Thread 16779014

>WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE EXIST??
Let’s end these threads once and for all. People tend to ask “why is there something rather than nothing?” because nothingness doesn’t seem to need an explanation, whereas something demands an explanation or cause. So nothingness seems to be more natural or intuitive. But true nothingness doesn’t just mean the absence of space, energy, time, and matter. It also means the absence of physical laws as well as the laws of logic and causality. So the fact that something exists is not absurd, since its origin is ultimately beyond causality altogether. There was literally nothing to prevent something from existing, because such laws didn’t exist prior to their arrival. Consider causality itself. What caused the law of causality? Obviously it must have no cause, and there is no contradiction here. Laws only apply to the particular instantiation of universes. There could be universes with different laws altogether.

Now stop asking this basic question over and over. It’s already solved. To help answer it in the future, all you need to say is this:
>true nothingness means the absence of all laws, which means there was nothing to prevent something from existing

The problem is proving any of this. Just going with what seems intuitive is not how you arrive to the right conclusion. Under your conditions alone it's just as plausible that there be nothing that happens just as much as there is that "well nothing stops it from happening". It arrives at a big zero and cancels out. Our knowledge fundamentally breaks down because no logic holds up at that point.

>>16779016
To talk about “nothing” becoming something is just a manner of speaking. Of course it makes no sense to talk of change and becoming where time doesn’t even exist. What I am really saying is that this universe, and many other universes, ultimately exist without a cause. The temporal dimension, whether it be finite or infinite, has no temporal beginning, nor an ultimate logical cause.

And to address your point, the fact is that something does exist. And if you think it’s equally plausible that nothingness would only beget nothingness (according to what law?), then at the very least you have a 50% plausible explanation for the existence of the universe, which doesn’t seem so bad.

>>16779014 (OP)
it's a mystery, probably caused by our ancestors' compulsive drug abuse
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B8NMDmoujfo&pp=0gcJCcYJAYcqIYzv

>>16779035
>you have a 50% plausible explanation for the existence of the universe, which doesn’t seem so bad.
>50/50 odds at best
>a coin flip
>these odds arent so bad bro
>maybe or maybe not :^)
I don't know why I even bother coming to this board. Troll science is better than this utter fucking nonsense.

>>16779104
The alternative is constantly asking what the first cause is etc. If you can accept that it’s possible for the universe to not have a cause or reason, then there’s no point in thinking about it anymore. It’s a waste of time.

>>16779116
And if I can accept a wizard did it via magic I wouldn't have to think about it anymore either. But if I wanna find out what's true I wouldn't go "aw well idk so uh... maybe... uh... [makes up some shit that sounds good to me]" and then think I solved anything.

>>16779133
>he doesn’t understand all of existence
>he still wonders
lol
lmao

>>16779143
You don't either. The best you offered was a dichotomy (assuming there even is only 2 options) and then just going with one you want. All you did was flip a coin and picked a side and that's the one you accept. There was no proof at all. There wasn't even a necessary dichotomy of only two options. But even being as generous as possible you had nothing to back it up. Or an explanation for why your picked side wasn't just as possible as any other ones. Because even following everything you said to a T the claim you accepted has as much validity as what I said about nothingness staying nothing. There's nothing to stop nothing from remaining nothing either. Or nothing stopping it from being invented by a wizard. Or it being a dream. Or a non-dream. Or any other arbitrary thing at all. Like the principle of explosion.

>>16779014 (OP)
something that always existed doesn't need a cause because it's a nonsensical concept, it's a failure of the human mind, a failure of analysis

>>16779014 (OP)
because you touch yourself at night

>>16779014 (OP)
What makes you think it should have a purpose?

>>16779014 (OP)
>What caused the law of causality?
The law of identity.

>>16779035
>And if you think it’s equally plausible that nothingness would only beget nothingness (according to what law?), then at the very least you have a 50% plausible explanation for the existence of the universe,
But we don't, we know for an absolute mathematical fact that anything is a function of nothing because nothing is the inverse factorial of any unit because 0!=1 which is the direct result of nothing being built right into the mathematical definition of anything else since x=x+0. It still doesn't prove a universe exists since 1, the unitary limit, isn't actually the uppermost limit, its just one number of infinitely many and everything or infinity is not a stable unit, it is constantly expanding to include other things which means it doesn't actually realistically exist, its just a formless ideal that can be adapted to any scope.

>>16779104
Yes, everything has a 50/50 chance of happening— either it happens or it doesn't.

>>16781023
It's either 0.01% or 0

>>16779014 (OP)
>[nothing] also means the absence of physical laws
Ok.

>as well as the laws of logic
No. This doesn't logically follow.

>There was literally nothing to prevent something from existing
>nothing to prevent
An absence, in and of itself, is not generative.

>Consider causality itself. What caused the law of causality? Obviously it must have no cause, and there is no contradiction here.
This a word salad based on a category error. Regardless, insisting that causality is real is exactly what undermines your point about there being "nothing to prevent" everything. The idea of causality creates this unresolvable bootstrapping paradox in the first place. Its corollary to the premise that everything comes from something. If you reject causality (a perfectly good position, especially in light of modern physics) and view any given state of reality as a filter rather than a positive cause, you can indeed argue that in the beginning, there was nothing to prevent things form happening. This leads to a new riddle (if there were no constraints, why this particular universe?) but this one is at least potentially resolvable.

>Now stop asking this basic question over and over. It’s already solved.
Grandiose delusions of an obvious 80 IQ.