Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Cypress]

God willed it.

Some people think that.

Our primate brains are conditioned to expect a cause-and-effect relationship.

But we also know from modern physics that there can be uncaused quantum states of matter and energy, undermining our confidence in the universality of cause and effect relationships.

 

[Yakuda]

Some people think that.

Our primate brains are conditioned to expect a cause-and-effect relationship.

But we also know from modern physics that there can be uncaused quantum states of matter and energy, undermining our confidence in the universality of cause and effect relationships.

Exceptions don't negate the rules.

 

[Cypress]

Exceptions don't negate the rules.

I doubt our souped up chimpanzee brains actually know all the rules, or would even understand them if someone told use. Our language might not even be sufficient to explain all the rules of reality.

I have a hard time explaining how the organization and mathmatical structure of the universe just spontaneously appeared.

But I also can admit ignorance. There is no reason to assume there is a cause and effect relationship we can deduce, and as our knowledge of physics improves we may understand uncaused causes better than we do now.

 

[Yakuda]

I doubt our souped up chimpanzee brains actually know all the rules, or would even understand them if someone told use. Our language might not even be sufficient to explain all the rules of reality.

I have a hard time explaining how the organization and mathmatical structure of the universe just spontaneously appeared.

But I also can admit ignorance. There is no reason to assume there is a cause and effect relationship we can deduce, and as our knowledge of physics improves we may understand uncaused causes better than we do now.

We don't have to know all the rules to know the exceptions don't negate the rules.

Incorrect premise incorrect conclusion

Maybe but more likely the more we learn the more we will realize how little we know. You keep pulling apples from the tree but each one is replaced with three more. The devil keeps so many people busy chasing unanswerable questions

 

[NiftyNiblick]

[h=1]Why is there something rather than nothing?[/h]
This thread has still has legs,
but I still cannot move beyond my initial answer at the beginning.


The reason
there is something rather than nothing
is simply very bad luck.

I haven't yet heard a theory that makes more sense.

 

[Cypress]

[h=1]Why is there something rather than nothing?[/h]
This thread has still has legs,
but I still cannot move beyond my initial answer at the beginning.


The reason
there is something rather than nothing
is simply very bad luck.

I haven't yet heard a theory that makes more sense.

What I read in the Daodejing makes as much sense as anything I've read in a physics textbook.

The Dao is the eternal void, pregnant with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present. The Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao. The Dao is an infinite idea that cannot be expressed in words.

 

[IBDaMann]

But we also know from modern physics that there can be uncaused quantum states of matter and energy, undermining our confidence in the universality of cause and effect relationships.

Nope. This is not true and therefore is not anything that we somehow know.

Science is all about Cause -> Effect. We don't say that there was no cause just because we don't know what the cause was.

Seriously, why didn't you call booolsch't? Why did you simply regurgitate something so absurd? Is it because you read it on the internet?

 

[Into the Night]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

A void question.

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

No reason needed.

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?

No reason needed.

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.

Science is not 'answers'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

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.

A theory is an explanatory argument. That is to a 'why' question'.

If we were to ask the question of why we’re all here,

No reason needed.

there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question:

No, but there are several religious answers to this question.

we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that.

A theory does not come out of a hypothesis. It is the opposite. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows,

Reality has no rules. It is obvious you have no idea what 'real' or reality' even means or how it's defined. Your inability to speak and understand English is showing again.

there’s a limit to what we can derive from them:

There is no limit to reality.

we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions,

There is no sequence in science.

but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science.

Non-English portion ignored.

You're gonna have to learn the language, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Newtonian physics does predict future experience;

Physics is not 'experience'.

it shows us the law-like regularity of our sensory observations,

Science is not observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

but it doesn't actually explain anything.

Newton's laws do exactly that.

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].

A constant is not a law.

We are simply observing the laws they follow.

A constant is not a law.

But why do they follow those laws?

A constant is not a law. As for Newton's law of gravitation, you can read that 'why' in his book, the Principia. It describes how that theory was created, and the law the accompanies it.

The laws of gravity

There is just one. Illiteracy: Plural used for singular object.

simply allow us to predict future experiences based on past observation.

A theory of science does not predict. Science is an open functional system. It must be transcribed into a closed functional system such as mathematics. Only closed functional system have the power of prediction. That transcription is called a 'law' of science.

Newtonian physics are therefore extraordinarily useful, but they don't have true explanatory power.

A theory is an explanatory argument. A theory of science is no different.

It gives us a certain kind of knowledge, but not true understanding.

A theory is not knowledge. It is not 'understanding'. It is a THEORY.

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

You don't get to speak for Newton.

He famously held that his law of gravitation showed how the lawful behaviour of orbital mechanics operated, but not why.

He DID show why. Go read his book.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

He is not discussing philosophy.

 

[Into the Night]

Cypress refuses to discuss his comments.

So do you.

 

[Into the Night]

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

No physics is being discussed here.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Illiteracy: Spelling error.

How do you know your answer is 'right'?

 

[Into the Night]

Exceptions don't negate the rules.

Uh...that's how science works. If you find an exception, the theory is falsified. It is utterly destroyed.

 

[Into the Night]

What I read in the Daodejing makes as much sense as anything I've read in a physics textbook.

That's because you deny and discard physics.

 

[Cypress]

A void question.

No reason needed.

No reason needed.

Science is not 'answers'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

A theory is an explanatory argument. That is to a 'why' question'.

No reason needed.

No, but there are several religious answers to this question.

A theory does not come out of a hypothesis. It is the opposite. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Reality has no rules. It is obvious you have no idea what 'real' or reality' even means or how it's defined. Your inability to speak and understand English is showing again.

There is no limit to reality.

There is no sequence in science.

Non-English portion ignored.

You're gonna have to learn the language, Sock.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

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

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Axioms are not postulates!

 

[Cypress]

Physics is not 'experience'.

Science is not observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

Newton's laws do exactly that.

A constant is not a law.

A constant is not a law.

A constant is not a law. As for Newton's law of gravitation, you can read that 'why' in his book, the Principia. It describes how that theory was created, and the law the accompanies it.

There is just one. Illiteracy: Plural used for singular object.

A theory of science does not predict. Science is an open functional system. It must be transcribed into a closed functional system such as mathematics. Only closed functional system have the power of prediction. That transcription is called a 'law' of science.

A theory is an explanatory argument. A theory of science is no different.

A theory is not knowledge. It is not 'understanding'. It is a THEORY.

You don't get to speak for Newton.

He DID show why. Go read his book.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

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

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Axioms are not postulates!

 

[Cypress]

No physics is being discussed here.

Bulverism 61
Argument from ignorance fallacy

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

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

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Axioms are not postulates!

 

[Cypress]

That's because you deny and discard physics.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

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

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Axioms are not postulates!

 

[Cypress]

Why did you simply regurgitate something so absurd? Is it because you read it on the internet?

^^ Believes he is capable of deeply original and visionary insights into science, philosophy, religion.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE to see how PERRY PhD imagines he has deeply original, profound insights about science and philosophy, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing things he has read other people write

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