Why is there something rather than nothing?

[3017Metaphysician]

If all life forms have one essential purpose (survival)

Purposes only exist insofar as a particular individual invents/ascribes one. No individual has to do this, and different individuals can invent/ascribe different purposes, obviously.

Don't fear the discourse (from your previous post) I know it can be frustrating using logic. This is a metaphysics/epistemology thread...and requires a bit of discourse. In this case, we want to demonstrate or understand objectively, which things are considered thing that truly exist in reality (objectively, why would there be something and not no-thing). I'll take the liberty to summarize thus far:

For example, on the one hand you are trying to support your belief that an existent is the thing in itself. Which is fine, but I'm guessing that the particular thing explains itself too, right? So if we use your cat as an example, are you saying the cat just is, and has no other logical, objective explanation other that it is 'existent'? (Think logical necessity here.) If so, how does that explain the reality of the existent thing? (Remember the term reality is part of the definition of existent.)

The other catagory I/we just introduced (and you are now arguing) was the concept of 'purpose' behind something that exists. And from what I gather from your other explanation, that that is a catagorical distinction between subjectiveness and objectiveness. Now, part of the discourse turns to an existent (its reality) being appercieved as a subjective truth or an objective truth, using this new methodology of rationale/reasoning, no?

If neither of those categories capture what you're trying to argue about the nature of an existent, then you might could turn to phenomenology to simply describe the cat in this case, being appercieved through the senses, but not truly explain its reality. And that's because not only do you not know the cat's reality by being a cat, you also do not know how to make a cat ex nihilo (as we discussed earlier).

So existent then, from your explanation thus far, may have no meaning at all, (correct)?

[Consul]

By the way, I don't even know what the hell "The question about the reality of x's existence" is supposed to be saying, really. What is "The 'reality' of x's existence," and what's supposed to be the question about that?

I guess the question is: Does the verb "to exist" or the noun "existence" represent anything real, a real property? Is existence a real universal property instantiated by everything existent?

My answer is no: Existence is not a real property. True existential statements of the form "x exists" aren't made true by two entities—x and (x's) existence—but by only one, by x alone. The existent Mick Jagger makes it true that Mick Jagger exists, and the existent Mick Jagger is identical with Mick Jagger. (Compare: Harry Potter isn't identical with the existent Harry Potter but with the nonexistent Harry Potter, since he doesn't exist.)

Using Jonathan Lowe's terminology, "exists" is a formal predicate rather than a material predicate denoting some real property. Singular existential statements are cases of formal predication.

[Terrapin Station]

For example, on the one hand you are trying to support your belief that an existent is the thing in itself.

>sigh<

I didn't say anything like that. I didn't say anything pro or con re "things in themselves."

Which is fine, but I'm guessing that the particular thing explains itself too, right?

I have no idea what that would even mean, but I wasn't saying anything at all like that.

It seems like you're reading a bunch of crap into what I'm writing that's not at all what I'm writing.

I'm not writing anything with ulterior motives or with a bunch of implicature (with implications beyond what I'm superficially, literally saying). I'm trying to keep things simple, so that we can tackle one simple thing at a time and "get somewhere," which is always my objective. But you're reading a bunch of stuff into what I'm typing, stuff that's not at all something I have in mind.

So if we use your cat as an example, are you saying the cat just is, and has no other logical, objective explanation other that it is 'existent'?

No. I'm not saying anything pro or con anything like that.

Think of it this way. If I ask you, "Is your user name here 3017Metaphysician?" then that's ALL that I'm asking you. Just a very simple question that would have a "Yes" or "No" answer. There's no ulterior motive about "How did you get that name," or "What does that name represent" or anything like that. It would just be a very simple, superficial question that's just as it appears--"Is your user name here 3017Metaphysician?"

I don't want to go back and forth and around and around forever with no resolution, no progress. I've no interest in that. So my approach when there's a problem is to tackle one very simple thing at a time. It's like if we were working on playing a Chopin piece and I thought there were serious problems with it. I might go all the way back and make sure that you know where, say, the key "C" is on the keyboard. Because if you don't know that, there's certainly no way that we're going to tackle a Chopin piece. So if I say, "The key 'C' is here (on the keyboard)," I'm not saying anything else other than pointing out where the "C" key is making sure that you know this and can push down that particular key.

One. Simple. Thing. At. A. Time.

Then maybe we can get somewhere. If we can't tackle one simple thing at a time, then surely we can't do something more sophisticated than that.
If I wanted to say something more than what I'm saying ask something more than what I'm asking, I'd explicitly type it out. I wouldn't beat around the bush.

[3017Metaphysician]

So, philosophically, how should we come to understand a cats existence?

Existence cannot be understood without also understanding what an existent is. Are you comfortable that existents have been defined in this thread?

AB!

Yes I am comfortable with it; TS does not seem to be though: Existent - having reality or existence.

The way I'm understanding his concerns, is that instead of the concept of existent/existence having a reality, it has no meaning at all.

If he's correct, then his definition of existent, amongst other things, is incoherent.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes I am comfortable with it; TS does not seem to be though: Existent - having reality or existence.

The way I'm understanding his concerns, is that instead of the concept of existent/existence having a reality, it has no meaning at all.

Wow, that's some really piss-poor reading comprehension then.

[Terrapin Station]

At any rate, it seems to me that you're not really interested in a conversation, 3017Metaphysician. Either that or you're simply not capable of it, due to basically having an agenda and what amounts to a "script" that you can't depart from.

[3017Metaphysician]

…to say that something exists is to say that there is more to it than its being an object of thought.…

To say that something is/exists is to say that there is more to it than the thought of it.

Consul !

I agree. That's my understanding as well, hence: Existent means - having reality or existence.

Conversely, per your other post, if you want to treat the meaning of existence as tautological propositions (a priori) , it won't be as meaningful. Much like logical necessity.

Remember, the OP was: ' Why' is there something rather than nothing. Of course, in addition, the 'why' implies one should explore meaningful propositions, not Tautologies. More importantly, because the concept of 'reality' is included in the definition of Existent, then it requires discourse about same. As such, one can and should ask what is the nature of reality and existing things.

That, you may agree, is also the intriguing philosophical part

[3017Metaphysician]

…to say that something exists is to say that there is more to it than its being an object of thought.…

To say that something is/exists is to say that there is more to it than the thought of it.

Consul, as a footnote to the notion of your '... the thought of it.' ; since this is obviously a metaphysics thread, is it worth parsing subjective idealism here?

[Consul]

To say that something is/exists is to say that there is more to it than the thought of it.

Consul, as a footnote to the notion of your '... the thought of it.' ; since this is obviously a metaphysics thread, is it worth parsing subjective idealism here?

Even if nothing existed but mental subjects and mental items (ideas, impressions, images), they wouldn't be mere objects of thought in the sense of being nothing but figments of fantasy. On the contrary, if subjective idealism were true, they would constitute reality—a wholly mental reality, but a reality nonetheless. If something is a mere object of thought, it is nothing in itself; so there are only the thoughts about/of it (and the words, concepts, images, or pictures representing it). Existing mental subjects and mental items, including thoughts, are something in themselves, so there is more to them than my/our thoughts about/of them.

[UniversalAlien]

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

To a very simple question sometimes there is a very simple answer.

1. Nothing by definition does not exist

2. As nothing does not exist by default something must exist.

3. As to why existence exists - I already asked this question here on April 6, 2016

"Why does Existence Exist?"
See it here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13872

As to why you exist, you must answer for yourself

[sammygolddigger]

To say that something is/exists is to say that there is more to it than the thought of it.

Consul, as a footnote to the notion of your '... the thought of it.' ; since this is obviously a metaphysics thread, is it worth parsing subjective idealism here?

Even if nothing existed but mental subjects and mental items (ideas, impressions, images), they wouldn't be mere objects of thought in the sense of being nothing but figments of fantasy. On the contrary, if subjective idealism were true, they would constitute reality—a wholly mental reality, but a reality nonetheless. If something is a mere object of thought, it is nothing in itself; so there are only the thoughts about/of it (and the words, concepts, images, or pictures representing it). Existing mental subjects and mental items, including thoughts, are something in themselves, so there is more to them than my/our thoughts about/of them.

If subjective idealism were true, then why would subjects exist? Where would they come from?

[PoeticUniverse]

As nothing does not exist by default something must exist.

That something, then, is ever all here, as a default entity.

Is the default a capability/possibility or is it something actual, like energy?

[AverageBozo]

As nothing does not exist by default something must exist.

That something, then, is ever all uhere, as a default entity.

Is the default a capability/possibility or is it something actual, like energy?

Something is a necessity—or a default, as you put it.

A capability/possibility may either be fulfilled or it may not.

A necessity is not satisfied by anything so left to chance.

[Sculptor1]

I have been thinking about this age old question recently. Why is there anything at all? I found Max Tegmark’s aproach of mathematical platonism to be interesting. He thinks that mathematics is not invented but discovered and mathematical objects exist independently of us which is also very interesting. So why is there something rather than nothing? I would like to hear your opions on this question.

What sort of thing do you mean by the word "why"?

[PoeticUniverse]

Something is a necessity—or a default, as you put it.

A capability/possibility may either be fulfilled or it may not.

A necessity is not satisfied by anything so left to chance.

OK, necessity. It seems then that it would have to be continuous, with no spacers of the impossible 'Nothing' within it, and having no further parts within it, since it was never made, having no beginning, and not even makeable, and so it is unbreakable and everlasting, even timeless, as it is all at once, complete.

Evidently, then it is all that goes on, as happenings/events, it transmuting, if it is in time, but in such as way as to ever remain as itself at heart by logically being able to return to itself, as noted in the time reversible laws of physics. If timeless, then it's like the block universe, we traversing through it.

We can't tell presentism apart from eternalism, but the message is that we live in time; however both of these modes of time have some problems. Presentism's 'now' occurring everywhere at once is bedeviled by the relativity of simultaneity and externalism's block universe extends forever into the future and it has a particular, specific starting point apparently never designed as such.