HEY GUYS HERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU...
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
Why does anything exist?
Before there was something, there was nothing. And out of nothing, how did we get something? What existed before the big bang, before creation, and before God?
Yes, it becomes very confusing when we throw in theories about other dimensions and non-linear time, but all of these theories fail to answer this most fundamental of all questions, “Why does anything exist?”
We know things exist, but why
need a long answer
Answers
Humans with flying wings do not exist but for there to be this saying this there should be humans.
When there is vacuum there is pressure and this pressure fills the vacuum which makes the things to exist
Null + all = existence
Those things which are non existent calls for its fullfillness.
Plants require humans and other living beings to use it up and vice versa, the same way vacuum does.
Everything is for everyone's sake.
There is a kind of interrelationship between all the things which are existent and also non existent
There is a question, which is especially disturbing during sleepless nights of August and could cut train of thoughts with existential worry in any unpredictable moment.
The question is “Why something exist at all”, as it seems more logical that nothing will ever exists.
The more particular form of the question is “How our universe has appeared from nothing”. The last question has some hidden assumptions (about time, universe, nothing and causality), but also is more concrete.
Let’s try to put these thoughts in some form of “logical equation”:
1.”Nothingness + deterministic causality = non existence”
2. But “I = exist”.
So something is wrong in this set of conjectures. If the first conjecture is false, then either nothingness is able to create existence, or causality is able to create it, or existence is not existence.
Listing these possibilities we can create a map of solutions of the “nothingness problem”
There is also a chance that our binary logic is wrong.
There are two (main) ways, which we could try to answer this question: we could go up from logically-philosophical level, or we could go down using our best physical theories to the moment about the universe appearance and nature of causality. Our theories of general relativity, QM and inflation are good in describing the almost beginning of the universe. As Krauss showed the only thing we need is random generator of simple physical laws in the beginning. But the origin of this thing is still not clear.
Anyway there is a gap between two levels of the explanations, and the really good theory should be able to fill it.
How we going to solve the problem? Where we can get information?
1. Correlation. There is an interesting way to jump over this gap using the fact that nature of nothingness, causality and existence somehow are presented in the character of physical laws. That is we could use the type of physical laws we observe as evidence of nature of causality.
While neither physical nor philosophical ways of study of the origin of the universe are not sufficient, together they could provide enough information. This evidence comes from QM, where it support idea that fluctuations, that is basically ability of nature to create something out of nothing, and also from mathematical simplicity of physical laws.
2. If we show all steps from nothingness to the basic set of physical laws for at least one plausible way, it will be strong evidence of the correctness of our understanding
3. Zero logical contradictions. The best answer is the one that is most logical.
4. Introspection. Cogito ergo sum is simplest introspection and act of self-awareness. But Husserlian phenomenology also may be used.
Most probable explanations
Most current scientists belong to two schools of thoughts
1.Universe appeared from first spark, which was nothingness. The main figure here is Krauss.
2.Mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH). The main author here is Tegmark. The theory seems logical and economical from Occam razor point of view, but doesn’t supported by evidences and also imply existence of some strange things. The main problem is that our universe look like as if it had developed from one simple point based on our best physical theories. But in math universe more complex things are equally probable as simple, so typical observer should be extremely complex in extremely complex world. There are also some problems with Godel theorem. It also ignores observation and qualia.
So the most promising way to create final theory is to get rid of all mystical answers and words, like “existence” and “nothingness”, and patch MUH in the way that it will naturally include simple laws and simple observers (with subjective experience based on qualia).
One of such patches was suggested by Tegmark and it is computational universe, which restricts math objects to only computable functions. It is also similar to cellular automata theory of S.Wolfram.
Another approach is “logical universe”, where logic works instead of causality. It is almost the same as mathematical universe, with one difference. In math world everything exists simultaneously, like all possible numbers, but in logical world each number N is consequence of N-1. In result any complex thing exists only if a (finite?) path to it exists through simpler things. And it is exactly what we see in observable universe. It also means that any extremely complex AIs exist, but in the future (or in many level simulation). It also solves meritocracy problem – I am typical observer from the class of observer who still thinking about origins of the universe. It also prevents mathematical Boltzmann brains, as any of them must have pre-history.
Logic still exists in nothingness (or elephants could appear from nothingness). So logical universe is also incorporating the theories where the universe appeared from nothing.
So logical universe seems to me now as good candidate theory for further patching and integration.
@skb♡