Something exists before awareness, I said as I tripped over something I wasn't aware of. Awareness in other minds became apparent, as a solution I wasn't aware of was offered. The nothingness of everything only has to be realized, whether it is there yet, or not.
I'm glad you didn't regurgitate the simplistic responses to the theological answer to the question, i.e. either "Well then who created God?" or "So why does God get to be the only necessary being?" I think there is more profit in either proving that the sort of being necessary to create something from nothing would have contradictory properties or not.
The conclusion hinted at the end of this video reminds me of the conclusion reached by Milton Munitz in his book "The Mystery of existence". A Must read.
The Theistic response only has paradoxes when we apply our own values of "good" and "evil" to the divine. By the very nature of a transcendant divine, our values are ALWAYS going to fall short. Another key concept often misunderstood is Eternity, the state in which the divine dwells.
The way I think of it is that you can have something or nothing, except nothing isn't actually real. People have told me they think after they die there is nothing, it's just blackness. The problem is that blackness requires something, including empty space, so it just can't be possible. Therefore there is something, and so there is everything there ever was, is, and possibly could be, in all possible combinations and sequences, occurring all at once. I think an even greater question is why are we ourselves in these bodies with conscious experiences. Quantum physics says the data stored in our experiences goes somewhere after we die, so are we reborn in the same life, just smarter and happier than before? Do we experience every single experience possible for every entity that could ever exist for all of eternity? I feel it's probably something so bizarre and beautiful and inexplicable that we may not even have a system to explain it. Also, I'm not sure why anyone buys into the "Well it can't just have happened, therefore god did it, and I have proof, it's called the Bible." Opinions aren't objective facts.
Hey Robby, could you explain the logic behind this statement: "Therefore there is something, and so there is everything there ever was, is, and possibly could be, in all possible combinations and sequences, occurring all at once." Why can we conclude the second half of this statement just because there is something? Also, do you think nothing could be possible, even if we humans can't currently conceive of it?
Russel's brute force is a cop-out. The child thinks; there is no such things as monsters but I'm too terrified to look under the bed because the monster will get me. Meaning the child (Russel) really does believe in monsters (God) after-all.
At the bottom of reality has to exist a brute fact. And it’s a binary possibility. Either there’s stuff or there is nothing. It’s 2 mutually exclusive possibilities. Apparently there is stuff. It’s just the way it is.
I agree. At this point, it seems that we are unable to answer the question and that the best we can do is continue learning and searching. Other explanations that have to do with God, energy etc. seem to be our way of explaining reality, but they're all too similar to the way our primitive ancestors explained other natural phenomena such as eclipses and natural disasters. They even thought that epidemics are punishments from God and that the best way to cure them would be to repent. However, as we learn more about the world, we realize the true nature of disease, natural disasters and other phenomena. So in conclusion, it's good to ponder over this and theorize but until we know for sure, everything will most likely be speculation. We're like frogs in a well at this point.
all powerful all loving all knowing god how can allow so much suffering appear in the world. willthis is a paradoc now u tell me suffering exist because of free will then what abt natural suffering i think u see the argument with raionl point of view u will find paradox
Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that a series of contingent phenomena can't be all that there is because contingent phenomena depends, by definition, on other contingent phenomena in order for it to exist. And if contingent phenomena are all that there is, then there must be some that was the first of then all, and if there were a first contingent phenomena then it would require, by definition, another one that has caused it, leading us to an circular reasoning, ad infinitum. About the contradictions there arise when we think about God with its traditional properties, I think that is just because we cant say anything, categorically, about God. Aquinas also argues that our knowledge of God is analogical, i.e., is just an aproximation, and human reason cant compreheend God. That's why christian tradition afirms that true knowledge of God must be revealed.
@hcct doesn't it seem strange to you to think that material substance is there in the universe for no reason? It's just there and that's all there is to it? We have these minds that can probe the depths of things, just to find that stuff just happened to be there? That is bizarre. Possibly it's true? But I don't think so...
42 It's a somewhat meaningless answer to a somewhat meaningful question. It's seems that one ought to first find out what this something is or think a little more about it first (which is probably why you would have to have something before nothing). If everything is filtered through each person's perception, assuming that we are people, etc., etc., then there is no way to perceive anything, not even perceiving data from our experiments, that doesn't have to come through the filter of our own perception. The best we can do is get a consensus with other people, whose very existence also has to pass through the filter of our own perception. But, whatever this is that we think that we're in, so long as we are constrained by its laws, it doesn't much matter what the nature of anything is if there is something outside of what we perceive. Now, assuming we are all within this odd whatever sort of thing or non-thing it is, then the point of finding as much out about it as we can is at least interesting and since we all seem to perceive ourselves to be here, might as well investigate some curiosities.
@@matijagrguric6490 All your words are also stories - "no such thing", "human concept" "universe" and "story" are all stories - So what? Just another horse on the merry go round
Theistic example there is nothing about God to regarding that question. In those 3 proposition there has no mention about God. So don't misleading people with wrong information.
You cannot have "something" come from "nothing "... it's impossible! We are here to learn. Period. To say the universe came about through a causational effect is ludicrous. Dig deep within yourself: you know there is something more powerful than your simple existence. We are all connected to this vast experience of life... to learn, to be, to love!
First of all, let me make it clear that I'm an atheist of a purely scientific & mathematical mindset, so I'm not mistaken for a religious or new age nut job or some crazy conspiracy theorist. Been there, done all that. All things come from nothing & will ultimately return to nothing, therefore something IS nothing & vise versa. Nothing is everything & everything is nothing.
I’m purely of a scientific and mathematics mindset as well, but I can’t ignore there are some compelling mathematical arguments against atheism purely as a function of our present observations on the topography of the universe, largely validated via LIGO. So far as observation of gravitational waves can confirm, the topography of the universe is near totally if not totally flat, which suggests it’s open. Or put another way, an infinite flat plane. If it’s an infinite plane as observation suggests, then there are infinite copies of each of us physically out there are copies of Earth purely as a function of probability distribution. This also means that at least once, somewhere out there, particles arranged themselves in such a way as to create a Boltzmann brain or some other macro-intelligent existence, one capable of acting upon and utilizing the laws of the universe to effect some purpose. I would never call that a god, but it’s going to meet a lot of folks definition of a god. So just the basic probability of that scenario forced me to jettison atheism as an absolute immutable truth. If the universe is infinite, atheism isn’t remotely an anchor to truth or reality unfortunately. It was easier for me to be an atheist before LIGO ruled out the hyper torus or other closed format states for the topography of the universe.
I think that in order to get a satisfying answer to this question, we need to address the possibility that there could have been nothing, but now there is something. So, if we go this way, another way to say the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is to say that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1, so the only way to do this is if somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". Then, we need to figure out how this can be. It's possible.
I get what you are saying but is the other way around for me, I think that nothing is disguse as something, at the end of the day something do not exist, is an ilusion, an ilusion is something or can be nothing? I thing is both.
@@hcct You mean about how he thought “something” was just a brute fact? It is kind of like that, but I think we can provide a mechanism for why this is so. If you’re interested, the possible mechanism I’m pursuing is below. If we want to figure out how "nothing" can be a "something”, I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping together of stuff into a new unit whole or existent entity. Some examples of groupings are 1.) the grouping together of paper and ink atoms to create a new unit whole called a book that's a different existent entity than the atoms considered individually; 2.) the grouping together of previously unrelated elements to create a set; and 3.) even the mental construct labeled the concept of a car is a grouping together of the concepts tires, chassis, steering wheel, use for transportation, etc. Here, the grouping is better thought of as the top-level label "car" that the mind uses to group subheadings together into one. Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. Some other points are: 1. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Humans are stuck having to define "nothing" in our existent minds (i.e., "somethings"), but "nothing" itself doesn't have this constraint. Whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of how we define it or talk about it. 2. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in saying there was “nothing” and now there is “something”, imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now". If you’ve read this far, thanks! There’s more detail at: philpapers.org/rec/GRAPST-4 sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
something has always been here because there was no time before matter came to be. so that literally means that the universe has simply always been. and consciousness or the will to existence is a fundamental aspect that permeates the atoms themselves like templates in time.
A bait and switch approach in admission that including nothing makes the question too easy. Not hard to get the answer you want if you are only pretending to think.
The question already presupposes that there is something. It seems common sense to think that it is the case. But it is also contrary to common sense to ask why there is something.
@@thotslayer9914 Hi. I don't. I'm just someone who watches a lot of youtube videos. I don't have knowledge of analytical philosophy. If it seems like it, it's by accident. Do you want to discuss nothingness and the world?
The way would approach is. There is already something its a fact you and I and the universe does exist. Can this come from nothing and by nothing mean the absolute absence of something....Zero Think about it hard. If you're rational human, you would answer NO. thus to say the universe came nothing is irrational. We however have other possibilities.
I'd agree with Ben here, the answer seems to be out of reach for now. The hope to someday answer this question and the spiritual/scientific pursuit that follows is outlined really well by Einstein's cosmic religion I think, has anyone here read about that? This seems to be where my existential perspective is settling - I'd love to hear from anyone else who is, or maybe was, in a similar position.
Because Absolutely Nothing (“parabrahman”, in Sanskrit) is Infinite Creative Potentiality, “it” actualizes as Absolutely Everything (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit). Attributeless Consciousness at Rest (in Sanskrit, “Nirguna Brahman”) manifests as this physical universe (Consciousness in Action, or, in Sanskrit, “Saguna Brahman”). In the verbiage of quantum physics, the enfolded implicate order appears as the unfolded explicate order. In Western philosophical (specifically, Kantian) terms, the noumenal world appears as the phenomenal world. In REALITY there is no separation of anything at any time (assuming that Consciousness is a “thing”, and that time is a property of The Uncaused Absolute). That the total sum energy of the universe is zero, implies the non-existence of matter (i.e. no thing is objectively real).
@@becky931 There are THREE possible explanations for life/existence: 1. The external, objective universe is the sole REALITY. 2. The perceiver (that is, the subject) of the objective universe is the sole REALITY. 3. This existence is a virtual REALITY, similar to the premise of “The Matrix” films. Which do YOU believe to be the most plausible explanation?
Spinoza is sitting in a cafe with his arms crossed and a smug smile on his face.
Suggestion for future video: Natural Law and Thomism.
Something exists before awareness, I said as I tripped over something I wasn't aware of. Awareness in other minds became apparent, as a solution I wasn't aware of was offered. The nothingness of everything only has to be realized, whether it is there yet, or not.
I'm glad you didn't regurgitate the simplistic responses to the theological answer to the question, i.e. either "Well then who created God?" or "So why does God get to be the only necessary being?" I think there is more profit in either proving that the sort of being necessary to create something from nothing would have contradictory properties or not.
Oh great! Another leftist who hates religious people. How original!
The conclusion hinted at the end of this video reminds me of the conclusion reached by Milton Munitz in his book "The Mystery of existence". A Must read.
Thanks! Any other book recommendations
@@mr.knownothing33 Whiterall The problem of existence
nicely organised ideas in this video
The Theistic response only has paradoxes when we apply our own values of "good" and "evil" to the divine. By the very nature of a transcendant divine, our values are ALWAYS going to fall short. Another key concept often misunderstood is Eternity, the state in which the divine dwells.
The way I think of it is that you can have something or nothing, except nothing isn't actually real. People have told me they think after they die there is nothing, it's just blackness. The problem is that blackness requires something, including empty space, so it just can't be possible. Therefore there is something, and so there is everything there ever was, is, and possibly could be, in all possible combinations and sequences, occurring all at once. I think an even greater question is why are we ourselves in these bodies with conscious experiences. Quantum physics says the data stored in our experiences goes somewhere after we die, so are we reborn in the same life, just smarter and happier than before? Do we experience every single experience possible for every entity that could ever exist for all of eternity? I feel it's probably something so bizarre and beautiful and inexplicable that we may not even have a system to explain it. Also, I'm not sure why anyone buys into the "Well it can't just have happened, therefore god did it, and I have proof, it's called the Bible." Opinions aren't objective facts.
Hey Robby, could you explain the logic behind this statement:
"Therefore there is something, and so there is everything there ever was, is, and possibly could be, in all possible combinations and sequences, occurring all at once."
Why can we conclude the second half of this statement just because there is something?
Also, do you think nothing could be possible, even if we humans can't currently conceive of it?
subjectivity is perhaps what makes it impossible for anything to exist since "Nothing" is a word or an imaginative impulse.
Russel's brute force is a cop-out.
The child thinks; there is no such things as monsters but I'm too terrified to look under the bed because the monster will get me. Meaning the child (Russel) really does believe in monsters (God) after-all.
but child saw under the bed and fact that there is no monoster
At the bottom of reality has to exist a brute fact. And it’s a binary possibility. Either there’s stuff or there is nothing. It’s 2 mutually exclusive possibilities. Apparently there is stuff. It’s just the way it is.
Always such good content!!
I agree. At this point, it seems that we are unable to answer the question and that the best we can do is continue learning and searching.
Other explanations that have to do with God, energy etc. seem to be our way of explaining reality, but they're all too similar to the way our primitive ancestors explained other natural phenomena such as eclipses and natural disasters. They even thought that epidemics are punishments from God and that the best way to cure them would be to repent. However, as we learn more about the world, we realize the true nature of disease, natural disasters and other phenomena.
So in conclusion, it's good to ponder over this and theorize but until we know for sure, everything will most likely be speculation. We're like frogs in a well at this point.
In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices what we percive through our senses.
Good video. I don't know what paradoxically referred to with the theological answer.
all powerful all loving all knowing god how can allow so much suffering appear in the world. willthis is a paradoc now u tell me suffering exist because of free will then what abt natural suffering i think u see the argument with raionl point of view u will find paradox
@@PintuRajput-st6ej it's a test and it's all balanced. Do you ignore all the joy and gratitude?
Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that a series of contingent phenomena can't be all that there is because contingent phenomena depends, by definition, on other contingent phenomena in order for it to exist. And if contingent phenomena are all that there is, then there must be some that was the first of then all, and if there were a first contingent phenomena then it would require, by definition, another one that has caused it, leading us to an circular reasoning, ad infinitum.
About the contradictions there arise when we think about God with its traditional properties, I think that is just because we cant say anything, categorically, about God. Aquinas also argues that our knowledge of God is analogical, i.e., is just an aproximation, and human reason cant compreheend God.
That's why christian tradition afirms that true knowledge of God must be revealed.
could the contingency issue also be resolved by just assuming that the material/substance that constitutes phenomena is what is not contingent?
@hcct doesn't it seem strange to you to think that material substance is there in the universe for no reason? It's just there and that's all there is to it? We have these minds that can probe the depths of things, just to find that stuff just happened to be there? That is bizarre. Possibly it's true? But I don't think so...
5:29
Yeah that is pretty funny
What is the meaning of life 😊
There must be some sort of nothing from which all new is thought of, made into reality by imagining. .
42
It's a somewhat meaningless answer to a somewhat meaningful question.
It's seems that one ought to first find out what this something is or think a little more about it first (which is probably why you would have to have something before nothing). If everything is filtered through each person's perception, assuming that we are people, etc., etc., then there is no way to perceive anything, not even perceiving data from our experiments, that doesn't have to come through the filter of our own perception. The best we can do is get a consensus with other people, whose very existence also has to pass through the filter of our own perception. But, whatever this is that we think that we're in, so long as we are constrained by its laws, it doesn't much matter what the nature of anything is if there is something outside of what we perceive. Now, assuming we are all within this odd whatever sort of thing or non-thing it is, then the point of finding as much out about it as we can is at least interesting and since we all seem to perceive ourselves to be here, might as well investigate some curiosities.
There is no such thing as nothing. Merely a human concept. Also "why" is only a human question. There is no why in universe
But man is part of the universe, so the universe as a whole contains the why question in itself, from the very beginning.
@@Garghamellal No it doesn't. You're making up stories
we are universe experience itself
@@juwitahasin9904 also a story
@@matijagrguric6490 All your words are also stories - "no such thing", "human concept" "universe" and "story" are all stories - So what? Just another horse on the merry go round
God
The same reason why computers and robots aren't alive.
Theistic example there is nothing about God to regarding that question. In those 3 proposition there has no mention about God. So don't misleading people with wrong information.
You cannot have "something" come from "nothing "... it's impossible! We are here to learn. Period. To say the universe came about through a causational effect is ludicrous. Dig deep within yourself: you know there is something more powerful than your simple existence. We are all connected to this vast experience of life... to learn, to be, to love!
In your own words, define “NOTHING”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Nothing means... nothing!
@@jennifercarter6788 TAUTOLOGY. 🙄
First of all, let me make it clear that I'm an atheist of a purely scientific & mathematical mindset, so I'm not mistaken for a religious or new age nut job or some crazy conspiracy theorist. Been there, done all that. All things come from nothing & will ultimately return to nothing, therefore something IS nothing & vise versa. Nothing is everything & everything is nothing.
I’m purely of a scientific and mathematics mindset as well, but I can’t ignore there are some compelling mathematical arguments against atheism purely as a function of our present observations on the topography of the universe, largely validated via LIGO.
So far as observation of gravitational waves can confirm, the topography of the universe is near totally if not totally flat, which suggests it’s open. Or put another way, an infinite flat plane.
If it’s an infinite plane as observation suggests, then there are infinite copies of each of us physically out there are copies of Earth purely as a function of probability distribution.
This also means that at least once, somewhere out there, particles arranged themselves in such a way as to create a Boltzmann brain or some other macro-intelligent existence, one capable of acting upon and utilizing the laws of the universe to effect some purpose.
I would never call that a god, but it’s going to meet a lot of folks definition of a god.
So just the basic probability of that scenario forced me to jettison atheism as an absolute immutable truth. If the universe is infinite, atheism isn’t remotely an anchor to truth or reality unfortunately.
It was easier for me to be an atheist before LIGO ruled out the hyper torus or other closed format states for the topography of the universe.
"Something" doesn't come from nothing. It comes from God, who is the Being of Life, and not matter.
thats a very bad explanation very lazy parroted
Existence is a brute fact. The question is meaningless.
athiest are mad insane
no question is meaningless your comment is meaningless
@@mariharrik5987 what is nothing?
I think that in order to get a satisfying answer to this question, we need to address the possibility that there could have been nothing, but now there is something. So, if we go this way, another way to say the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is to say that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1, so the only way to do this is if somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". Then, we need to figure out how this can be. It's possible.
I get what you are saying but is the other way around for me, I think that nothing is disguse as something, at the end of the day something do not exist, is an ilusion, an ilusion is something or can be nothing? I thing is both.
isn't this just another way of stating Russell's argument?
@@hcct You mean about how he thought “something” was just a brute fact? It is kind of like that, but I think we can provide a mechanism for why this is so. If you’re interested, the possible mechanism I’m pursuing is below.
If we want to figure out how "nothing" can be a "something”, I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping together of stuff into a new unit whole or existent entity. Some examples of groupings are 1.) the grouping together of paper and ink atoms to create a new unit whole called a book that's a different existent entity than the atoms considered individually; 2.) the grouping together of previously unrelated elements to create a set; and 3.) even the mental construct labeled the concept of a car is a grouping together of the concepts tires, chassis, steering wheel, use for transportation, etc. Here, the grouping is better thought of as the top-level label "car" that the mind uses to group subheadings together into one.
Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.
Some other points are:
1. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Humans are stuck having to define "nothing" in our existent minds (i.e., "somethings"), but "nothing" itself doesn't have this constraint. Whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of how we define it or talk about it.
2. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in saying there was “nothing” and now there is “something”, imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".
If you’ve read this far, thanks! There’s more detail at:
philpapers.org/rec/GRAPST-4
sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
@@GabrielGarcia-jf2uc Hi. I think we might be both saying kind of the same thing just from different angles.
something has always been here because there was no time before matter came to be. so that literally means that the universe has simply always been. and consciousness or the will to existence is a fundamental aspect that permeates the atoms themselves like templates in time.
But the universe is contingent so how can it be eternal
A bait and switch approach in admission that including nothing makes the question too easy. Not hard to get the answer you want if you are only pretending to think.
There is no better philosophical elucidation than this I conjecture.
The question already presupposes that there is something. It seems common sense to think that it is the case. But it is also contrary to common sense to ask why there is something.
how Nothing is can be imaginable or how this s*** can be turned on'an word?
@@metafisicacibernetica I have a trouble understanding your sentence. (Not saying this for the sake of an argument.)
@@thotslayer9914 Hi. I don't. I'm just someone who watches a lot of youtube videos. I don't have knowledge of analytical philosophy. If it seems like it, it's by accident.
Do you want to discuss nothingness and the world?
Do you think it’s a question that science can answer?
The way would approach is.
There is already something its a fact you and I and the universe does exist.
Can this come from nothing and by nothing mean the absolute absence of something....Zero
Think about it hard.
If you're rational human, you would answer NO.
thus to say the universe came nothing is irrational.
We however have other possibilities.
I'd agree with Ben here, the answer seems to be out of reach for now.
The hope to someday answer this question and the spiritual/scientific pursuit that follows is outlined really well by Einstein's cosmic religion I think, has anyone here read about that? This seems to be where my existential perspective is settling - I'd love to hear from anyone else who is, or maybe was, in a similar position.
the Nothing is the not-self-knowledge.
Why is there little audio, rather than adequate audio?
Because Absolutely Nothing (“parabrahman”, in Sanskrit) is Infinite Creative Potentiality, “it” actualizes as Absolutely Everything (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit). Attributeless Consciousness at Rest (in Sanskrit, “Nirguna Brahman”) manifests as this physical universe (Consciousness in Action, or, in Sanskrit, “Saguna Brahman”).
In the verbiage of quantum physics, the enfolded implicate order appears as the unfolded explicate order. In Western philosophical (specifically, Kantian) terms, the noumenal world appears as the phenomenal world.
In REALITY there is no separation of anything at any time (assuming that Consciousness is a “thing”, and that time is a property of The Uncaused Absolute). That the total sum energy of the universe is zero, implies the non-existence of matter (i.e. no thing is objectively real).
potentiality is not nothing.
@@publiusovidius7386 in your own words, define “NOTHING”. ☝️🤔☝️
Realness is not real, Subjective Reality is Objective Reality, All Hail the Paradox
@@becky931 There are THREE possible explanations for life/existence:
1. The external, objective universe is the sole REALITY.
2. The perceiver (that is, the subject) of the objective universe is the sole REALITY.
3. This existence is a virtual REALITY, similar to the premise of “The Matrix” films.
Which do YOU believe to be the most plausible explanation?
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices #4