Why does Existence Exist?

[Blake 789]

Perhaps existence exists so non-existence can have something to be compared to relative to it. I guess it would like Yin and Yang.

[UniversalAlien]

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov © 1956

Code: Select all

 The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way:
Alexander Adell and Bertram Lupov were two of the faithful attendants of Multivac. As well as any human beings could, they knew what lay behind the cold, clicking, flashing face -- miles and miles of face -- of that giant computer. They had at least a vague notion of the general plan of relays and circuits that had long since grown past the point where any single human could possibly have a firm grasp of the whole.

Multivac was self-adjusting and self-correcting. It had to be, for nothing human could adjust and correct it quickly enough or even adequately enough -- so Adell and Lupov attended the monstrous giant only lightly and superficially, yet as well as any men could. They fed it data, adjusted questions to its needs and translated the answers that were issued. Certainly they, and all others like them, were fully entitled to share In the glory that was Multivac's.

For decades, Multivac had helped design the ships and plot the trajectories that enabled man to reach the Moon, Mars, and Venus, but past that, Earth's poor resources could not support the ships. Too much energy was needed for the long trips. Earth exploited its coal and uranium with increasing efficiency, but there was only so much of both.

But slowly Multivac learned enough to answer deeper questions more fundamentally, and on May 14, 2061, what had been theory, became fact......................................   

..................................... Matter and energy had ended and with it, space and time. Even AC existed only for the sake of the one last question that it had never answered from the time a half-drunken computer ten trillion years before had asked the question of a computer that was to AC far less than was a man to Man.
All other questions had been answered, and until this last question was answered also, AC might not release his consciousness.

All collected data had come to a final end. Nothing was left to be collected.

But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships.

A timeless interval was spent in doing that.

And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.

But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.

For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.

The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.

And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

And there was light----

See whole story here:
http://multivax.com/last_question.html











"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... gspot.com/

[Rr6]

Perhaps existence exists so non-existence can have something to be compared to relative to it. I guess it would like Yin and Yang.

Positive shaped gravity of occupied space = Yin

Negative shaped dark energy of occupied space = Yang

A resultant{?} of these two is may be the observed time/frequency/physical/energy/reality that exists between them.

Charge is most likely related to direction of spin--- left-right --

Particle and anti-particle is most likely related to outside-out and inside-out.

Fermions 3-fold and 4-fold symmetry,

Bosons 5-fold symmetry.

The truth is out there for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.

r6

[YIOSTHEOY]

There is no reason or purpose for existence. Existence is 3-fold as seen below with 1a, 1b and 1c. Perhaps a degree of triangular, structural integrity inherent, or apriori, of existence .

Read the following as table of contents of book entitled "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy

"U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------
...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse
2) Universe: Occupied Space aka God, Cosmos, UniVerse etc....
....2a} fermions and bosons
......aka observed physical/reality as observed time aka spirit-2.........
......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......
......2c} dark energy
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4..........

r6.

when it comes to giving an answer to a question that cannot be answered, I would say that this is probably the closest thing you are going to get to not an answer.

Philosophy often deals with such "question(s) that cannot be answered" ... in other words we simply do not have an answer.

Descartes did not endeavor to prove WHY he existed, only THAT he existed. Same with his God versus the Evil Genius. Once Descartes established that he and his God both did exist to his own satisfaction at least, everything else fell into place for him. He never asked "WHY?" at least not as far as I can tell.

To answer the question of "WHY?" we are simply left to philosophically speculate, intelligently and logically, as usual.

My guess as to "WHY?" starts with the Philosophy God. I will grant like the various Romantic Philosophers (those who surmised that a Philosophy God MUST exist and that all things including us ourselves are proof that he must) I conceded the existence of the Philosophy God. He must be an immortal God or else he must have created Himself. Either way He/She/It is more powerful than you or me. He/She/It is more knowing than you or me. He/She/It is more present in more places than you or me. He/She/It is more forth-giving than you or me.

Then with this as the starting point of further analysis, I will simply speculate that this One Philosophy God was simply alone in the Universe and wanted company. In ancient Greek mythology this was Gaia and She was the Mother of all things even of the other gods. The Hindus tell a slightly different story with also many gods and goddesses. In Judaism and Islam there is only One God and he is apparently still lonely, especially since He has apparently abandoned His people for whatever reasons -- their inability to keep his laws and properly represent Him. The Christian God however at least has a Son -- so there are two of them now. The Nicene Council and its famous Creed confuses all this but that dogma did not exist until 325 AD anyhow and thus they (the Council and Creed) are easy for me at least to ignore.

As to which of the many Religion Gods is most like the Philosophy God, I cannot say and we have no way of knowing. But Early Christianity (pre 325 AD) explains the issue of "WHY?" for me best of all -- the Lonely God wanted company. He wanted a son. In this sense He is very anthropomorphic.

That's my speculation on "WHY?"

It's a good question.

[Atreyu]

A better question would be: "What does it mean to exist?"

We quickly find that the question cannot be answered unless we can understand its counterpoint - Non-existence. For if the term "non-existence" has no meaning, then neither does the term "existence" have any meaning. Therefore, if we say that things "exist", this necessarily implies that they could not exist.

But is this so?.......

[Platos stepchild]

A better question would be: "What does it mean to exist?"

We quickly find that the question cannot be answered unless we can understand its counterpoint - Non-existence. For if the term "non-existence" has no meaning, then neither does the term "existence" have any meaning. Therefore, if we say that things "exist", this necessarily implies that they could not exist.

But is this so?.......

I believe I've successfully argued that existence is forever (and therefore necessary), and that nonexistence is therefore impossible. I know it goes-against-the-grain to believe that existence isn't poised on the knife's-edge of oblivion, but it's really not. Sure, any one thing, any number of things might cease to exist. But, it's just not reasonable to believe that it might all disappear in the blink-of-an-eye. The world didn't spring from nothingness, nor will it return to nothingness.

[YIOSTHEOY]

A better question would be: "What does it mean to exist?"

We quickly find that the question cannot be answered unless we can understand its counterpoint - Non-existence. For if the term "non-existence" has no meaning, then neither does the term "existence" have any meaning. Therefore, if we say that things "exist", this necessarily implies that they could not exist.

But is this so?.......

I believe I've successfully argued that existence is forever (and therefore necessary), and that nonexistence is therefore impossible. I know it goes-against-the-grain to believe that existence isn't poised on the knife's-edge of oblivion, but it's really not. Sure, any one thing, any number of things might cease to exist. But, it's just not reasonable to believe that it might all disappear in the blink-of-an-eye. The world didn't spring from nothingness, nor will it return to nothingness.

You can believe that you have successfully argued that all you wish.

However until you experience the nothingness of Propofol during surgery, you have nothing to compare nothingness to.

You simply have little or no experience with nothingness therefore your argument for existence forever is a fallacy of argument from ignorance.

-- Updated May 29th, 2016, 12:32 am to add the following --

A better question would be: "What does it mean to exist?"

We quickly find that the question cannot be answered unless we can understand its counterpoint - Non-existence. For if the term "non-existence" has no meaning, then neither does the term "existence" have any meaning. Therefore, if we say that things "exist", this necessarily implies that they could not exist.

But is this so?.......

I thought Rene Descartes settled this.

Do you not recall Descartes?

[UniversalAlien]

When Descartes said: "I think therefore I am" he gave a simple statement to describe an issue that you can make as
complicated as you want - and it can be disputed - but still stands the test of time as a classic philosophical statement.

But when UniversalAlien says:

"I Am Existence - I Exist because without me nothing can exist - And nothing can not Exist"

it too can be disputed - But I can understand an existent state, but except as a way of comparison to an existent state,
I have no idea what a state of non-existence would be like {in a philosophical sense - obviously individuals will live die and
probably become non-existent} - But a non-existent universe Will never happen and never could have happened
because if it did - this universe could not exist and never could have existed










"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... gspot.com/

[Rr6]

1)Space exists.

....1a) macro-infinite non-occupied space exists,

....1b) finite, occupied space exists.

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept is not space, it is concepts of space, God, Universe etc....

There does not exist, and cannot exist, more than 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra.

The truth is out there for those who seek it, those who do not, and those who scoff at it.

r6

A better question would be: "What does it mean to exist?"
We quickly find that the question cannot be answered unless we can understand its counterpoint - Non-existence. For if the term "non-existence" has no meaning, then neither does the term "existence" have any meaning. Therefore, if we say that things "exist", this necessarily implies that they could not exist.
But is this so?.......

[Platos stepchild]

(Nested quote removed.)

I believe I've successfully argued that existence is forever (and therefore necessary), and that nonexistence is therefore impossible. I know it goes-against-the-grain to believe that existence isn't poised on the knife's-edge of oblivion, but it's really not. Sure, any one thing, any number of things might cease to exist. But, it's just not reasonable to believe that it might all disappear in the blink-of-an-eye. The world didn't spring from nothingness, nor will it return to nothingness.

The fallacy is yours; and, I'll not waste my time arguing with a fool.
You can believe that you have successfully argued that all you wish.

However until you experience the nothingness of Propofol during surgery, you have nothing to compare nothingness to.

You simply have little or no experience with nothingness therefore your argument for existence forever is a fallacy of argument from ignorance.

-- Updated May 29th, 2016, 12:32 am to add the following --

A better question would be: "What does it mean to exist?"

We quickly find that the question cannot be answered unless we can understand its counterpoint - Non-existence. For if the term "non-existence" has no meaning, then neither does the term "existence" have any meaning. Therefore, if we say that things "exist", this necessarily implies that they could not exist.

But is this so?.......

I thought Rene Descartes settled this.

Do you not recall Descartes?

[Alec Smart]

non-occupied space exists,

An investigation of the area between your ears would confirm that, indeed, it does.

[Shanor]

If nonexistence exists with a space, how can it not exist? Your theory cannot be proven or disproven because their is no way to truly know that nonexistence exists, but even as you say this question, the one problem is that that you can not prove something to be true if it doesn't exist. nonexistence as a whole cannot be proven one way or another because to prove it is real, the space itself has to exist. How is it that nonexistence can exist? That creates one of the biggest paradoxes ever. How could there ever be a time where nothing existed, because then there would be neither time nor space to make nonexistence exist. Without time or space there can't be anything, including nonexistence. Because that would be a place that is nowhere and never existed. Even Christian's agree that god does not ascend above time and space. So why does your idea have so much more grounds. Please, give me proof that nonexistence exists. Or can you? Because any proof of nonexistence cannot exist. Instead of stating your theory over and over again, give us proof that your theory is better then my personal theory on existence or anyone else's theory.

[Consul]

However until you experience the nothingness of Propofol during surgery, you have nothing to compare nothingness to.

To experience nothing during general anesthesia is not to experience nothingness but simply not to experience anything.

-- Updated July 17th, 2016, 11:48 am to add the following --

"There is just no alternative to being."
—Bede Rundle

Being must be (and thus is) because nonbeing cannot be. The absent world is not a possible world.

[Rr6]

However until you experience the nothingness of Propofol during surgery, you have nothing to compare nothingness to.

To experience nothing during general anesthesia is not to experience nothingness but simply not to experience anything.

The I-verse is not conscious of the experiences that are happening/ongoing, however, the molecules, atoms/elements, are experiencing the events-- to whatever degree ---, as do any more complex biologicals that are present and observing the unconscious human, or less complex animal, under anesthesia.

There exists three kinds of nothing.

1} abstract, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept does not occupy space, ergo beyond finite, occupied space Universe,

2} macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3} relative occupied or non-occupied space, i.e. we say the parking spot is empty or non-occupied by a vehicle. Same goes for motel room. Yet we know the space is occupied by air, photons etc......


r6

[Consul]

Even Christian's agree that god does not ascend above time and space.

All Christian theologians believe that God doesn't live anywhere in space.
(The doctrine of divine omnipresence cannot coherently be interpreted as meaning that God is in person present everywhere in space. Anyway, being spatially unextended, God couldn't occupy more than one single point of space at the same time.)
Some of them believe that God exists in time, and some of them believe he doesn't exist in time.
(The problem for the former group is that there are very strong scientific reasons to believe that space and time are inseparable from one another, forming a unity called spacetime, such that existence in time entails existence both in time and in space. In this case it is incoherent to affirm God's intratemporal existence but to deny his intraspatial existence.)