Why is there something instead of nothing?

Existence of something instead of nothing is what makes me consider any possibility; ex: solipsism, existence of a creator. Why does anything exist?

In order to find out the answer of why something exists instead of nothing, it is necessary to define what is nothing, and this is not as trivial as it seems.

>>62119 Because you were born during the universes travels towards nothing. Entropy is the conclusion.

>>62119 Something is a closed concept. Nothing is the concept of pure infinity, allowing all that can be and not be. ''Something'' is de facto included in the ''nothing'' plan.

only conscious beings can be observers and were intimately hooked in to the very existence of reality the more we look into something in detail in what we think of as solid matter the less and less solid it begins to look the only realities we know are the ones our brain manufactures our brain receives millions of signals every minute and we organize them in these holograms which we project outside ourselves

>>62120 The world is an 11 dimensional shape, each particle is a line, and its energy defines the properties of the line. Why are there any "lines" (particles, energy).

>>62119 >Why does anything exist? What do you mean? Do you mean mechanical why, i.e. how does existence work? Or purposeful why, i. e. for what purpose? For first, you gotta ask physics. As far as i know, we didn't figured this out, yet. For the latter, i don't know. Priests claim to know the answer, but others would call them charlatans. Whoever made the something wasn't exactly clear with about their intents, that's for sure.

>>62119 Nothings turns into something in order to be, because if it was only nothing, there would not be this nothing. In order for nothing to be, something has to be. Either nothing is the positive factor, and something is a negation of nothing; but then nothing somehow is in order for something be its counterpart. Or either something is and nothing is its negation, but then nothing is a dependence upon something, since it would be a privation of something. Best texts that deal with this: Plato's Parmenides and Sofist, Hegel's science of logic.

Because God is real. Don't fall for solipsism, it's just putting yourself in the same psychological place as God.

>>62162 which of the many gods? body is too short

>>62163 All of them are the same thing Body is too short

Infinite space, infinite time, infinite gods. God realms crash into god realms an arbitrary amount of times creating a multiverse of warring interdimensional beings and space weed you wouldn't believe, too much has happened to summarize but it's kinda like this. Too big of a void and godlets spawn because nature hates a vacuum, hates it so much it plays action figure battles with it.

>>62119 The concept of being and not being only exists on our level because we have natural laws that give meaning to the difference. At the lowest level you cant have rules however as they too would need a source. So following thing what happens without rules? 1 and 0 are equal which means the difference doesn't exist. This is how you proof in math that there is only one neutral element for example - if different symbols are treated equal they are considered the same. So you need rules that create differences as without them all numbers would be equal.

>>62172 Hey, another person who worked it out like I did. Here's what I got: 1) The realm is composed of and can be represented as a bunch of 'symbols', and the rules (physics) that constrain the nature/configuration of symbols can also themselves be represented as symbols. 2) The existence of >1 symbols is self-evident. 3) If we consider a world of only 1 symbol, at the edge of nothingness between no symbols and multiple, we see that no other symbol exists that could constrain the nature of that 1 symbol. It follows that that symbol could have any arbitrary nature, given that it must exist and nothing can constrain it. 4) If you were to attempt to constrain further symbols, you would need existing symbols to codify the rules of symbol-binding, and more symbols to specify which other symbols must be bound. 5) Since no symbol-binding symbols exist here, we know that at least 2 symbols of infinitely many natures must exist, consistent with our perception of the world. 6) By induction, because the natures of 'previous' symbols cannot be bound without prior symbols existing to bind them, we can always legitimately say that there are n+1 symbols. Therefore there are infinitely many symbols in infinitely many configurations. One question is what consciousness is. Something that experiences those symbol configurations in with infinitely many ways of mapping I/O to itself? If that were the case, then everything would be being experienced all of the time. Or perhaps it only experiences me. Who knows?

>>62199 What you said is hard to comprehend? What is a symbol, in this context?

Why would there be nothing instead of something? Personally I'm yet to be convinced that there actually *is* something (not solipsism, since I would also deny the existence of myself). Since I am nothing, I have nothing to say.

>>62199 I believe that the classical sense of I/O becomes blurred with quantum computing. I also believe that the nature of a qubit is almost true to the nature of consciousness. A qubit can be 1 or O or anything inbetween. At the same time. Conciousness is almost an infinite amount of propabilities that arw computed within the brain to come to a conclusion, however, when one factors in free-will and our constant need to identify with a label or ideology to tell us how to act, that robs us of free-will. Maybe that irrational nature of the human mind gives us a sense of I/O or either 1 or O in a logic gate, because in the face of infinitity and things like there is no meaning to life-- the average person will break down into a multitude of negative states and cease to function. Symbols, words, and labels that we give things are merely from the human perspective.

Not only is there something, but we're aware of it. Because there being a universe but no conscious being to experience it would be even more anguishing than nothingness. There was obviously a creator or a group of them or some weird creation energy hippy soykaf like how gravity works in that movie Interstellar, or something. I don't have it all figured out like some other dudes ITT. >No but akchually if you leave inert matter floating away in space for long enough molecules will bump into each other and eventually create monkeys and soykaf. Sure thing, buddy.

>>62240 My beliefs aswell. Also >Sure thing, buddy. Kekekek

Avicenna's entire philosophy was dedicated to answering this question. Heidegger's Being and Time is another book that deals with this topic. So those are good places to start. A word of advice is to not conflate existence or being with matter or physical stuff.