatever.If there was nothing, there would be no-one to notice.
That's my answer.
That's the Anthropic Prinicple, but not an answer. I believe it's an answer. Well, if you add infinite universes or whatever. It's a conjecture, an it can be used to explain why we observe what we do... why life exists on earth, etc. Still, it's not really an answer, just a statement as to the necessary conditions to make observations in the first place. @Zeviander: The absence of space, time, degrees of freedom, energy, mass.Nothing and something are the same thing you need both there is no up without a down. I actually believe nothing is greater then something because nothing cant be defined.Legit1024
Perhaps even religious given the perspective of the individual.[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Is that really a philosophical question? Don't you think that would be more mathematical or scientific?mindstorm
In my case, I simply respond with one word: Jesus.
This passage explains why I say such
ehh, no.[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
Is that really a philosophical question? Don't you think that would be more mathematical or scientific?BranKetraPerhaps even religious given the perspective of the individual.
In my case, I simply respond with one word: Jesus.
This passage explains why I say such
ehh, no. I agree with you, but this is an area where the religious view is frankly as useful as any other. There's no refuting it, and no supporting it. Note: I don't personally believe it, but... you know... I have no alternative to offer. Even if you get deeply into M-Theory, at some point you either run into nothingness, or infinite expanses of something eternally interacting. As humans, we're just not capable of considering that, and I think the religious view is much more appealing... depending on only one unecessarily multiplied entity.[QUOTE="BossPerson"]ehh, no. I agree with you, but this is an area where the religious view is frankly as useful as any other. There's no refuting it, and no supporting it. Note: I don't personally believe it, but... you know... I have no alternative to offer. Even if you get deeply into M-Theory, at some point you either run into nothingness, or infinite expanses of something eternally interacting. As humans, we're just not capable of considering that, and I think the religious view is much more appealing... depending on only one unecessarily multiplied entity.yea but i dont think the answer to the deepest mysteries in the universe lie with a 2000 year old carpenter (who was a nice guy no doubt) or a theistic god who watches over us and such. Maybe there is a God, but i doubt he would be like anything written in any book. Also, i could even go beyond God in this question and ask "what was before God"? or "what is beyond God" and such...[QUOTE="mindstorm"] Perhaps even religious given the perspective of the individual.
In my case, I simply respond with one word: Jesus.
This passage explains why I say such
Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]I think that's a pointless question.musicalmacWhy do you think it's pointless? cuz its unanswerable
Of course it's unanswerable, but it's still a vaible discussion topic. It's not like we're discussing the philosophy of how raspberrie's feel before they're plucked and eaten.cuz its unanswerable
BossPerson
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Of course it's unanswerable, but it's still a vaible discussion topic. It's not like we're discussing the philosophy of how raspberrie's feel before they're plucked and eaten. yea i suppose it is fun to discusscuz its unanswerable
musicalmac
What is nothing? ZevianderThat's a good point. We, in my mind, actually define the notion of "nothingness" as something. It's inherent in human thought to think of even nothingness as something. That something is the nothingness. My friend and I started to swerve around to the argument that there could just as easily be nothing as there is something. The existence of the universe might or might not rest on some basic, undiscovered metaphysical or scientific principles. Time could be one of those principles -- without time, is there existence of anything? One could define any given moment as a certain lapse of time. Without time, is there even existence? Thus, we came to one conclusion of hopefully many to follow that time is one of the key factors to existence.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Of course it's unanswerable, but it's still a vaible discussion topic. It's not like we're discussing the philosophy of how raspberrie's feel before they're plucked and eaten. I don't mean to say that this question should always be ignored. I just think that its answer doesn't concern me in the least. Regarding existence, I am comfortable with "I think; therefore, I am."cuz its unanswerable
musicalmac
so that you would ask this questionMy friend and I were nailing philosophical questions left and right this afternoon to celebrate finishing our final exams, and got stuck on this one.
Thoughts?
CaptainAhab13
Also, one could bring Einstein's Theory of Time into this argument and argue that there is no past, present or future -- everything exists simultaneously.
Or, one could also bring the theory of existence brought up in Borges's "The Garden of Forking Paths," which assumes that there are an infinite number of possibilities present in each moment, and that we simply, subsconsciously choose one of those instances to follow. The path that we choose defines our existence simply because that is the moment we are existing in -- the given time frame, the given spirit of the mind and body.
In any case, back to the question. ;) I firmly believe that the answer to this question has at least something to do with time. Even if one bring theology into it, such as creationism, there must be a before and an after creation.
[QUOTE="Overlord93"]But is there really anything?Frame_DraggerIt would appear so, yeah. The visual appearence is relativelymeaningless, after all, all solid matter is mostly nothing.
[QUOTE="CaptainAhab13"]so that you would ask this question Interesting answer. :D I guess this question, originally proposed by (blanking on the name, I'll get it later), has led over the years to a grand culmination on GameSpot.My friend and I were nailing philosophical questions left and right this afternoon to celebrate finishing our final exams, and got stuck on this one.
Thoughts?
Jandurin
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment