Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[throng]

Reality is always relative to the observer.

There is no reality without an observer. Reality and Observers go hand in hand. There's never one without the other.

This explains why everything exists rather than nothing. It is because we, as observers, are here experiencing everything. When we're not here, there is nothing and there is no observation and no record of it... but it may as well be nothing because we are not aware of it and we won't ever be.

The reality of everything depends on observers being present.

The reality of nothing depends on no observers being present.

I agree. To say energy exists in reliant on general perception (observation), that is the only gauge we have.

So the pertinate question is "why does observation exist?"

Why does "the observer" exist?

Is the observing entity only observing its own existence (like a mirror)?

Could our awareness of our awareness be the precept for existence.

Still, whatever the case, if reality didn't exist, there wouldn't "really" be an observer at all.

 

[out of whack]

So the pertinate question is "why does observation exist?"

Why does "the observer" exist?

Despite narrowing the focus on just an observer or an observation, the question still asks about the origin of existence. We can talk about the existence of an observation, of an observer, of what is observed, or of anything else we claim exists. It makes no difference. The question remains about the origin of what exists and an origin of what exists cannot exist.

 

[throng]

Despite narrowing the focus on just an observer or an observation, the question still asks about the origin of existence. We can talk about the existence of an observation, of an observer, of what is observed, or of anything else we claim exists. It makes no difference. The question remains about the origin of what exists and an origin of what exists cannot exist.

Thanx 4 response. I agree. I'm suggesting that our perception of things is the only reason we presume things exist. In that case the most relevant question is: why is there perception?

To further expand I would ask: Why is the observer aware of his perceptions?

OR Why are we aware of our "selves"?

Would anyone deny their own existence?

I don't have any answers. just more thoughts on the subject. I think therefore I am. I think I am. I think.

Prbably entering philosophy though so might be inapropriate here!

 

[out of whack]

why is there perception?

To further expand I would ask: Why is the observer aware of his perceptions?

OR Why are we aware of our "selves"?

These ask how perception works, which is slightly off topic since the questions already assert the existence of an observer.

Would anyone deny their own existence?

Confused people might. I've heard this before: "I'm not sure therefore I may be".

 

[ucf-fisher21]

If nothing existed then it wouldn't seem likely for anything to become existent(how could something come out of absolute nothingness). But we obviously know that there is existence (just look around). This makes you think there has always been existence of something with no origin.

 

[baywax]

I agree. To say energy exists in reliant on general perception (observation), that is the only gauge we have.

So the pertinate question is "why does observation exist?"

Why does "the observer" exist?

Is the observing entity only observing its own existence (like a mirror)?

Could our awareness of our awareness be the precept for existence.

Still, whatever the case, if reality didn't exist, there wouldn't "really" be an observer at all.

When you ask "why" something exists the answer can only come from you because the next person will have a completely different answer to the same question.

For example... you might ask "why does the sky exist"?
A pilot will answer "because I want to fly in it".
A sky diver will answer "because I want to fall in it"...
and an astrophysicist will say "because I want to study it".

 

[out of whack]

This makes you think there has always been existence of something with no origin.

Indeed, what exists has no ultimate origin. It makes no sense to ask what existed before existence.

 

[baywax]

Indeed, what exists has no ultimate origin. It makes no sense to ask what existed before existence.

But it is a valid question to ask if existence relies upon the observation of existence.

This brings us back around to the idea of Superposition" and "Collapse of the Wave Function".

 

[out of whack]

But it is a valid question to ask if existence relies upon the observation of existence.

It depends what is meant by "relies upon". If it means that an observation somehow causes existence then it doesn't work because the observation would need to already exist in order to have this effect so it couldn't actually cause existence. If it means that existence and observation are one and the same thing, or possibly two different aspects of the same concept, then this interpretation may be coherent, depending on how we want to interpret all terms. If it means that existence is irrelevant unless it is observed, then it seems trivially true since what is relevant only applies to observers. There may be other ways to interpret it, but I'm not sure of your take at this point.

 

[baywax]

It depends what is meant by "relies upon". If it means that an observation somehow causes existence then it doesn't work because the observation would need to already exist in order to have this effect so it couldn't actually cause existence. If it means that existence and observation are one and the same thing, or possibly two different aspects of the same concept, then this interpretation may be coherent, depending on how we want to interpret all terms. If it means that existence is irrelevant unless it is observed, then it seems trivially true since what is relevant only applies to observers. There may be other ways to interpret it, but I'm not sure of your take at this point.

Hi out of whack,

I'm just trolling around in the back waters of the concept of existence:)

But, I agree that existence cannot rely upon our observation of existence. We have the record of sequence that has led up to our emergence as a phenomenon amongst all phenomena. We can see that there is a logical sequence, as entangled as it is, that results in a mammal that has the capacity to observe and record existence.

In this logical sequence existence plays out its role to the point where it is observed and recorded. The sequence is recorded in sedimentary layers of geology and paleontology. Although we observe the light of a star or galaxy... we are observing the light many thousands of years after it left its source.

This sort of logic tells us that existence has "existed" long before we observed it.

But, trivially as you put it, we can only make these assumptions by way of observation. And so, even though it sounds egocentric and anthropocentric... it is only by our own existence that we are able to determine the rest of existence. And that is limiting and has a biased view point... and it may signal a lop-sided logic to all of this.

For instance, our sense of logic is based on our physical constraints. We have neurons that only fire at a certain rate... we are only able to interpret events in sequence.

Are we somewhat handicapped when it comes to interpreting the whole of existence?

 

[out of whack]

Are we somewhat handicapped when it comes to interpreting the whole of existence?

With regard to this topic, we are handicaped by everyday situations. All objects appear to us as having a creation and a destruction, all events seem to have a beginning and an end. This is so because of how we partition all things in the universe in segments of manageable size. But we can also look from a different angle and see that things don't truly begin and end. What we can see is an endless series of related changes. We define a tea cup as something that is built and eventually disappears (breaks) but its constituents merely assume this particular shape at one time and a different shape at another time. It is us, not the universe and not the cup, who decide that the cup has a beginning and an end, because of our mental representation of what a cup must be. Our concepts of beginning and end exist because of how we partition reality so it will make sense to us and allow us to function.

Now, when we try to discuss existence itself then this habit of partitioning everything becomes a liability. We cannot partition existence in smaller sections if existence is the topic itself. When something smaller begins and ends according to our daily interpretation, there is always something else before it and something after it. So when we address existence as a whole, our natural tendency it to assume something before it and something after it as well. Only in this case, there is nothing outside of existence. This can be hard to grasp. This is our handicap.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

I think you can simply existence to this:

either something always exists (no beginning and no end), or nothing has ever existed at all.

 

[out of whack]

I think you can simply existence to this:

either something always exists (no beginning and no end), or nothing has ever existed at all.

...which can be further simplified since only the first case applies: something always exists.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

...which can be further simplified since only the first case applies: something always exists.

precisely

 

[baywax]

nothing has ever existed at all.

Do you see your contradiction here?

My philosophy is that if you don't have nothing you don't have something because you have to have the potential for something to exist. That potential is found in emptiness. For instance, if you do not have an empty cup... you can't fill it.

As to out of whack's explanation of our handicap... I am agreeing with your writing there. We are programmed to find a beginning and an end because that is what our survival instinct continually is looking for... or looking out for. It is genetically bred into our genes from the time that our cells were individual cells running from motion and light and chasing after smaller cells.

I find some comfort in the work of the quantum physicists in that they are looking at existence in terms of simultaneity. There we see no beginning or end but only change and transformation. Yet I am still stumped by this because change and transformation, by my own handicapped way of thinking, require a sequential way of seeing in order to be distinguished.

 

[robertm]

precisely

Do not forget to apply Occam's razor after you have reached this conclusion fisher

Baywax,

On your appraisal of quantum physics, the inherent logical contradictions that we can not help but feel (see Kenny_L) are much like optical illusions to which we know the answers. We KNOW for an absolute fact that what our senses are telling us does not represent reality. Quite a powerful hurdle in my opinion.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/scintillation_grid/"

 

[baywax]

Do not forget to apply Occam's razor after you have reached this conclusion fisher

Baywax,

On your appraisal of quantum physics, the inherent logical contradictions that we can not help but feel (see Kenny_L) are much like optical illusions to which we know the answers. We KNOW for an absolute fact that what our senses are telling us does not represent reality. Quite a powerful hurdle in my opinion.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/scintillation_grid/"

What they're calling the "Scintillation Grid" is facilitated by the phenomenon of "simultaneous contrast" where the rods (black and white receptors) that have just been used to represent white dots to the brain fire the opposite (black) upon relaxation. You may have been subjected to this experience in high school art class where a red dot is displayed against a white wall then removed and you see a green dot ghosting in the same spot. That's the cones that have just represented red relaxing into their opposite stimulus or colour... green.

But I get your drift on this. Time to let the subconscious work out some answers.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

My philosophy is that if you don't have nothing you don't have something because you have to have the potential for something to exist. That potential is found in emptiness. For instance, if you do not have an empty cup... you can't fill it.

Very interesting! In my opinion, it seems like this implies that something is trying to cause something else to exist.

 

[baywax]

Very interesting! In my opinion, it seems like this implies that something is trying to cause something else to exist.

That's not the intended message.

Have you ever heard the saying "nature abhors a vacuum"...? (from Aristotle)

 

[Evo]

Very interesting! In my opinion, it seems like this implies that something is trying to cause something else to exist.

No, it does not lead to that. Stop trying to push Intelligent Design.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

That's not the intended message.

Have you ever heard the saying "nature abhors a vacuum"...? (from Aristotle)

this is from a link through uoregon.edu(I found it through google): Aristotle's answer was that as the spear flies through the air, it leaves a vacuum behind it. Air rushing in (the source of the cliche "nature abhors a vacuum") pushes the spear forward until its natural motion (falling) eventually brings it to earth.

This assumes that a vacuum is nothing. In my opinion, I think a vacuum is still 'something' because it contains empty space (up,down,left and right). I don't think true nothingness incluses empty space. I believe it's impossible to picture true nothingness (non-existence) because there is nothing to picture. I always catch myself trying to picture 'nothing', but I know I can't. The best I've come to picturing it in my head is 'blackness and empty space', kind of like closing your eyes.

 

[out of whack]

I believe it's impossible to picture true nothingness (non-existence) because there is nothing to picture. I always catch myself trying to picture 'nothing', but I know I can't. The best I've come to picturing it in my head is 'blackness and empty space', kind of like closing your eyes.

Good luck with that. Nothing doesn't exist, there is nothing to picture.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

Good luck with that. Nothing doesn't exist, there is nothing to picture.

you must have overlooked my previous post. I said the same thing as you

 

[robertm]

What they're calling the "Scintillation Grid" is facilitated by the phenomenon of "simultaneous contrast" where the rods (black and white receptors) that have just been used to represent white dots to the brain fire the opposite (black) upon relaxation. You may have been subjected to this experience in high school art class where a red dot is displayed against a white wall then removed and you see a green dot ghosting in the same spot. That's the cones that have just represented red relaxing into their opposite stimulus or colour... green.

But I get your drift on this. Time to let the subconscious work out some answers.

Nit-picking is always appreciated

Wasn't there some old book that said something about how your eyes will not deceive you?

 

[baywax]

Nit-picking is always appreciated

Wasn't there some old book that said something about how your eyes will not deceive you?

Probably... its the brain that deceives... the eyes are simply the messenger.

 

[baywax]

this is from a link through uoregon.edu(I found it through google): Aristotle's answer was that as the spear flies through the air, it leaves a vacuum behind it. Air rushing in (the source of the cliche "nature abhors a vacuum") pushes the spear forward until its natural motion (falling) eventually brings it to earth.

This assumes that a vacuum is nothing. In my opinion, I think a vacuum is still 'something' because it contains empty space (up,down,left and right). I don't think true nothingness incluses empty space. I believe it's impossible to picture true nothingness (non-existence) because there is nothing to picture. I always catch myself trying to picture 'nothing', but I know I can't. The best I've come to picturing it in my head is 'blackness and empty space', kind of like closing your eyes.

Well, a vacuum is part of nature as well. So, this is a case of nature disliking itself (its also a case of anthropomorphism to say that nature "likes" or "dislikes" anything.) But if you see a woman who's broken a nail... you can picture how nature might react to a vacuum.

The woman loves how she's functioning and looks etc... then breaks a nail. Women abhor a broken nail. So she files it and fills it with an artificial one or whatever. Nature reacts the same way. The vacuum, which is part of nature overall... simply fills the vacuum... or, more accurately, the vacuum (as part of nature) fills itself.

I don't know for sure but Aristotle may have come up with the cause of the big bang with his old axiom.

But this is it. You can't speak in human terms about nature. Nature is not human, nature is everything we are aware of and more. We don't say nature "tries" to do something because nature has no particular "will" or "interest" in "doing" things. Nature is simply a collection of causes and effects. These are translated into laws by science when the causes and effects present a consistent and congruent pattern. It is our translations that put a "human" face on nature and that is one fatal flaw in our reasoning. It gave birth to fallacies like Intelligent Design and other fables.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

Nature is simply a collection of causes and effects. These are translated into laws by science when the causes and effects present a consistent and congruent pattern. It is our translations that put a "human" face on nature and that is one fatal flaw in our reasoning. It gave birth to fallacies like Intelligent Design and other fables.

By saying intelligent design and other fables are fallacies, you are bringing your own belief system into this discussion, which is against this forums rules.

 

[Evo]

By saying intelligent design and other fables are fallacies, you are bringing your own belief system into this discussion, which is against this forums rules.

No, using scientific reasoning is allowable in showing that religious beliefs and other myths are not science.

 

[baywax]

By saying intelligent design and other fables are fallacies, you are bringing your own belief system into this discussion, which is against this forums rules.

Let's define "fallacy". A fallacy is an over-generalization. It can describe the situation where a conclusion is arrived at based on one or two observations. All other knowledge is disregarded or partially accepted within the parametres of the pre-approved conclusion.

A fallacy is a crutch for someone who is unwilling to go the distance and search for the truth. A fallacy also represents someone who is afraid to allow for anomalies, potential options and the unknown. Fallacious people could also be exhibiting the fear of finding out the truth, as well.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

No, using scientific reasoning is allowable in showing that religious beliefs and other myths are not science.

That is not what baywax said. He said this:

It gave birth to fallacies like Intelligent Design and other fables.

this implies that Intelligent Design and other 'fables' lack logic and are false. It is also assuming that Atheism is true, which happens to be a type of belief system. All of this is clearly against the Religious Discussion Guidelines of the philosophy forum.

Evo, with that said baywax's post and the posts following his should be removed.

 

[out of whack]

this implies that Intelligent Design and other 'fables' lack logic and are false.

Well yes, this scientific forum promotes the use of science and rational thought. Arguments that are not supported by such are those that run against the rules. You must realize that ID is based on biblical accounts that cannot be confirmed using either science or logic, so it just won't fly on this particular forum.

It is also assuming that Atheism is true

No, it does not assume atheism. ID has been denounced by theists as well as atheists.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

If baywax's post and all posts following his are not removed, then this philosophy forum is completely one sided and most noticeably goes against it's own rules.

 

[out of whack]

If baywax's post and all posts following his are not removed, then this philosophy forum is completely one sided and most noticeably goes against it's own rules.

Yes and no. Yes, it is one-sided in favor of science; that's its purpose. No, it doesn't go against its own rules. Read them again.

But other forums surely do support the discussion of religious doctrines to satisfy your needs. This one is not about that. You can use different suitable forums to cater to your various needs, you are not restricted to only one.

 

[baywax]

It is also assuming that Atheism is true

That is an overly assumptive claim since I made no reference to Atheism.

I think you might really help yourself and others out if you started a thread on Atheism.
I don't have any idea what it entails.

 

[robertm]

this implies that Intelligent Design and other 'fables' lack logic and are false.

What he says doesn't imply that, he specifically stated that ID and other fables are logical fallacies, giving well thought out specific reasons why, which you seem to have completely omitted and left un-addressed. If you disagree, then engage in a logical discussion.

It is also assuming that Atheism is true, which happens to be a type of belief system. All of this is clearly against the Religious Discussion Guidelines of the philosophy forum.

You are the only one who made that assumption.

Evo, with that said baywax's post and the posts following his should be removed.

This claim is just ridicules, like Evo and outofwack explained solid and well developed logical posts will not be removed because it happens to offend you and/or cause you to make wild assumptions.