Thread: Properties of existence ?

The popular premise is that the universe started from nothing, inexistence, then whatever then blam existence with properties x and y.


We know existence exists, even if we were in a matrix simulated universe, it doesnt matter, we know something exists.


But how can absolute inexistence become something? Imo either "utter inexitence" is a concept that never existed, or the closest you could get to inexistance (best case scenario) is that inexistance would be an alternate state of existence (water vs ice, light vs shadow, 0 vs 1-1, etc). And if thats the case, utter inexistence still doesnt exist because it would only be a facet of existence.


Does anyone else see it that way?


If there are alternate scenarios, all those that start off with inexitence, have no one in them wondering about existence.


Then from the point where you take existence as a given, you turn to the properties of existence. We can observe that the universe as it is now has a set of specific properties that do not appear to be particularily unavoidable in the sense that there could be slightly different properties, it appears random to me that the properties are what they are.


For a long time, no one in our universe knew there even was a universe. If the properties were such that more complex structures were not possible, the universe would have existed but there would not be anyone wondering about it. Of all possible properties, those that make something possible will have something, and of those those who's properties make intelliengent life possible, will have at some point in time(if a billion years) someone wondering about exitence and thinking how lucky they are that the properties happen to support intelligent life.




So either there's one reality, just one, and were really lucky that all fits by a miracle, or theres multiple realities and were lucky but now theres no miracle that one of the realities has such parameters that make intelligent life possible(at some point in time and in specific locations), that is now a given and we just happen to be in that situation.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

So there's one reality, just one

My senses tune me in to my reality. Depending on the situation I'm in, one of my senses will almost always reassure me that I'm still in my reality. I can speculate on whether other realities exist but there are no other realities for me. My reality is what I walk through every day, it can't be anywhere else.

Recently I was anesthetized for an operation. I sensed absolutely nothing. Was I still in my reality during that time period? I do know that witnesses and recorded data will indicate I never left. Also things changed, I began in one room and finished in another. I noticed this change as well as the clock and the time of day. The only thing I can say is that it appears one must be conscious to notice reality. I suppose one could argue that the state of unconsciousness is another reality. Still I couldn't sense it.

I kind of see what you mean. From our perspective there's no other reality, in a sense, but yet you can deduce its likely things continued to operate/exist while you were not conscious, the same way we can deduce(at least humans above a certain age like 1 or 2) that a toy placed behind a box continues to exist even if it has disappeared from sight. Without being certain, we can deduce that if we die or if all conscious life died in an asteroid impact, its quite likely that existence would continue even if no one would be conscious of it, the moon would still be there etc, and we can deduce from observation that the moon existed before there was anything conscious on earth, a bit more demanding than deducing the existence of a toy behind a box, but still possible.

E = M (C squared)
(is the speed of light really a constant?-any specific wavelength? or all combined and united in a wild blast of unmassed energy?)

immutability of mass and energy?
entropy?

admittedly, our current understandings of our disperate and seemingly mutually exclusive physics' must needs be understood as incomplete
and an understanding of the motive forces of the universe or multiverses awaits the(a?) "theory of everything"

but
something from nothing
existance from non-existance
being from non-being
are the stuff of philosophy
or religeon

my guess
there never was nothing
and the immutablity of the law of entropy is nonsense

An uncuased existence which just is. And is philosophical, in that there was never nothingness.

Now space-time in which we experience our existence has an apparent origin. (13.7 billion years ago.)

Such an uncaused existence by which anything which exists must be in, that existence which is of itself cannot be measured. It is metaphysical in nature, if it is really anything at all. But from the stand point of there never being nothingness, it has to be.