Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Cypress]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the Universe is simply that it, and everything in it, exists. But what's the reason why?

It's a question that almost everyone has wondered at some point: given all the things that exist around us, in this world and in the great Universe beyond, what's the reason for why it all exists?

This is one of those questions, I’m sorry to say, that science not only doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for right now, but will probably never have one.

There’s an enormous difference between a “why” question, which science isn’t really well-equipped to answer, with a “how” question, which is the bread-and-butter of what science is good for. If we were to ask the question of why we’re all here, there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question: we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that. Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows, there’s a limit to what we can derive from them: we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions, but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I suppose that question is why humans invented gods. God(s) invented the universe for us to have a place to dwell, and invented us so that we could worship them.

 

[Cypress]

I suppose that question is why humans invented gods. God(s) invented the universe for us to have a place to dwell, and invented us so that we could worship them.

I think you are right.
But on the flip side, the origin of all reality doesn't have to be supernatural. That seems to me to be a subjective construct of human language. Spinoza, Einstein and others seemed to believe in a natural religion in which the god of nature was just inherent in the universe, it didn't
reside outside of it in a supernatural state.

 

[Cypress]

Newtonian physics does predict future experience; it shows us the law-like regularity of our sensory observations, but it doesn't actually explain anything. If an object accelerates downward at 32m/s[sup]2[/sup] in Earth's atmosphere, and if that is because of a law of gravity, that doesn't actually explain why those objects accelerate downward at 32 m/s[sup]2[/sup]. We are simply observing the laws they follow. But why do they follow those laws? The laws of gravity simply allow us to predict future experiences based on past observation. Newtonian physics are therefore extraordinarily useful, but they don't have true explanatory power. It gives us a certain kind of knowledge, but not true understanding.

This is not a position Newton himself would have disagreed with. He famously held that his law of gravitation showed how the lawful behaviour of orbital mechanics operated, but not why.

 

[Obtenebrator]

Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the Universe is simply that it, and everything in it, exists. But what's the reason why?

It's a question that almost everyone has wondered at some point: given all the things that exist around us, in this world and in the great Universe beyond, what's the reason for why it all exists?

This is one of those questions, I’m sorry to say, that science not only doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for right now, but will probably never have one.

There’s an enormous difference between a “why” question, which science isn’t really well-equipped to answer, with a “how” question, which is the bread-and-butter of what science is good for. If we were to ask the question of why we’re all here, there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question: we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that. Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows, there’s a limit to what we can derive from them: we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions, but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science.

Yaaaaaaaawwwwnnnn.

Seeing your posts and OP's is like looking into the head of a junior high school kid who just discovered a philosophy book. BOOOOOOORING.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I suppose that question is why humans invented gods. God(s) invented the universe for us to have a place to dwell, and invented us so that we could worship them.

Like someone who heard via third party some Voltaire quotes. So insightful.

 

[BidenPresident]

Yaaaaaaaawwwwnnnn.

Seeing your posts and OP's is like looking into the head of a junior high school kid who just discovered a philosophy book. BOOOOOOORING.

Cypress refuses to discuss his comments.

 

[Cypress]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the Universe is simply that it, and everything in it, exists. But what's the reason why?

It's a question that almost everyone has wondered at some point: given all the things that exist around us, in this world and in the great Universe beyond, what's the reason for why it all exists?

This is one of those questions, I’m sorry to say, that science not only doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for right now, but will probably never have one.

There’s an enormous difference between a “why” question, which science isn’t really well-equipped to answer, with a “how” question, which is the bread-and-butter of what science is good for. If we were to ask the question of why we’re all here, there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question: we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that. Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows, there’s a limit to what we can derive from them: we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions, but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science.

Yaaaaaaaawwwwnnnn.
Seeing your posts and OP's is like looking into the head of a junior high school kid who just discovered a philosophy book. BOOOOOOORING.

What you are mocking and denigrating is an article written by Ethan Seigel, a theoretical physicist.

 

[Cypress]

Like someone who heard via third party some Voltaire quotes. So insightful.

^^^ Believes his knowledge just randomly pops into his mind out of the blue, without taking any classes, reading articles, being influenced by books, watching podcasts.

 

[BidenPresident]

^^^ Believes his knowledge just randomly pops into his mind out of the blue, without taking any classes, reading articles, being influenced by books, watching podcasts.

And you believe everything you say is the word of God.

 

[Cypress]

Like someone who heard via third party some Voltaire quotes. So insightful.

^^ Believes he is capable of truly independent and original visionary insights into science and philosophy,

But I can prove Perry just plagiarizes and paraphrases things that he has read previously:

Indivisible and indestructible 'particles' might be a mental construct of our brains. In the 20th century, Einstein showed that matter and energy were fundamentally interchangeable.

In the late 20th and 21st centuries, supposedly, string theory and it's offshoots supposedly call into question our classical notion of fundamental particles -- which may be just localized perturbations in energy fields.

It's not just string theory that envisions elementary particles as vibrations of energy.

Quantum field theory somewhat similarly predicts that particles are localized vibrations in quantum fields that fill space.

Woah. That sounds SUPER INTELLECTUAL and really really cool.

...Two Weeks Later.... Perry PhD paraphrases and plagiarizes the insights from my post that he had previously mocked-->

Very cool stuff! They helped develop the concept of matter being fluctuations of fields rather than explicit "items". Maybe there is no "there" there at the bottom of the stack. Maybe there are no "atoms" or "monads"...it's all just field fluctuations.

Truly weird.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the Universe is simply that it, and everything in it, exists. But what's the reason why?

It's a question that almost everyone has wondered at some point: given all the things that exist around us, in this world and in the great Universe beyond, what's the reason for why it all exists?

This is one of those questions, I’m sorry to say, that science not only doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for right now, but will probably never have one.

There’s an enormous difference between a “why” question, which science isn’t really well-equipped to answer, with a “how” question, which is the bread-and-butter of what science is good for. If we were to ask the question of why we’re all here, there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question: we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that. Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows, there’s a limit to what we can derive from them: we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions, but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science.

I am content with just knowing that some things in life will never be understood.

I think I can live my entire life here, with my little time I spend here on Earth, not knowing where the universe came from or what happens to me after I die!

When things become too mind-boggling for me, I just concentrate on the things that I can improve upon and work towards, while I'm still here on Earth!

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I am content with just knowing that some things in life will never be understood.

I think I can live my entire life here, with my little time I spend here on Earth, not knowing where the universe came from or what happens to me after I die!

When things become too mind-boggling for me, I just concentrate on the things that I can improve upon and work towards, while I'm still here on Earth!

A sound philosophy. "Enjoy the ride, it won't last forever!"

 

[Cypress]

I am content with just knowing that some things in life will never be understood.

I think I can live my entire life here, with my little time I spend here on Earth, not knowing where the universe came from or what happens to me after I die!

When things become too mind-boggling for me, I just concentrate on the things that I can improve upon and work towards, while I'm still here on Earth!

A wide attitude!

In a certain sense, I think we learn more about nature, about ourselves, and about our lives by asking the right questions, not neccesarily just trying to get the answers right.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

There's something rather than nothing
due only to very, very bad luck.

Do we even have the ability to imagine
the perfect peace
that could only come with nonexistence?

That's why I've always said it.

Dying can be unpleasant and even ignominious.
That's what we fear--the process of getting there.

But being dead?
Why would anyone dread that?

 

[IBDaMann]

Newtonian physics does predict future experience;

All science predicts nature objectively. No science has anything to say about qualitative or subjective "experience."

it shows us the law-like regularity of our sensory observations, but it doesn't actually explain anything.

This gibberish doesn't say anything.

If an object accelerates downward at 32m/s[sup]2[/sup] in Earth's atmosphere, and if that is because of a law of gravity, that doesn't actually explain why those objects accelerate downward at 32 m/s[sup]2[/sup]. We are simply observing the laws they follow. But why do they follow those laws?

At least you are regurgitating back what I taught you, i.e.

This raises a new question: Why was entropy lower in the past?

There is no "why" in science. That is a theological question. [...] The question of "why" it is that way is for theists to ponder per their respective faiths.

----------

This is not a position Newton himself would have disagreed with.

I see that you have renewed your certification for speaking for dead people. It must do wonders for you on your resume.

 

[Cypress]

All science predicts nature objectively. No science has anything to say about qualitative or subjective "experience."

This gibberish doesn't say anything.

At least you are regurgitating back what I taught you, i.e.

I see that you have renewed your certification for speaking for dead people. It must do wonders for you on your resume.

Bulverism 61

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

 

[PostmodernProphet]

But on the flip side, the origin of all reality doesn't have to be supernatural. That seems to me to be a subjective construct of human language.

but doesn't it honestly and literally be exactly that?......if it were natural it would BE within the realm of what science is capable of understanding from those underlying rules.....I agree it is not....which means the answer lies beyond what is natural......

 

[Cypress]

if it were natural it would BE within the realm of what science is capable of understanding from those underlying rules.....

Humans have evolved with basically souped up chimpanzee brains, with limits to our cognition and reason.

I don't think the science and math the human mind is capable of can explain everything about the fabric of reality.

It doesn't follow that just because our limited tools can't explain it makes it a supernatural entity. The God of the Gaps reasoning is not good logic.

 

[Cypress]

At least you are regurgitating back what I taught you, i.e.-->

-- There is no "why" in science. That is a theological question. [...] The question of "why" it is that way is for theists to ponder per their respective faiths.---

I wrote that science answers "how" questions, while religion focuses on "why" questions years ago, well before you were even registered on this forum -->

I am not even sure science is equipped to answer the deepest metaphysical questions.

Science uses inductive reasoning to answer the question "how?", but I do not believe it is equipped to answer the question "why?".

Even so, the standard model, quantum mechanics, and cosmology prompt us to ponder the deepest philosophical questions in a way that no other branch of natural sciences can. IMO

You probably read me writing about science vs. religious questions, and adopted it as your own insight, like Perry PhD did.

The fact is, neither you nor I originally had the insight that science and religion are asking different questions. But the fact you want to claim it as your own deeply original and visionary insight is just evidence of the hubris that permeates internet message boards.