Explanation for all that is... your thoughts and arguements

[Meanstreak(BNino)]

This should be interesting...

I believe, after years of thinking, that I have discovered the answer as to why our existance is. It took quite a long time to come to this realization, and once I did, I was so dumbfounded on how simple the solution was. So tell me what you think.

The short version is: everything in our universe is because it can also not be.

The long explanation goes as follows:

On one side of the equasion, you have positive and negative integers, that is our existance being able to change in a negative or positive fashion, and on the other side of the equal sign is 0, the ever unchanging lack-there-of that enables what we perceive as existance to be so. Imagine for a moment as if nothing that we cal existance ever was, is or will be. Literal nihilism. Nothingness upon nothingness.

Seems easy enough to think about, I would just imagine a blank, black chasm devoid of life, temperature, time, movement, or matter. However the kicker is that the only reason you can begin to imagine what nothingness is is because something is. The hypothetical question "What if nothing existed?" can not only not be explained, but it is not a valid question because it is a paradox. How can you define what nothing is without something with which to compare it? It lacks definition, lacks form, and thus is exactly what you would expect nothingness to be.

So with that, nothingness or non-existance, whichever you prefer, is thrown into the realm of the metaphysical. Our existance is the tangible foil to what non-existance would be. Existance is the "anti" to non-existance, they are both what gives each other their meaning. It is a Yin-Yang of sorts. You can never have one without the other.

What this realization also does is explain not only why existance is in the first place, but also why "time" seems to transform matter and energy into different variations of itself infinitely. While existance (in the form of energy > light > matter) may be infinite, the source of said energy is not. It changes as well. (In our case, the source is stars.) "Time" itself is non-existant because to suggest what we define time as would be to suggest that there are instances in time, but that is not the case. There are no instances, freeze-frames, or snapshots, because every second can be infinitely divided by half into an unperceivible fraction.

We just use time as something to organize ourselves, but the reality is matter is constantly moving, and as a result changing, over what we call time. All of the energy in the universe is in a constant and inexorable state of metamorphosis. And why is this? Because of the above-stated rule, existance cannot exist without non-existance. If all matter that we and the universe is made of is simply a highly compressed form of slowed light, and furthermore broken down, energy, then why doesn't the tangible existance simply remain in a state of suspended energy, with the metaphysical anti-existance being nil and our existance just being in a state of pure energy?

The answer again lies in the fact of what must give something its definition, its anti. Because the anti-existance is everything that is not and has not been, the universe and our existance is constantly remorphing itself to balance out the equasion by trying to be everything that is not. We, as humans, can only be defined as humans once we came to be because humans at some point were not in the physical realm, but only an anomoly of nothingness. We are made up of the same matter as planet Earth, so why are we not just defined as Earth ourselves? It is the forms that matter is taking to be everything that has yet to be.

Two main factors are what keep our existance going and changing: The first is obvious, since everything that we know, have known, and have yet to know can not exist and resides in the realm of non-existance, there is an infinite amount of forms that matter can take. That fact alone would keep the universe busy for all eternity. However another holds it back even further, and that is the non-infinite nature of energy thanks to the physical laws of existance. Because every star will eventually die and as a result destroy any remnants of the changes it had made so far, it starts the process over again.

Imagine what forms of life and matter would exist on Earth if our Sun could live forever? Over infinity, we as humans would change constantly, and our environment too would become different. But that isnt the case.

To sum it all up, existance is so because it also cannot be. It is the infinity of non-existance that is the motivation for the physical universe to produce all possibilies that do not exist in tangible matter to balance the equasion of existance and anti-existance. Because everything that does not exist does so all at once, the physical realm will never be able to reach dynamic equilibrium with its anti counterpart because of the limitations that govern the physical world. This constant attempt to reach said balance is infinite, never satisfied, and never reached, which is what would be required for any sort of existance to be infinite. How would one expect existance to last forever if it would eventually reach whatever goal towards which it was moving? It can't, and it doesn't. That is not the why, but the how we came into existance in the first place.

-QED

[Skilgannon]

Ah, just what I thought I needed when I woke up this morning, a thesis on the momentary blink in the cosmos we call existence. Bravo.

Seriously though, what the hell brought that on dude? Cool though.

[SPAZ ROFELZ]

I prefer my own philosophy;

"It is rumoured that moments before death, your entire life flashes before your eyes, with that in mind, it would seem that life itself is just the transitional period moments before death. To live is not to die, but be dying."


Aka, we're fucked, there's no real point in concerning ourselves with the greater scale.

[~][FGS][Nobody~]

When the sun goes mad and we all vaporize, no one will be left to tell the story anyway.. so we'll be burried in oblivion

[SPAZ ROFELZ]

I remember I confused some pollution solution whore when she asked me "could you imagine a world without life?" To which I happily replied, "imagination is a state of mind and seeing that without the mind we are lifeless, imagination wouldn't exist, thus concluding that any such thoughts are melodramatic and unnecessary."


Yeah bitch, how do you like my carbon foot print, wedged in your ass.

[~[FGS]SaSQuATcH~]

Humans will be gone from Earth for a long by the time our Sun decides to go mad

[~][FGS][Nobody~]

Yes, there will be Nobody left but BIGFOOT

[synthetic]

I find the whole idea of nothingness, void, vexing in general. If there can be nothing, then why would that have any weight or value what so ever. If something isn't, and we can perceive the absence, then that absence would be either quickly turned into existence, or we turn our backs to its insignificance. Negative values? Either the starting point is misplaced or we are talking about a simple reduction which still does not bring the true amount to negative.
I can really not comment on your post or thoughts any further, because while the Ying and Yang pattern may determine a lot or just about everything I still believe that to counterbalance the Ying the Yang will simply be a different type of matter, and not void thereof.

I too am curious about why everything is, but I suppose my way of seeing it is a little too practical. I am not that big of a fan of principles such as: "what isnt, that isnt, and what is, that is." I find it a bit too obvious. Of course we could also not exist, that explains nothing. If we would not exist, then something else would, and if nothing would exist then the subject would have no importance or ground what so ever. Fruitfly philosophy, if you excuse my rude expression.

The very fact that youve given this any considerable thought lifts you well above our average brother of the species, which can only be positive.

[Meanstreak(BNino)]

I remember I confused some pollution solution whore when she asked me "could you imagine a world without life?" To which I happily replied, "imagination is a state of mind and seeing that without the mind we are lifeless, imagination wouldn't exist, thus concluding that any such thoughts are melodramatic and unnecessary."


Yeah bitch, how do you like my carbon foot print, wedged in your ass.

I lol'd harder than I had every lol'd before upon reading this. Spaz is king!

[Meanstreak(BNino)]

And Hidden, that is the *love* of it all. How much of an influence nothingness has on everything we know. And vice versa of course, because the fact that what we know to exist can also not exist is what defines the void of non-existance in the first place. It is synergie. Nothingness encompasses everything that has yet to exist at once, so the physical world attempts to bring all of that into existance over time under the constraints of the Laws of Quantum Physics.

It is all quite simple really...

[synthetic]

Nothingness encompasses everything that has yet to exist at once, so the physical world attempts to bring all of that into existance

This is starting to sound like predestination. Nothingness does not matter, processes, created from processes, run their due course within existing space, no matter if creation or devastation runs in its wake. Turn one process around and the whole creation is rewritten, any factor at any set amount of time could manipulate the process, be it in small or large time scale. If you believe in predestination then I can very much assure you that I do not.

If you ask what created the first process.. then I would be stumped. Within our universe it was likely a process from another universe.. but what started it all, this is mindbogglingly difficult to understand. To give birth to something you need to exist.

[~[FGS]SaSQuATcH~]

Nothingness never existed because in that case we wouldn't exist either.. I mean if something happened during nothingness, then it wasn't nothingness at all. If there was a big bang it was never the beginning either.

[~][FGS][Nobody~]

Before the big bang, Nobody was there.

[synthetic]

Nothingness never existed because in that case we wouldn't exist either.. I mean if something happened during nothingness, then it wasn't nothingness at all. If there was a big bang it was never the beginning either.

Thats the bit that is bothering me, to be honest. If everything began with something, then people who follow bninos line of thought here would say that it all began from nothing, but I find this extremely hard to accept.

By the way, do you guys think there are other universes out there besides ours? I tend to think so. This however does not even come close to explaining why things got started. If there is a cluster of universes then obviously within the cluster or within the universe some process takes place that gives birth to the new universe. If void gives birth to substance than I can really not view that void in any other way than some kind of substance in it self, so another question would rise.. how did the void emerge.

[Meanstreak(BNino)]

But see hidden, that is what my theory explains. We as humans, because we view our lives as a beginning and an end, like to think everything must also be that way. But what I'm saying is that time does not exist, only eternal change.

There could never have been a starting point, or a time where there was not anything because the nothing would lack definition. And something cannot come out of nothing. Therefor, the only explanation is that the realm of nothingness has and will always co-exist with the physical world.

Keep in mind, the metaphysical void I am describing is in no way a place. It is more an idea than anything. It is the known fact that there are some things that have yet to existed. It isn't like the recycle bin on your computer where when stars explode they send whatever had formed in its vicinity back to be used again someday and it literally sits there. That's why this is so hard for most to comprehend: you have to toss most of what you always thought about things out the window.

And it is nothing like predetermination. It is not as if, in the void of nothingness where things have yet to existed there is a figurative list of sorts and some "god" or whatever you want to call it picks them out. To think it that way is to again mistakenly using the average human way of thinking to to to rationalize and organize.

Try to think of it this way: Language. When man first evolved, there was no language, and we he did begin to develope it it came slowly and had to form over time. In ancient Egypt, they spoke ancient Egyptian. Romance languages like French and English were not in the realm of existance at the time. It isn't that they could not have been, but also nothing had forced those particular word forms into existance. They were simply a possibility, and that is the key word.

We know that in our existance there are limits, and we know pretty well what exists on our own planet, so it is easy to limit what we consider possibilities to terrestrial realms. Ask yourself, "What does exist right here in the now?" The answer, though very long, still has a limit. Everything on earth, and the huge possibilites of what we have yet to discover in the universe. But even our universe has a limit, and as painstakingly long as the "list" of what exists in it would be, the reality is there is eventually an end because the physical universe is limited.

Now, ask yourself, "What doesn't exist right now?" That list does not have an end, it goes on forever, and into infinity, because matter and light can, when given enough time to change, take an infinite number of forms.

So you see, there isn't a start or an end, there never was and never will be. There isn't a creator, and nothing is predtermined. The nothingness I describe is not literal by any means, rather is it an infinite amount of possibilities. Again, back to the equasion. On the anti side, you have everything that does not exist, and the other side of the equasion is, under the constraints of Physical Law, in a constant state of attempting to balance out the equasion. Indeed the anti and non-anti are equal because you cannot have one without the other, because each one gives the counterpart its meaning.

You cannot have a physical realm of "reality" without a perfectly opposite, intangible, infinite amount of anti-reality, the reality that hasn't come into existance yet. Thanks to the fact that the realm of what doesn't exist is infinite, but our universe cannot contain infinity, that is the driving force behind the universe forming, expanding, evolution, life, death, and everything else that we have seen. If there was once a nothingness that suddenly turned into something, that something could not be real because there wouldn't be the nothingness to compare it to and say, "You can plainly see that this is what is real, because this is clearly what not real is."