Everything

[Iacchus]

So pick a definition and stick with it.

Is it purely electro-chemical? People are motivated by the truth or, what they deem to be the truth. Much in the way light of the sun, in that it illuminates everything we see before us, can be compared to the truth ... at least according to Plato. So, I would suggest sunlight is the closest thing we have to the truth in the physical sense.

By the way, there's no sense in asking questions, unless it were designed to reveal the truth, correct? Whereas if we don't acknowledge the truth, we don't find the need to comply (in a motivational sense), now do we?

 

[Iacchus]

Do you have some scale by which to judge that which is meaningful and that which is meaningless?

Look at the sun, with respect to the way life has evolved on this planet. Everything has a special meaning (relationshipwise) with respect to the way it has evolved.

 

[Iacchus]

But we can never leave the system, thus the question is unanswerable, or rather, its answer is "because it has to" or "because it does".

If the Universe were in fact Eternal, yet our "subset" of it were temporal (the physical universe), wouldn't it be possible to know of its Eternal aspect if we maintained a piece of it (what some might deem "a soul") within us?

 

[Taffer]

Sure. But now you're saying that you can only answer this question because a part of you is outside the system. But you don't notice being outside the system, do you? If it is, in fact, a soul, then you would only be truely outside the system when you are dead. H.E.L.P.F.U.L

Look at the sun, with respect to the way life has evolved on this planet. Everything has a special meaning (relationshipwise) with respect to the way it has evolved.

This makes no sense. Care to explain?

Is it purely electro-chemical?

Yes.

People are motivated by the truth or, what they deem to be the truth.

Define "motivated". And, for that matter, "truth".

 

[Iacchus]

Sure. But now you're saying that you can only answer this question because a part of you is outside the system. But you don't notice being outside the system, do you? If it is, in fact, a soul, then you would only be truely outside the system when you are dead. H.E.L.P.F.U.L

Or, perhaps dreaming?

This makes no sense. Care to explain?

Without a relationship between "things" -- in this respect, how everything relates to the sun -- as its source -- there would be no meaning.

Yes.

Regardless, it's a helpful analogy in the way humans relate to the truth ... i.e., in the physical sense versus the metaphysical sense.

Define "motivated". And, for that matter, "truth".

Why do Mormons do what they do, if they didn't believe it were true?

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Jan,

I've been pondering this recently in light of Nicolaus of Cusa's "On Learned Ignorance," and while I don't recall his exact reasoning at this moment it has no doubt influenced me. Here is what I have recently arrived at, myself:

The universe (what Cusa terms the One) exists because non-existence is not an option. I explain.

Absolute nothingness is suggested as a possibility where nothing exists, not even reasons. In other words in the nothing there would be lacking even a reason for the nothing. That for which there is no reason is irrational by definition, and the genuinely irrational cannot strictly be conceived, for no proof can ever be adduced that a given phenomenon has no reason. That which cannot be conceived, even in principle, cannot exist. Therefore absolute nothingness cannot exist. Therefore, the One exists.

That's the preliminary. The harder questions come when we ask why is the universe in the present form instead of remaining a permanent single black hole or expanse of empty space.



Cpl Ferro

 

[Taffer]

As always, this is worded much better then I could ever manage.

This is essentially my point. The universe exists because it exists. Because it exists, it cannot possibly not exist. Thanks, CplFerro, for expressing what I couldn't .

 

[jan]

Because they have to exist.

By the very nature of asking any question, things have to exist. We cannot assume that things could not exist, because our very nature requires things to exist. If the universe were to stop existing, then there would be nothing. However, there would also nothing able of defining 'existance' and 'non-existance'. So non-existing to us cannot ever happen.

See?

I see that non-existing can never happen to us. But why can't it happen without us?

EDIT: To put it another way, the very fact that things do exist means that things must exist, from our frame of reference (inside the system).

Our frame of reference wouldn't exist otherwise. But why must our frame of reference, together with everything else, exist?

If we could, for the sake of argument, leave the 'system', and look down into our universe, we could then analyze how our universe is different from other things (i.e. how our universe's existance differs from other universe's existance), and we could answer the question as to why ours exists like it does (or at all). But we can never leave the system, thus the question is unanswerable, or rather, its answer is "because it has to" or "because it does".

I still don't get it. We seldom leave earth, and have never left the solar system. Nevertheless, we are able to speculate about parallel worlds. So being part of something doesn't always seems to be an obstacle to understand its origin.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why is there something and not just nothing?

Well exposed thread. Good job.

No, I dont see a question there. Why? Because to ask a question you are taking for granted certain things. You need a foundation to be able to ask questions. This foundation is based on several preconceived ideas, that serve as reference to elucidate the question.

That said, we also have the problem of the meaning of the words employed to perform the question. In this particular case we most deal with meanings like "something" and "nothing" before we can move forward. Here we can take to paths, one inside language and the other looking at science. Lets not talk about semantics for now, simply reading some quantum mechanics, the notions begin to look "weird", at best.

Lastly, we need to define what are we asking by "why". The word itself begs for a meaning, intentional purpose or some form of personal motivation, rendering the answer absurd, no matter which answer.

"Why" questions are for intentional beings, and we do not know other intentional beings, so, thats another reason for rendering the question as absurd.

 

[jan]

Dear Jan,

I've been pondering this recently in light of Nicolaus of Cusa's "On Learned Ignorance," and while I don't recall his exact reasoning at this moment it has no doubt influenced me. Here is what I have recently arrived at, myself:

The universe (what Cusa terms the One) exists because non-existence is not an option. I explain.

Absolute nothingness is suggested as a possibility where nothing exists, not even reasons. In other words in the nothing there would be lacking even a reason for the nothing.

Very interesting. Thus far, it sounds similar to item (2) on my list, that is, Peirce's proposal. The rest of the argument may in fact be something new. I guess I will have to read it myself.

An attempt to summarize it:

4. Nobody would see
Nothingness would be unperceivable, since there would be nobody to perceive it. But what is unperceivable can't happen, so nothingness can't happen.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

4. Nobody would see

Ahh, thats a Zen answer. The best so far. This renders my attempt (to say the same) useless. Well, maybe not, because not everybody is into Zen.

 

[jan]

Well exposed thread. Good job.

Thanks.

That said, we also have the problem of the meaning of the words employed to perform the question. In this particular case we most deal with meanings like "something" and "nothing" before we can move forward. Here we can take to paths, one inside language and the other looking at science. Lets not talk about semantics for now, simply reading some quantum mechanics, the notions begin to look "weird", at best.

I don't agree. According to quantum mechanics, some rather weird things may happen inside a vacuum, but a vacuum is not the same as nothing.

But your remarks reminded me that there is another possible answer, if you don't mind:

5. Nothing there
The question is moot, because nothing exists. The impression that something exists is just an illusion. Get over it (attributable to Gorgias and some writers of popular Buddhist books).

Lastly, we need to define what are we asking by "why". The word itself begs for a meaning, intentional purpose or some form of personal motivation, rendering the answer absurd, no matter which answer.

Once again, I don't agree. We might, for example, ask why there are heavy elements in the universe, and not just hydrogen and helium. And an answer would be that stars produced the heavier elements. We don't have to assume that the stars did it intentionally.

 

[Taffer]

I still don't get it. We seldom leave earth, and have never left the solar system. Nevertheless, we are able to speculate about parallel worlds. So being part of something doesn't always seems to be an obstacle to understand its origin.

Outside our solar system and outside our universe are different things. We cannot exist outside our universe, much as a computer program cannot exist out of a computer. Further more, we have no way of actually leaving our universe, again in much the same way a computer program cannot leave a computer. It is, by definition, inside the computer. Our existance, and us, are by definition inside our universe and nowhere else.

To observe why something is, we must observe the alternatives.
We cannot observe any alternatives, because to do so would be to leave our universe which is impossible.
Therefore, we cannot know why our universe exists.

The only possible answer we can give to the question "Why do things exist" is to say "Things exist because they exist", or perhaps "Things exist because they've always existed", or even "Things exist because that is their natural state".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't agree. According to quantum mechanics, some rather weird things may happen inside a vacuum, but a vacuum is not the same as nothing.

Thats correct. Still "nothing" as you define it, is a merely conceptual "entity" I see no reason whatsoever to discuss such imaginary "thing".

But your remarks reminded me that there is another possible answer, if you don't mind:

5. Nothing there
The question is moot, because nothing exists. The impression that something exists is just an illusion. Get over it (attributable to Gorgias and some writers of popular Buddhist books).

Fairly reasonable, and arguable.

Once again, I don't agree. We might, for example, ask why there are heavy elements in the universe, and not just hydrogen and helium. And an answer would be that stars produced the heavier elements. We don't have to assume that the stars did it intentionally.

In this case you are asking for reasons or causes (there are rules involved, and known mechanisms). So, I believe that this objection doesnt work.

 

[CplFerro]

Very interesting. Thus far, it sounds similar to item (2) on my list, that is, Peirce's proposal. The rest of the argument may in fact be something new. I guess I will have to read it myself.

An attempt to summarize it:

4. Nobody would see
Nothingness would be unperceivable, since there would be nobody to perceive it. But what is unperceivable can't happen, so nothingness can't happen.

Jan,

I think that distorts it, unless "perceivable" is synonymous with "conceivable". Nothing substantial in the universe is strictly sensorily perceivable, only conceivable, like gravity. To keep it a solid argument one must focus on the irrationality of nothingness, and that pure irrationality/randomness/chaos is utterly inconceivable and impossible. The universe must be wholly rational, and if there is at least one reason in the universe, the universe exists, even if only as the sum of that one reason.

Taffer,

I don't think you've understood my argument, and your own arguments imply a limit to human knowledge ("We cannot know why our universe exists"), which I do not accept.

I do not argue any form of hereditary existence for the universe ("Because it exists, it cannot possibly /not/ exist"). "Because it exists" is irrelevant, circular logic. Only the second part of the sentence is needed. The One exists because non-existence is rationally incoherent, and thus cannot strictly be referred to. Nonexistence is an illusion, a phantom derived from our experience of change.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Taffer]

Not a limit in human knowledge, but a limit in any entity in our universe to gain knowledge from outside the universe. And to ask why something exists, we need a comparison. In this case, what's outside the universe.

 

[CplFerro]

Not a limit in human knowledge, but a limit in any entity in our universe to gain knowledge from outside the universe. And to ask why something exists, we need a comparison. In this case, what's outside the universe.

On the contrary, a limit on human knowledge is exactly what you're saying. Introducing "entities" is irrelevant. We're dealing with human cognition here, by which we can know, in principle, the reason for anything in the universe. Since the entire universe is rational, the universe itself must have a reason, which is accessible to us. And indeed, reason tells us that nothingness is not a concept that can be rationally extended to replace all of existence, ergo, somethingness exists instead.

 

[Taffer]

I suppose I am, in a round about way, saying that it is impossible for humans to gain this knowledge (i.e. why our universe exists), because we are unable to observe any alternative. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[jan]

I think that distorts it, unless "perceivable" is synonymous with "conceivable". Nothing substantial in the universe is strictly sensorily perceivable, only conceivable, like gravity. To keep it a solid argument one must focus on the irrationality of nothingness, and that pure irrationality/randomness/chaos is utterly inconceivable and impossible. The universe must be wholly rational, and if there is at least one reason in the universe, the universe exists, even if only as the sum of that one reason.

Thanks for the clarification. Now it sounds really similar to what Peirce wrote. That plagiarist!

 

[Iacchus]

On the contrary, a limit on human knowledge is exactly what you're saying. Introducing "entities" is irrelevant. We're dealing with human cognition here, by which we can know, in principle, the reason for anything in the universe. Since the entire universe is rational, the universe itself must have a reason, which is accessible to us. And indeed, reason tells us that nothingness is not a concept that can be rationally extended to replace all of existence, ergo, somethingness exists instead.

Thomas Aquinas? ... Or, would that be Aristotle?