Necessary Thing

[robvalue]

I can only say what appears to be consistent with the observations of our reality. Those things that are consistent and testable can form useful models. Those things that are consistent but not testable are unnecessary assumptions.

I have no beliefs about the true nature of this reality, or whether it's the entirety of existence. Or what it even means to "exist".

Speculating further than we can investigate is like asking the guy trapped inside the hall of mirrors what the rest of the fun fair looks like.

[downbeatplumb]

My thoughts, for something to exist it must have duration i.e. a period of time in which it is existent, it must also have a place to exist.
I think that probably space time is and always has been eternal and that stuff just happens in it. Probably because of the madness that is quantum physics.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...veneziano/

Quantum physics is fascinating for sure. So two things I found interesting in your response:

1) You do seem to think that there is a necessary thing, i.e. its non-existence is not possible, viz. space-time. It just exists. 

2) You said that "for something to exist, it must have... a period of time in which it is existent, it must also have a place to exist". Doesn't it fascinate you that, somehow, this does not apply to the existence of space-time? Space-time's existence doesn't require a duration of time nor a place... it IS its own duration of time and space. It IS its own condition for existence. That seems to make space-time the most interesting thing which exists. What do you think?

Not that interesting, I'm more of a boob man.

[Ignorant]

Heh, he replied to your "war of semantics" with a question about more semantics.

Ha. Well, let's just say I don't enjoy discussing things with people if we are gonna just use the same words without agreeing on what they mean when we use them. I think it is worth the time to figure it out. Nowadays, you have to do it with every individual. These words have become too equivocal, and using them is pointless if the person to whom you are speaking doesn't share the meaning they represent. 

I also provided a point of reference: "Some things' existences are contingent/conditional upon the existence of some other thing."

Look, I get it, coming to common ground on the meanings of the words we use to have a discussion is boring and tedious, but since I care about actually understanding what another person is trying to say, it seems worth it.

[Ignorant]

Not that interesting, I'm more of a boob man.

Hahaha!

[Ignorant]

I have no beliefs about the true nature of this reality, or whether it's the entirety of existence. 

You don't have any beliefs about the true nature of this reality? I find that difficult to believe. Sure, there may exist some other universe besides our own, a multiverse, a whatever, and that's fine if the jury is still out on that on your approximation... but no beliefs whatsoever about the true nature of this reality? That is fine if you don't, but I don't even understand how that is practically possible. I'm willing to hear more about it, if you are willing to tell.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I have no beliefs. All I can do is put things into various levels of "realness". For example, if I assume there is some sort of objective reality responsible for all these observations, then any two things from that objective reality would be the same amount of "real". But I can't experience them directly. I only have my brain's interpretations of this reality. All my inputs would be another kind of "real". They aren't necessarily very accurate, and will no doubt contain distortions and my brain gap filling.

If I'm asleep, everything in my dream is another type of "real". I don't even bother trying to say what is "actually real". I have no benchmark. I don't even know what that phrase would mean, without a circular definition.

But for all practical purposes, I assume there is this objective reality, and I interact and try and learn about it as best I can. I assume the other things that are quite like me have similar experiences, somehow. And I get on with it, because there's nothing else I can do. I highly doubt I'll ever have a better picture than this. I decide what I think is important, and I make decisions based on that.

My viewpoint is too caught up in the middle to see things any more objectively. Maybe this is a manifestation of a process in another reality; maybe this is the only reality. And in either case, I have no idea what any of the realities really are, if that question even makes sense. I don't know what questions make sense, ultimately.

[Ignorant]

...But for all practical purposes, I assume there is this objective reality, and I interact and try and learn about it as best I can. I assume the other things that are quite like me have similar experiences, somehow. And I get on with it, because there's nothing else I can do. I highly doubt I'll ever have a better picture than this. I decide what I think is important, and I make decisions based on that...

Thanks for your clarification! So, based on your assumption that there is an objective reality, and also upon your decisions about what you think is important, what do you think about the OP? I will understand that anything you write will be conditioned by that assumption about reality and personal decisions about important things (rather than as claims about the true nature of reality). Even so, I'd still be interested in what you have to say about whether or not there is a thing which exists without conditions for its existence.

[robvalue]

Hmm, well. It seems to be the case, based on observation, that energy is conserved. So this energy must continue to exist, in some form. Whether that applies to all of our reality, or to any other realities there might be, I have no idea. It seems intuitively the case, but I don't trust it in matters so far outside the scope of my experience.

Did energy have to exist in the first place? The fact that it's still here, again intuitively, seems to imply that it had to be there. But if it hadn't, then there wouldn't be anything, presumably. I have no idea if there was ever any way things could have been different. Maybe, maybe not.

So it would appear that energy could exist without conditions, because you can't create or destroy it. This is based on my primitive understanding of science, and is mere speculation when applied to anything other than observable reality. I don't have any firm beliefs about whether this rule would hold elsewhere.

But then again, maybe something is keeping the energy from disappearing? I couldn't possibly know. Things would look the same either way. So in conclusion, I have no firm beliefs at all, just an intuitive idea that energy will probably always exist in our reality.

What actually is energy? I have no idea. Again, it may not be a sensible question.

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe existence is eternal. I believe existence is necessary. I believe existence cannot not exist by definition. I believe the universe is deterministic and the indeterministic explanations of quantum mechanics are best understood that way but the universe itself is deterministic. I believe the universe is logical. I believe things make sense. I believe mathematics is the best way to explain things that often appear not to make sense to our intuitive primate brains and that the quantum universe seems like a whole separate universe when really there can only be one and it must be deterministic and logical. I believe that the only sense that there is more than one universe is some sort of multiverse model but then if the totality of the entire multiverse(s) is not called the universe then define "universe". Existence is eternal, deterministic, logical, necessary.

All of this is my belief. The universe is not from "nothing" regardless of what the physicist Lawrence Krauss said, it is merely that the absolutely correct and vital scientific method often simplifies matters by redefining terms, even when it does so with equivocation and a fallacy if we do not recognize this -- because the original terms and definitions are unhelpful to science. "empty space" is not empty and despite the fact atoms are definition unsplitable atoms can be split. Such is the way of science but the important thing is that the method is effective, produces results and science has evidence. Its method is more important than semantics. Semantics is for philosophy and linguistics (I suck at the latter (if not also the former)). Mathematics also gets wonderful results which is why the calculations of quantum mechanics are so awesome even if we intuitively are incapable of grasping it because the "quantum universe" is "not only queerer than we suppose but queerer than we can suppose" and even if it causes people to make the fallacy of assuming that this universe is not deterministic merely because the mathematical calculations of quantum mechanics are "random" or "indeterministic" in a sense. in a sense. It's important not to equivocate. Indeterministic observations and "random" processes still exist in a sense at least in an (at least) somewhat pseudo way even within a deterministic universe

This is all what I believe I believe.

As for "existence itself must exist and cannot not exist" that part at least I believe I know, it's just like I know that "all bachelors are unmarried". If existence must not necessarily not exist then that implies the possibility of "existence itself could possibly be non-existent" and... "A nonexistent existence" -- what the fuck are you talking about?!.

Lol soz if I ended rudely people are welcome to believe existence itself doesn't have to exist by definition but I still don't know what that belief even means. Logically incoherent IMO.

[robvalue]

Ah well, yes. By definition, "a thing that exists" cannot not exist.

But that doesn't tell us anything, because we're simply assuming our conclusion by definition. (That's not a criticism of Evie, it's a problem with how this whole question is posed.)

Could it have been that nothing existed? Maybe. Perhaps there is something or other which has the power to end all existence. Maybe it could have done so in the past, but chose not to. Maybe it still could.

This question, to me, is all about speculation. Just assuming that things we cannot observe behave like things we can observe is pointless. You can't ever verify this. (When I say "observe", I mean detect or measure in some way. It doesn't have to be directly.) Just saying "well it would have to work like that" is similarly pointless. Jumping from observable to non, applying your preconception, then coming back to observable with a "conclusion" you're actually going to act upon is balls-out crazy. It's simply reaffirming what you want to do/believe.

I'm happy to just say "I don't know, nor have any firm beliefs, about things that are outside our scope of investigation". The time to form beliefs about such things is when we find a way to investigate them. If that happens to be never, then we've still gained nothing practical by speculating.