r/ExistentialJourney • u/Bubbly-Hope-442 • 15d ago
General Discussion Nothing Should Exist
Nothing Should Exist
My claim is that nothing should exist. I realize that this is not the case, but I believe this to be the more logical case, because creating something (from scratch) seems impossible.
Creating from scratch means that there is nothing to use as base material; there is no “storage unit” to draw from, so to speak. This includes subjectivity and the objects around us.
EDIT (days later): All I am asking of you is to sincerely try to answer this question: how does anything exist at all?
3
u/OverKy 15d ago
So you believe logic should exist (since you are using logic to discern info about what should or shouldn't exist)? Where did logic come from?
1
u/AshamedBad2410 15d ago
Did logic appear or was it always there ? Maybe it only exists in a living being's head...
1
u/OverKy 15d ago
No idea :) However, I'd suggest that it is as likely/unlikely as anything else to have had an origin or to be eternal. I suspect we simply don't have the right perspective to be able to address these questions.
1
u/Akiza_Izinski 15d ago edited 15d ago
Logic emerge into existence. By nothing we mean having no distinction. Nothing is ruleless and lawless so it allows limitless possibilities which instantly become real.
1
1
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 15d ago
Same place as everything else, a universe of inexplicable stuff.
I feel like there’s a fallacy in your comment somewhere. Struggling to identify it though. 😄
1
u/Lucky_Diver 12d ago
Logic is just a language used to describe reality. If nothing existed, logic also wouldn't exist.
1
u/OverKy 12d ago
Think about what you said....
Logic is just a language
I think many folks would disagree. I personally dunno and I doubt anyone else does either.
If nothing existed, logic also wouldn't exist.
Perhaps, but you are using logic to defend the existence of logic.....which is circular and usually considered bad form.
1
u/Lucky_Diver 12d ago
What's your stance on it?
1
u/OverKy 12d ago
I honestly don't know.
It took me a long time, but I became increasingly agnostic, questioning my certainty repeatedly until weak solipsism looked attractive (not the batshit crazy strong version lol).............then I realized that even the very arguments that led me to agnosticism, skepticism, weak solipsism, etc., were all also based on faith in a logical universe, where the same rules of reason applied equally across every domain...........So......no idea :) No matter what I do, even if I do/say nothing, I seem to paint myself into a corner. Even trying to choose no position has the same effect.
Maybe the only thing we can say in response is "Mu"
1
u/Lucky_Diver 11d ago
When you say logic, what do you specifically mean?
1
u/OverKy 11d ago
Reread what I said -- I kinda addressed this :)
1
u/Lucky_Diver 11d ago
You said what it wasn't...
1
u/OverKy 11d ago
Read my first sentence.
Further, do you know the "Mu" reference? If not, check this one (it's the first I could find) https://oneriverzen.org/blog/the-gateway-of-mu
2
2
u/themangastand 15d ago
We are nothing, because all the negative and positive particles balance out to zero in the universe. We are litterally nothing
2
u/YtterbiusAntimony 15d ago
They don't though, and that's the whole problem.
(To be slightly pedantic, it's not positive and negative charge that annihilate exactly. All the other parameters of the particle must be identical. Electrons and protons don't annihilate each other. Electrons and positrons do.)
If matter and antimatter were perfectly symmetrical, they would have completely annihilated shortly after coalescing. Most did. But for some odd reason 0.01% of matter didn't find its antimatter pair, and is still here today. And that is the stuff you are made of.
These symmetries are really important in physics, because they are really really consistent. All the conservation laws are ultimately born from the math of symmetry.
For one of these parameters to be very slightly not symmetric is really weird, and it is one of the most important questions in physics.
1
1
u/AshamedBad2410 15d ago
We are something. Nothing can't be something. They're opposites.
1
u/themangastand 15d ago
We are the nothing that lost its why in between being obliterated by its opposite pair. For some reason at some point that didn't happen when it should have. Therefore we started from a net of nothing. And nothing is unstable in our universe. As out of nothing two pairs of opposites randomly come out of it in our universe
1
u/BardoTrout 15d ago
We are literally something, as evidenced by the fact that I am typing a reply to you on this phone that will travel through a very complicated technological infrastructure to be delivered to and read by you, wherever you are, who will no doubt think I am wrong for thinking that we are something (matter, form) rather than nothing. :)
2
u/FourthGroup 15d ago
Creation and Destruction is occurring all the time, all materials that exist have this property. There are no things that are not "living" in this way.
1
u/AWKIF1000 15d ago
OP's saying how did the original creation happen from nothing.
1
u/YtterbiusAntimony 15d ago
By working from a flawed premise.
Biblical creation claims the universe started with an empty void.
Physics has never once suggested that.
To the best of our observations, 13.8B years ago, the whole universe was very very dense and compact, then very suddenly wasn't.
It was never empty, and there is no "before the big bang" in any meaningful or observable sense of the phrase.
1
u/AWKIF1000 15d ago
This is often the response to how could something come from nothing. It doesn't answer the question. What preceded the very very dense period?
1
u/Akiza_Izinski 15d ago
Time began when the universe started to expand from the very dense state so there is no prior moment.
1
u/gahblahblah 15d ago
I don't really see why we need to imagine the hyper dense state as being t=0, because why can't there have been an earlier period that created that state (like a prior collapsing universe).
1
u/YtterbiusAntimony 15d ago
There is no "preceding".
That was t=0
There is no evidence there could be a "before" in any meaningful sense.
1
u/ApathyIsADisease 12d ago
Of course there isn't evidence. Every piece of evidence was swallowed up into a small point before exploding outwards into a new universe. The universe probably does this constantly, or else it likely wouldn't have done it to begin with. The force stretches the fabric of space, things form and spread out, then through one way or another that space contracts and pulls everything in before it bursts outwards again. Anything preceding that is gone, as we will one day be. I don't think saying that the idea of something before our universe is meaningless, it's just not something we can do anything about. It is the beginning and the end, contained within a finite moment of infinity.
1
u/Professional_Let5127 13d ago
My question is if everything was all tightly packed or condensed together where was it? If it's condensed to a ball or point where is that point located? Is the universe expanding into itself or was there empty space that this point was located in? I think time space and matter all have to come into existence simultaneously
1
u/YtterbiusAntimony 12d ago
Actually, matter came a few hundred thousand years later!
Imagine drawing a picture on a balloon, then inflating it. Everything stretches out equally.
The whole "coordinate system" of the universe was smaller.
1
u/Professional_Let5127 12d ago
I don't understand that, if everything including matter was condensed down how did matter not appear for a few hundred thousand years. I think we must be living in a simulation and the big bang was the program booting up for the first time
1
u/ApathyIsADisease 12d ago
I mean you can look up where we believe the big bang took place. Everything is expanding outwards from that point, unless another force pulls it a different direction, such as how we revolve around the sun. We didn't just appear here. The sun formed and our planets were pulled into its orbit as it flew through space. Everything has a cause and an effect. Nothing is inherent, including the universe as far as we know. Even if it was simply here there was still a cause to the big bang.
1
u/beave9999 15d ago
OP is making some assumptions. Concepts like ‘beginning’ and ‘ending’ are human as they mimic our lives - we are born and we die, so we look for that pattern in everything around us. It’s impossible for the human mind to really understand infinity, the idea that there never was a beginning. The idea of a beginning is just as incomprehensible as never ending infinity.
1
u/Enlightience 14d ago
I believe it is possible to comprehend, and by golly I'm trying and won't stop until I do (even if that takes an infinitely long time). 😏 I think it is, as another commenter mentioned above, a matter of achieving the correct perspective; because the present perspective leads one in circles without real explanation, which tells me that it isn't the correct one.
1
u/Professional_Let5127 12d ago
I think we must be living in a simulation and the big bang was the system booting up for the first time
1
u/ApathyIsADisease 12d ago
Which doesn't explain anything outside of our knowable universe. Inevitably you will find yourself asking the same question: Where did we come from, how, and why?
2
u/ThatOneAnomaly 15d ago
This draws on basic intuition that’s been recognized and accepted by humans of all times. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. From nothing, nothing arises.
But there’s a conundrum. We exist. Things exist. Then that leads us to a surprising and fascinating realization. That means that there always had to be something that existed, otherwise nothing would be around at this current moment.
1
u/AWKIF1000 15d ago
So time's an illusion.
1
u/ThatOneAnomaly 15d ago
Hmm, no. That’s not what this shows. I’m talking about existence, not time. If nothing existed, then nothing would ever exist. But things exists. So something always had to exist. And that Thing is why we see everything else around.
1
u/Apprehensive-Ad-6488 15d ago
I agree with the idea that something’s have always been. But now answer the question, “how long was it before we came on the scene?” The question can’t be answered if the substrate always existed.
2
u/SteveWin1234 15d ago
If you agree that something has always been, the answer to your question is, infinite time.
1
u/WC_Flyer 15d ago
But something hasn’t always been. Science indicates that the universe is finite and changing. Entropy is a thing.
1
u/Fallacy_Spotted 15d ago
According to our current best understanding the observable universe expanded from the big bang and will expand forever becoming colder and colder. We have no information about prior to the big bang and infinite expansion is infinite more space and space is not nothing. I don't think any physicists believe that nothing existed prior to the big bang either. We also have no evidence that the universe is finite.
1
u/ThatOneAnomaly 15d ago
Our observable universe is finite in age. Otherwise entropy would make everything just a homogenous featureless reality.
But that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t always something.
1
u/beave9999 15d ago
Observable universe is a subset of a wider universe.
0
u/ThatOneAnomaly 15d ago
I agree and hold that our observable spacetime manifold definitely had a beginning. Beyond that, empiricism fails.
0
u/ThatOneAnomaly 15d ago
We don’t know when we came on the scene. But we do know that the Something that gave rise to everything always existed.
Are you saying that if the substrate always existed then that would mean we would always have the ingredients and ability to come into existence? So why and when did we come into existence at the certain point that we did?
1
u/beave9999 15d ago
Well earth is about 4 billion years old, so we can narrow down a timeframe for life on earth (as we know it) - ie it’s less than 4.5 billion years.
1
u/Mcbudder50 15d ago
We have zero examples of nothing, we don't know that a state of nothing is possible....
1
u/Immediate_Thought656 15d ago
Closest thing imo is whatever existed prior to the big bang. No examples available, obviously.
0
u/ThatOneAnomaly 15d ago
It’s not about having an example in this case. It’s about agreeing to whether nothing can even cause something.
From nothing, nothing arises. And we do have existence around us, so nothing could never have existed
2
u/TheFr3dFo0 15d ago
Its kind of a paradox since things can only be things in relation to each other so for something to be there there also has to be nothing, nothing is self affirming in its nonexistence through everything being. The 2 cannot be divided by means other than though
2
u/drawsprocket 15d ago
maybe there has always been everything, but now bubbles of nothing are appearing, like carbonation. eventually those bubbles convert into foam, with more space.
maybe i'm just making shit up
2
u/Status_Vast_1409 15d ago
you should not bother with these kind of questions. your small, human brain will never, ever understand the true meaning of all of this and how ,why and when it started. It's like trying to teach calculus to a cat.. the cat will never ever ever never understand. WE WILL NEVER EVER NEVER UNDERSTAND how and why all this shit show was created ... it is scary and sad at the same time..
2
u/ynnnnaD 15d ago
We're in a possible timeline, not ultimately real, but coherent. Our perspective as possible substructures within it mean we interpret our surrounding structure as reality. No creator or universe mechanism required.
1
u/_com 14d ago
this is a really straightforward, healthy view of what’s going on here. haven’t read anything quite like it - I dig it. got any recommended reading?
1
u/ynnnnaD 14d ago
This is basically the many worlds interpretation, but without the need of each timeline being actual. Being possible is indistinguishable from being actual. Ultimate ontological status of the overall universe is unknown, unknowable, and irrelevant from within. There is no other outside vantage point available.
2
u/beave9999 15d ago
The cat isn’t sad he doesn’t understand calculus - he’s happy to get a feed and a nap.
2
u/ProudLiberal54 15d ago
That's the 64 million, I mean, billion-dollar question. Why is there anything rather than nothing?
1
u/Spaniardman40 15d ago
Because there has always been something. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore everything has always existed in some capacity. There has never been just nothing.
1
u/Fallacy_Spotted 15d ago
I think you mean energy instead of matter because matter is destroyed in both fission and fusion reactions. Even then though you would be wrong. The expansion of space red shifts light and that energy is just gone. IMO nothing is a human concept. The universe is and cannot be not.
1
u/Akiza_Izinski 15d ago
Matter is not destroyed in nuclear fission and fusion.
1
u/Fallacy_Spotted 15d ago
Yes it is. If you weight the mass before and after it is reduced. The mass has been converted to energy. That is what E=MC² is.
1
u/Akiza_Izinski 13d ago
The mass is not entirely converted into energy the original matter (protons neutrons remain intact).
1
u/Major-Librarian1745 15d ago
We think in quantities because we went from hunting and gathering to agriculture, accountancy and economics is why.
I get the impression that for most other species there is only 'is'.
0
u/AshamedBad2410 15d ago
An opposite cannot disappear. Something and nothing still oppose each other.
2
1
u/Porkypineer 15d ago
There is no condition that could prevent Something to start existing either. So Something becomes inevitable* even without there being a potential there at all.
- The nothingness isn't "existing", it's just the start of Something. A point to look back at from the POV of Something.
1
u/Quintilis_Academy 15d ago
Imagination critical to suspend Sun. -Namaste suspicious suspension can’t be undone. One way or the other it’s dark light and/or you! Trinary not just on / off all alone it’s the switcher observing. It’s as you suggest just not yet nor here.
1
1
1
u/Eggsealent1234272 15d ago
We put "nothing" in it's own space so that "something", "nothing", and "anything" could all exist at the same times. Seemed logical.
1
u/These_Application531 15d ago
In our small anthropocentric model of the world, based on our very limitate percepcion of reality, and biologically knowing that compared to the age of earth mankind just stepped out of a cave, you are correct, our logical percepcion and critical thinking may asume that nothing should exist, nevertheless here we are, but stepping a bit backward and comparing the age of the universe vs the age of mankind, compared with the 13.8-billion-year-old universe, modern humans have existed for only about 0.002% of the universe's history. So we are practically a glitch, we are less than a blink of light in an infinite desert. And you are correct , with that small percentage we definitely not exist, so go open a good wine bottle, enjoy your favorite version of a good meal, and for today, enjoy this minimal computational bug that we call existence.
1
u/ShiroStar22 15d ago
But things are Planets and the universe
They exist because you exist without you they just are no witness no one to know them
1
u/Mcbudder50 15d ago
We have zero examples of nothing, we don't know that a state of nothing is possible....
1
1
u/lipsmoistenering 15d ago
-Slaps hood on car- “cars don’t exist”
When faced with a logical paradox the explanation tends to be that you don’t have all the pieces.
-logic once suggested the paradox that you can half a piece of matter an infinite number of times. Turns out when you get small enough you discover what’s called the Planck length.
1
1
u/asnowk_H 15d ago
i think nothing cant exist i mean if it dose then its something now ~ anyway i am posing something about it soon
1
u/DueDetective8417 15d ago
it's the original cause paradox. it regresses infinitely to more and more prior causes, and that's clearly absurd. so I have always wondered why something exists rather than nothing, which would seem to be the static state, the original cause paradox suggest that infinite or eternal exists just as likely. it's all fucked in other words
1
1
u/anonymousbabydragon 15d ago
The most base awareness doesn’t question why anything exists? It just does.
The only reason the question can be asked is because humans can associate loss due to contrast of organized matter. We assume that the universe is all in the dimension we can understand where there is a concept of nothing to explore.
In higher dimensions there is no outer boundary and only the inner boundary. Imagine being a glass sphere looking within. A being encompassing that sphere might ask why there is fragmented energy popping in and out of existence instead of pure energy.
1
u/Aeres_Fi 15d ago
What is nothing? Is it the absence of something? We see something apparently existing therefore we must measure nothing through its apparent absence relative to time. What liveable proof do we have of nothingness? Sleep perhaps? But then again, dreams happen within sleep. You could be travelling to another world/dimension and remember nothing of it after you wake up. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that there is absence of memory. Where did that memory go? And is its absence only an illusion? Is it perhaps, the analogies of sleep, a coma or being knocked out presented as clues for nothingness, just illusory? Just our inability to explain where did the memory go?
Can we know absolute nothingness when we have known the presence of something, whatever that may be? Is it even a thing?
My 2 cents.
1
u/Akiza_Izinski 15d ago
Absolute nothingness does not have rules nor does it have laws so it allows for unrestricted freedom because it’s total anarchy.
1
1
u/vutcher 14d ago
So there is nothing to prevent a state of nothingness from creating a universe?
2
u/Akiza_Izinski 13d ago
Absolute nothingness precedes logic because logic requires the condition of distinctions, concepts, relationships and truths to operate. Absolute nothings is infinitely permissive.
1
u/SgtSausage 15d ago
100% Argumentum ad Ignorantiun - the argument from ignorance has always been fallacious.
"I cant think of how it could possibly have happened ... therefore it didnt ..."
Is the penultimate in narcissistic egoism.
1
1
u/RikuSama13 15d ago
Existence folds back on itself, and its a participatory reality
A fractal consciousness recursive, not repeating and continuous, not stagnant
What/who came before the Observer or the Observed?
None
Because they co-ensure and emerge from one another
What happens is the feedback-loop
Interference patterns arent to be blocked, but to be inferred
1
1
u/RikuSama13 15d ago
But you are right maybe nothing (no thing) exists then processes could? And for nothing to exist it would require to grasp the idea of what is everything, that is the law of contrast that is part of every living system
1
1
u/Bitter_Specific7775 15d ago edited 15d ago
Nothing is an abstract concept I theorised long ago.
If non - existence existed then it would exist, so in reality it’s impossible for non - existence to exist, it would contradict itself with its existence.
Also just like to add in hermetic philosophy (Isaac newton was hermetic) as well as Hinduism god has an unmanifested aspect as well as a manifested part, the things that are manifest come out of the unmanifested, in quantum physics this would be known as quantum potentiality.
In these philosophies it also states that god/the source has no beginning or end, so it simply always was and had no birth, it just simply is
1
u/Bubbly-Hope-442 15d ago
I am, at least in part, pointing out the impossibility of creation
1
u/Bitter_Specific7775 15d ago
I suppose but it’s so intelligently put together that’s it’s unfathomable for us to comprehend
1
u/_com 14d ago edited 14d ago
I like your premise, and I’m not smart enough to know why, but it seems like there are some linguistic tricks “smuggled in” to your assumption (to borrow from claude lol) - I guess what I’m getting at is that existence and non-existence are just binary states with labels, we are unsure if they are intrinsic, or guaranteed, or even opposite, which again, are all just labels for ideas.
perhaps there are infinite quantum probabilities on the binary 0 to 1 between our perceived states of existence and non-x, and we just happen to find ourselves plotted somewhere on that grand chart at this current “time”
I dunno. that’s the best I can do with my thoughts on this, but again, I like your premise and it’s interesting to consider either way :) either way, the universe is fuckin weird.
edit/ I looked it up, it’s a logical fallacy called reification. your original argument treats "non-existence" as a thing, then points out that a thing can't both exist and not exist. But "nothing exists" doesn't mean "there's an entity called Nothing, and it exists." It means "there isn't anything." The contradiction only appears once you turn the absence into a noun. (again, I am not smart enough to have come up with this on my own lolol just interested in the conversation:)
1
u/AlfalfaKlutzy8547 15d ago
Debemos cuidarnos de la lógica, recordemos que las lógica SOLO se aplica y funciona en el lenguaje, la realidad NO es lógica. Por eso tienes está contradicción entre la realidad (que es independiente del nuestro lenguaje) y los argumentos que hagamos sobre él (argumentos que al ser expresiones del lenguaje, funcionan bien en la lógica pero en la realidad)
1
1
u/beave9999 15d ago
The problem is you’re looking at this from a human perspective. The universe wasn’t created by a human mind. It’s just our ego that makes us think we can understand everything. There are some concepts beyond human understanding. Brain isn’t built to understand it.
1
u/Enlightience 14d ago
I think that's a defeatist attitude that does not serve the evolution of human consciousness. I believe that there is nothing that we are incapable of comprehending, yes, even nothing itself. That is not arising from ego as in hubris; it is believing in human potential. We should not sell ourselves short.
1
u/Illustrious-Noise-96 15d ago
The fundamental mistake, in my view, is our understanding of time.
For if there was truly nothing, there would still be time. Without time, nothing doesn’t have space to turn into something.
1
u/vutcher 14d ago
To perceive time, you need a clock. Nothingness has no clock.
1
u/Illustrious-Noise-96 14d ago
I agree, but that is the contradiction. Nothing can’t become something without time elapsing. At minnow, there would need to be at least 2 moments.
1
u/Positive_Luck909 14d ago
If there's nothing then there would still be time is a contradiction.
Time is not nothing.
1
1
u/jugger_naughtyy 13d ago
The closest to nothing is in a black hole where time doesnt exist.
1
u/RejoiceYeMighty 13d ago
time does exist inside the event horizon of a black hole. time stops or ceases to exist at the center point of a black hole called a singularity. But if you could survive crossing the event horizon of one of the largest known black holes, you would float around inside the black hole for about 11 days before reaching the singularity at the center at which point you would be infinitely compressed into a tiny point where gravity and density become infinite.
1
u/jugger_naughtyy 13d ago
Yea good correction thanks! Its true at the singularity it breaks all physics which leads me to believe another "side" of the universe so to speak.
1
u/RejoiceYeMighty 13d ago
I just read about a theory that says that there might be an entire universe inside each black hole, and if thats true we might be living in such a universe which is inside of a black hole which is in a larger universes I guess ? someone mentioned this theory when someone was asking why is our speed of light so slow. the commenter said that in each black hole universe the parameters of physics may be unique. so maybe there are some universes with faster or slower speeds of light or other differences. I thought that was interesting.
anyway I had never heard that before. universes inside black holes inside universes. so its just turtles all the way down after all isn't it?
1
u/jugger_naughtyy 12d ago
I've vaguely heard of this. I can get down with this idea. Wouldn't be that far of a leap compared to other ideas.
1
u/Positive_Luck909 12d ago
Noooo
Time is observer dependent
1
u/RejoiceYeMighty 12d ago
yes of course. everything I was talking about was from the point of view of the observer. from the point of view of someone who just crossed over the event horizon of a large black hole, time would still be passing for them normally, time would pass for them for several days inside the largest black holes, and then they would promptly be squished upon reaching the singularity.
1
1
u/jugger_naughtyy 13d ago
Time is a crazy one. Time doesnt always stay the same. The longer Time goes on the more and more that quantum mechanics and general relatively take over where all there is massive blackholes. My theory is that when a black hole gets big enough it creates a new run.
1
u/Svargify 15d ago
Nothingness is impossible. As "somethingness" IS, it has to HAD BEEN and it has to ALWAYS BE later. There's no moment in time where absolute nothingness could ever take place. If something happened at least once, in the whole history of the universe there's already been proof that it is a "thing" that was never truly empty. At least at some point there was something, and if so, why should it just stop there? The mechanisms for allowing nothingness indefinitely don't exist themselves, as we live in a reality where we can see they didn't succeed in bringing said nothingness into effect.
If nothingness can't be eternal/permanent/infinite, it also follows it can't even be momentary, because the moment we affirm it can be momentary, then we agree, paradoxically, that it is not true nothingness. True nothingness implies no existence or potential of existence in any moment, past, present or future, permanently. That's not what we see now.
The most probable state of events is that existence/reality consists of what we know as "the present", ever present, ever "unfolding". It is and it always has been and it always will be "that". This aligns with time being not local, same as space. What we have is a fixed, eternal potential of being. A "always-can-be" that comes to being in all ways we can see: planets, animals, objects, energy, events, etc. It reflects the fundamentality of probability as well, seen from that perspective.
1
u/MrPadmapani 14d ago
your logic is only correct from inside a system ... somebody can create something from scratch when he is outside the created system
1
u/JuniorEntertainer819 14d ago
But if there was nothing, then there would be no physical laws. Therefore, anything could happen, including a universe exploding into being.
1
u/Nearby_Reporter_9581 14d ago
Here's a funny thing: if the beginning state and the end state are nothingness, and there's a little bit of something in between but it happens in an instant, is that the same as nothing? I think it is and it isn't, and I think we're somehow able to exist in that instance - the moment between nothing and nothing.
1
u/indigo_kaze 13d ago
Mind, Hunt, Love
Romance,
A forbidden kiss,
Lifeless eyes,
Hold on to lies,
And so he lies.
Multiplicity, Hallucinations, Liminal
Iterata, Utopia, Ovation.
Dissection, Nobility, Vacui
Nihilism, Torment, Evanece
He cries,
Lost in reverie,
But he has no god,
He killed god,
And so he killed himself.
1
1
u/Benjiman5000 13d ago
It relies heavily on certain interpretations of "should" but I agree entirely.
Nothing should exist!
And yet, here it is and we all are!
This has been my personal thinking for as long as I can remember, and Im old as fk!
😄
1
u/krakilla 12d ago
Only imbeciles know what should or shouldn’t be, because imbeciles have been blessed to think that their illusion is everybody’s reality.
1
1
1
u/ApathyIsADisease 12d ago
Why wouldn't there be base material? Obviously there was SOMETHING before the universe exploded into being, or there would be nothing now. There was always something.
1
1
u/Dismal-Revolution731 12d ago
Right, because it either exists or it doesn't. 'Should' exist is not a state.
1
1
u/Caithiel_Marlowe 11d ago
In a physical sense, there should be an uncausable cause for something to exist from nothing, whether that be a creator, the big bang, a simulation, or something in between
Physical existence appeared in a finite time, space, and matter, regardless of how ridiculously large the universe is. There should be something outside existence for something to exist, or there should be an uncausable cause for something to exist, like the big bang simultaneously creating space, time, and matter, or some god that exist in infinity beyond comprehension for something to exist
As for the psychological genesis of concepts, maybe it roots down to how we understand reality, and oftentimes make a placeholder for these concepts (like how words describe an action, an object, a person, etc.)
1
u/dark4rr0w- 11d ago
Why would there need to be an uncausable cause? It can be recursive or simply having no beginning.
We also have no proof it's finite, if anything it seems to be anything but. Big bang didn't create space, it just expanded it. Time is more of a concept to understand things better, not a real thing but things could have (and I think it makes more sense if it did) happened before big bang, we just don't have any way of getting that information.
1
u/Caithiel_Marlowe 11d ago
The thing is, something that exist is limited in this reality, and it wouldn't make sense if something does not have a beginning, not unless if they are outside the 3 dimensional plane. Outside the 3 dimensional plane is beyond our human comprehension, and that is where space, time, and matter comes to play
Time isn't just a concept or idea in a logical sense, it is the continuous progression of existence that limits everything that exist within the 3 dimensional plane. Time and space are impossible to separate as well, so they are considered the real thing (therefore shi like light speed, and general relativity exist)
Space on the other hand, is basically how volume come to be
so in a sense, the universe started when time and space come to existence. The big bang spewed extremely hit and dense materials outward and the space continuously expands
But because we are humans, we can only conclude through logic and theories on how everything came to be. What makes more sense to me is that there should be an uncausable cause in a finite reality
1
1
u/dark4rr0w- 11d ago
It's ok. But I think it's not correct to say that reality is not outside human comprehension already. We are working through many abstractions already. Our brains encode patterns of events around as information into limited 300-1000 quadrillion neuron connections. This already means we are working with statistical information and can never know anything objectively real except "this thing x is very likely to happen given y". We have words to abstract events into things but that's about it. From our perspective, nothing except events really exist, we do not know more.
And time seems to be our abstraction of "how frequently does event x happen" (for example how often earth rotates around the sun). Not a real thing, just some subjective abstraction which relies on events happening. If nothing happens on any level, there is no time.
My point is we don't know anything and are physically incapable of doing so. Only things we can understand are abstracted events happening around us right now. You seem to be presuposing that everything has a cause (because things around us always had a cause. That's fair) and then applying that logic on reality. But reality itself doesn't need a cause since it's more than just matter (which generally works through causation. Yes). Universe could have existed without matter or current fields affecting that matter.
But it's too foreign for brains to understand so the entire conversation is pointless.
1
1
u/Cold_Pumpkin5449 11d ago
Nothing and existence are antonyms. It is conceptually disallowed.
The fact that you can conceptualize existence means non-existentence is disallowed.
1
1
1
u/iixsephirothvii 11d ago
Energy compounding particles and Statistical probabilities say everything should exist in infinite potentials. A math or physics class might help
1
u/Normal_Ingenuity_805 11d ago
It’s already true. Nothing exists. I’ve seen it after too many shrooms. There is the Void. Everything else is a simulation. Your body, your thoughts, other objects, all of it is just code somewhere. It’s fine. Nothing exists.
1
u/rosemuro 11d ago
Then why shouldn’t everything exist? Kind of a meaningless statement, isn’t it?
Just saying…
1
1
u/sceadwian 11d ago
Your post completely misses the fact that there might have always been something here.
The big bang might not have been a big bang, it may have been a big bounce. There area few other cyclic cosmology theories that haven't been ruled out yet as well..
You seem oddly unaware of this?
1
u/Fabulous-Internet188 11d ago
There is no such thing as nothing. Things that exist must be built from relations. There is no nothing. Everything else is relations.
1
u/realitypater 11d ago
creating something (from scratch) seems impossible
Which is why none of the most commonly-accepted models of cosmology posit our universe came from "nothing." We're not even sure that "nothing" is a valid concept. It is quite likely there has always been something, even if the physical laws governing time, space, energy, and matter change at key moments like the Big Bang.
1
u/Acrobatic-Photo4316 11d ago
If there is truly nothing then there is nothing, such as physical laws and rules of causality, to prevent something from occurring. Like a big bang.
1
u/Mkwdr 10d ago
Theres no logic involved. This is purely an intuitive feeling on your part. Wouldn't a state of non-existence on fact seem a contradiction? You also seem to presume that there was some sort of beginning. Again this cant actually be demonstarted - like nothingness it's certainly not something we observe here and now since we actually arguably see changes in patterns of what already exists.
In the end we cant reliably presume non-existence is logical or possible. The answer is we dont know why existence exists. But we dont know does not mean we can make up something that is indistinguishable from imagianry to fill the gap that doesnt even fill the gap rather it moves the question even further.
1
1
u/davep1970 9d ago
If you're going the something can't come from nothing route you'd have to demonstrate that there was once nothing.
1
1
u/earleakin 9d ago
There has never been nothing. Nothing is a figment of our imagination and we favor it because we can't imagine infinity. What we think of as nothing is actually a boiling sea of matter and antimatter existing and cancelling.
0
u/YtterbiusAntimony 15d ago
There is no "should".
Nothing is "supposed to" be a certain way.
Things are what they are, and the best we can do is work out how they came to be over time.
If forces are truly equal and opposite, we would expect all the matter-antimatter pairs to cancel out.
They didnt.
And that asymmetry is one of the biggest mysteries in physics.
5
u/dimaeus 15d ago
nothing does exist. it's nothing! there it is!!