Exactly. There is something.

Quite right.

I agree with your comments other than the last part about the purpose of the universe being to crate us so we could discuss this issue. Perhaps that is correct, but it's merely a hypothesis so I wouldn't hold it as being true. As well it is anthropocentric. Perhaps we are special, but then again, perhaps we aren't.

Yes, our limits of the mind certainly to restrict us in many ways.

Reminds me of The Tao.

Good example of circular reasoning

@Remiforce I get what you are saying but na, there is a logic to it. It's just exhaustingly long winded at times. Might come back to it later if I remember. Lol

I just like that little quip because it sound jovial & I find that humourous.

Basically just concept of phrases like "Nothingness existing" or "Before time" are just a complete fallacy of logic & contradictions of themselves.
It's what can make entertaining the argument of things that don't exist just as frustratingly exhausting at times as discussing the existence of god.

@gNappyHead Logic is not the issue here. If you can put something in the syllogism, you can always put not something in the syllogism, as not is always a fumction of definition.

Existence or non existence is an emperical matter, not a logical one. Existence & non existence are correlates, not contradictions. Whether something exists or not is a matter for examination & theoretical extrapolation.

Is that long winded enough for you.

@Remiforce "by examination" which by definition 'nothing' is exempt from.
Much like god.

Well said.

Good insight. I too think of reality as basically consciousness, for to have "mind stuff", there must be a form of consciousness, although that can be conceived of in a variety of ways. It does not have to be our waking consciousness. I believe we are just beginning to explore the forms & levels of consciousness

@Remiforce Right!

I disagree. The post is not an attempt to sell a religious conviction. It is the airing of a stimulating question in order to prompt discussion.

What is not welcome to me is an attempt to stifle discourse.

My "religious convictions"? What on Earth are you talking about? Feel free to elaborate on where that comment stemmed from. I'm actual somewhat curious how you could have made such a rash assumption.

@Gawd I obviously responded rashly and with far too little thought. My sincere apologies. I hope we will have other more productive exchanges. I'll throw this out: when one's tactile nerves are excited by some external force, a chemo-electrical signal travels through a nerve pathway to the brain, and if you are working with a sufficiently complex system of symbols, you are able to create some meaning from that occurrence. You may tell yourself that you felt something hart, warm, soft, sharp, good , dangerous, or whatever, but did you. I can tell someone who is blindfolded that I am going to touch him with something sharp, then touch him with a Q-Tip and ask him to describe it. He will more than likelyk describe being touched by something sharp. Or more interesting yet, I don't have to touch him at all, and when I tell him I have just touched him with a needle that was quite hot, he will be able to describe it. Does that allow us to conclude there is something there, if it is only in our head? When we dream about something frightening, some creature, for example, that does not exist in our experience, we can perspire, our heartbeat goes up, and we might feel genuinely panicky, even though there is nothing there. What is the legitimate conclusion then, as to whether there is something or nothing. What we say is comprised of matter is generally fairly easy to describe. If the theoretical physicists are correct in their conclusion that normal matter---matter that we can see and detect with our instruments-- makes up only 5% of the universe, while Dark Matter accounts for approximately 27%. Right away I'm having trouble with my little sensory experience. I can say from a philosophical perspective that given what I know about the epistemology of the human animal, we create ourselves and our world through what we tell ourselves. I'd be interested in what you have to say about any of that, Mr. Gawd. .

@EduardoVallejo It is true that much of how we experience "reality" is influenced by our perception of it. As well, there is the possibility that our limited sensual experience as well as potential limits cognitively thwart our attempts at experiencing and understanding the true nature of reality. We have and will continue to invent technology that will help bridge these deficiencies of ours however it is still in question how close we will ever get to a definitive experience and understanding of the true reality.

As for your examples with the q-tip and the perceived monster, they illustrate just how much our thoughts and beliefs can have on our "reality" and experience. Thoughts can truly have an affect on the physical, at least our own thoughts on our own physicality. It's like closing your eyes and picturing yourself biting into a sour lemon. Most often when someone does this they will notice an increased release of saliva in their mouth. I see it as thoughts being a part of our physicality, even though they are not physical themselves. They are a product of the brain like other things are a product of other organs.

It's all very interesting stuff.

Because of my experience.

@Gawd which is in actuality completely different than anyone else's....so explain that?

@AnneWimsey I would say because of your experience as well. Although then we get into solipsism. So I can't depend on your experience. But for you, does not our experience prove there is something for you? If not, how could you be having an experience at all?

@Gawd I try not to think about it...circular "reasoning" gives me a headache

@AnneWimsey I don't really think it's circular. If you are able to have an experience of something then logically something must exist.

@Gawd nope, just take some magic mushrooms.......for one example.

@AnneWimsey I've taken mushrooms numerous times. I don't see what you are suggesting. Perhaps you would like to elaborate instead of being vague.

Furthermore, how would taking mushrooms negate my statement, "If you are able to have an experience of something then logically something must exist." If you take mushrooms, you are still having an experience of somekind, therefore something exists. How is this not blatantly obvious?

I think/have experience/am therefore I exist, therefore at least I exist, therefore something exists.

@Gawd you stated, "if you have an experience...something...logically exists" I entirely refuted that statement by pointing out a mushroom (or LSD et al) trip is ENTIRELY in your head, only exists for you. And you understand that and are just trying to shovel shit into our faces now. Shame on you!

@AnneWimsey Are you at this moment NOT having an experience? If it is possible that NOTHING exists then how would it be possible for you to be having the experience you are currently having?

I think you have COMPLETELY misunderstood what is meant by "something." It is not a claim of the existence of anything supernatural or metaphysical. DId you even read the article? It is concerning the philosophical question "why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does anything exist at all?

For goodness sake, do some reading instead of throwing your wild assumptions at people.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Gawd I think therefore I am, (your paraphrase, above)is completely meaingless & always has been. And this all could be a giant illusion of yours/mine/anybody's. You seem to be terrified of the idea. What difference, exactly, would it make?

@AnneWimsey Terrified of the idea? Feel free to elaborate on how you got to that conclusion.

Yes, this could be all an illusion of yours/mine/anybodies, however that has to do with solipsism and the NATURE of reality. NOT whether something exists or not.

Answer me this: If it is an illusion, are you not still having an experience? And does that simple fact of having any experience at all, regardless of its nature of anything else, not conclude that SOMETHING exists?

If there was the possibility that NOTHING existed then how would it be possible for there to be any experience at all? The answer is blatantly simple, that if there was NOTHING then there couldn't possibly, reasonably, or logically be ANY experience whatsoever.

I mean really. How can you be so obtuse?

@Gawd Maybe we are not all having the same experience (s)....would explain a lot. Or, we are all in separate padded rooms being drugged & observed. Or unborn, but in telepathic communication. Or in Hell. All equally valid "explanations", and who cares? Only you, apparently, because you do seem Very terrified, the ALL CAPS, the nasty personal remarks, belie your stated "philisophical" sham. Oh, and your "replies" to others commenting in ways that you do not approve. Guess what, it is not your call!

@AnneWimsey I haven't claimed anything about what the nature of reality or the nature of our experiences. You're arguing about the varying possibilities of the nature of the reality we experience. That is completely superfluous to the topic. This topic isn't about that. It's about the empirical fact that there IS an experience. Like you said, "Who cares?" My point exactly because I am not in the least talking about those things. This post has to do with the existence of a reality, not of its nature.

I still have no idea where you are getting this notion that I am "terrified." What are you talking about? I'm discussing philosophical ideas. That's it.

Anyway, I have tried quite enough to explain this to you and you remain to not comprehend what I am saying.

I haven't said anything nasty. If you are referring to me asking how you can be so obtuse, it was a sincere question. I'm baffled at how you are not understanding the topic at hand.

@AnneWimsey What you are going on about has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post. Your retort is a complete strawman.

If you want to know more about what this post is about then click on the link below.

Otherwise please stop refuting an argument that hasn't even been presented.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Gawd ya know, yourchosen screen name tells me all I need to know, actually. None so foolish as someone who gets called on his total crap and then must use CAPS and double posts and name-calling to defend the crap. Too bad, so sad....and, again, the clear signs of someone terrified. I could feel sorry for you if you weren't defending the indefensible and now have turned to the old "you just don't understand" whine......

@Gawd and BTW, "empirical fact[s]"..... says who? You? My take on this is at least as valid as yours, and far more defensible as you keep insisting there are "facts"...which you present No evidence for except your flapping gums. Period.

@AnneWimsey If you want to know more about what this post is about then click on the link below.

Otherwise please stop refuting an argument that hasn't even been presented and not discussing the actual topic.

Stop trolling my post.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Gawd "stop trolling my post" you do know that every time You reply, I get notified automatically? And that I enjoy reading others' opinions of your posts? Do you think i or anybody just is sitting there awaiting your latest floundering? No wonder you named yourself "gawd".......

@AnneWimsey If you don't have anything relevant to say about the actual topic of the post and simply continue to present strawmen then you are trolling. I've posed questions to you, none of which you have bothered to respond to. I've shared links with you, none of which you have commented about. You have simply continued to talk about something that is not relevant to the discussion topic and have as well not participated in the discussion constructively. So yes, that is trolling.

As well, simply because you receive a notification that isn't an invitation to continue trolling. Add something relevant to the actual topic at hand or don't bother responding.

Seriously, click on the link below and acquaint yourself with the subject matter concerning the topic if you choose to continue.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Gawd I have clicked on your link, but all it says, albeit quoting famous people, is, "something is there because I say/feel/think it is there". That is called Hubris. And whether your name is Socrates or gawd, I ain't buying yer snake oil.

@AnneWimsey Snake oil? Or just common sense, lol.

@AnneWimsey So you're set on the stance that it is possible that nothing exists. Can you please elaborate on how this is possible. I don't mean discussing various possible natures of reality, but rather your claim that it is possible that there is no reality.

@Gawd of course it is completely possible that nothing exists! I already posted several scenarios, and yet you keep insisting "stuff" must be real because you think it is real. With No evidence other than flapping gums...it makes no difference to me, or the truth, if the flapping comes from Socrates or you. There is No proof that anything is just happening in your "head" whatever or wherever that might be not .

@AnneWimsey Again you are confusing the nature of the reality with the existence of a reality. I'm not arguing anything about the nature of reality. Whether I'm a brain in a vat, part of the matrix, inside someone else's reality in their mind, etc etc etc. Once more I will state that I am not talking about what the nature of reality is. I'm not talking about what it is. I'm talking about the fact that it is. Period.

And no, I'm have never once stated that "stuff" exists. I'm stating the obvious that something exists. Again, not the nature of it. Whether it is concrete, immaterial, energy, thoughts, whatever....that isn't the point at all. What it is, isn't the point.

The point is that something, REGARDLESS OF ITS COMPOSITION/NATURE, exists. Neither of us could be having this discussion if there was absolutely nothing that existed.

@Gawd ohferpetessake. Of course "we" could, you could have invented the entire thing! "The nature of reality" indeed....do you know that a very popular, and hotly debated, (to the point of bloodshed!) topic in the late Dark Ages was, "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" About as sensible as your assertions!

@AnneWimsey No, "we" couldn't. That's the point. If there was nothing than how could there logically be a "me", "you" or "we." Nothing means absolutely nothing.

In your scenario there would still be something. The "me." If I exist, then I am something. What that something is isn't relevant. What's relevant is that no matter how far you reduce the reality to, as in 'me' (whatever that "me" constitutes, regardless of what that 'me' constitutes) it is something. So something must exist.

Even if there is only one consciousness in entirety having an experience than are the very least, that consciousness exists and is something.

@Gawd so, prove you exist! I mean, actually prove it apart from your fantasy life. I cannot prove I exist, and I am comfy with that.......

@AnneWimsey Yes, but you are having an experience so you exist. On some level, and in some way, you must exist to have an experience.

@AnneWimsey I know that I am having an experience. Therefore, I know that I exist. And unless the only thing that exists is me, (solipsism) and you aren't just a figment of my experience then my interaction with you is proof that I (on some level, in some way) exist to you....unless you are all that exists in the solipsistic reality then at the very least you exist, and that's something.

@Gawd you claim I am "having an experience". You

@AnneWimsey No I am claim that either you are having an experience, I am having an experience, or both are.

@Gawd aaaaannnndd, prove it!

@AnneWimsey This interaction itself proves that at least one of "either you are having an experience, I am having an experience, or both are." must be true.

@Gawd still insisting "this experience" is real....talk about circular "reasoning".......

Of course it does.

@Gawd oh, look, somebody else calling you on yer crap!

Thanks Brentan. I thought I was losing it because I couldn’t make the connection either. I feel I can go to sleep now!

But if there were nothing, including us, then we wouldn't know there is nothing, so there must be something, including us, so we can know there is nothing. It's all perfectly understandable why there is something instead of nothing

@Remiforce I agree, but I think it goes deeper that. Even if there were no sentient life, or the laws of physics made it impossible for any reason, is it possible for there to be nothing?

I don't think it is, because if there were nothing that would exist eternally, with an infinite past and infinite future, therefore it would pass instantly. This implies that no matter what, there has to be something.

You make no sense.

@Gawd Matter exists.If there was no matter we would not exist. There is no why and when I read nonsense like "the purpose of the universe was to create us so that we could discuss this issue" I wonder if I am on the right site.

@Moravian "the purpose of the universe was to create us so that we could discuss this issue"...this wasn't my statement.

@Gawd I didn't say it was your comment, but it was a silly comment by someone else

I agree in part. Some questions of course are unanswerable, at least in any absolutely conclusive way. However, I think some of them, philosophical questions, are worth entertaining, just not forever ruminating on them. They can certainly help expand a person's mind, thinking faculties, and be beneficial. Such as the question, "Why are we here?" There is likely no absolute or conclusive answer to the question, yet pondering it can be a mental exercise, and also a way for an individual to develop at least a subject/personal purpose and meaning to their life.

Of course scientific questions are always worth asking. Such as how the universe came to be.

I agree and I'm certainly not against asking questions -- even unanswerable ones. Here again I'll go back to Polya (with apologies -- I'm interpreting from memory).

Knowledge is a collection of conjectures. For any given conjecture as supporting evidence is accumulated it can be asserted with more and more confidence that it's true (and not false).

But no one has the time to run down the details of each datum they're exposed to. The game that everyone plays by necessity is choosing which items are worth their time to chase.
And of course it's all played in multiple dimensions -- How likely is it that I'll correctly answer the question?, How badly do I need the answer?, Are there others concerned by the question?, and so on.

I'll admit that I try to avoid questions that have no effect at all on me. Why-questions often fall in this category.
'Why is there something rather than nothing?' -- How should I know? And what reasons would you have to accept my answer? Roll the bones.

Just don't ask me why I chose the music I have on my music player -- some questions are unsolvable mysteries.