There is no possible world at which there is no world, therefore the existence of something is logically necessary.

As @Pfhorrest explained to you is necessary logical to the the function of the world. Aristotle explained in his writings that "one object cannot be a different object at the same time"
Well this premise fits here. There is something because this is the world we live in and then, we can't say there is nothing at the same time.

(because)

• Stupid questions like this can't be asked unless there are fools to ask or answer them. (o___0)

• There was/is not any thing to stop "anything at all" from coming-to-be, etc. ~atomism (metaphysics)

• "Nothing is unstable." ~F. Wilczek, et al (physics) — 180 Proof

Stupid questions — 180 Proof

What is your criterion for stupidity?

What is your criterion for stupidity? — TheMadFool

How soon you've forgotten: the incorrigible misuse / abuse of intelligence, knowledge and/or judgment that inadvertently does harm for no gain or profit. That said, in the context of the original thread (linked by my user name), "stupid question" was merely a sarcastic descriptive; a more accurate adjective would've been "pseudo" rather than "stupid".

A question like that is something small children contemplate and should have no mental entertainment by attles

I don't know why it's not letting me edit my comment but the last word was supposed to be a adults but thanks to my phone it apparently thinks it knows what I should say more than I do.

the last word was supposed to be a adults — MAYAEL

I prefer it as attles. It's funnier.

What's a better candidate for an eternal thing and/or an uncaused cause, a physical universe or a god? My bet is on a god.

What's a better candidate for an eternal thing and/or an uncaused cause, a physical universe or a god? My bet is on a god. — RogueAI

My best is on cosmos beyond physical world or god

What are your thoughts in this? — Ash Abadear

First, if there is a question to be answered, it should be "Why is there something?"

Second, that's a question nobody will answer by thinking really hard. Leave it to the scientists to determine how the universe came to be, if they can. If they can't, so be it.

I do believe that the question 'why is there something ?' is an important one, which leads onto another one: why did any form of life come into existence? Also, what triggered the evolution of human consciousness? I know that many people think it is all random and accidental, but we can also say that life and consciousness are so complex and intricate. If it is all random why did it all develop with such exquisite sophistication and inherent laws of nature? But, I don't think that there are any easy answers...

Stupid questions like this can't be asked unless there are fools to ask or answer them. — 180 Proof

Be nice. He's a new guy.

:ok:

:up:



I prefer 'How any universe comes-to-be, continues-to-be, and ceases-to-be?' (sub specie aeternitatis) Also, whether or not biogenesis randomly occurs (which seems doubtful to me, just chaotic & highly improbable), evolution via natural selection is not a "random" process. And, as far as we can tell so far, 'consciousness' (i.e. phenomenal self-reflexive intelligence) is an embodied functionality of adaptive, ecosystemic-eusocial, intentional agents.

These are scientific problems, not (any longer) philosophical questions.

How soon you've forgotten: the incorrigible misuse / abuse of intelligence, knowledge and/or judgment that inadvertently does harm for no gain or profit. That said, in the context of the original thread (linked by my user name), "stupid question" was merely sarcastic and seriously descriptive; a more accurate adjective would've been "pseudo" rather than "stupid" — 180 Proof

My memory isn't what it used to be. I hope you'll find it in you to let some of my errors, slight and gross, slide on that score.

To court harm, injury, loss, even death would mean stupidity for you as there's no gain or profit discernible in that but isn't risk of harm, injury, loss, even death the stuff great people are made of. Imagine if the Wright brothers were scaredy-cats, averse to risk and danger. Would the jet age have been a reality? By your logic all pioneers in every field and discipline would be morons because they would've asked questions that wouldn't have made sense within the paradigms of their time. All this assuming of course that stupidity is context-sensitive vis-a-vis the framework of knowledge it "lives" in.

To carry the analogy further, at one time it would've been considered rather foolish, even utterly insane, to talk of men taking to the air in metal contraptions but now such events are an everyday affair and thinking/saying the opposite would be considered foolish/mad. Stupidity, ergo, in my humble opinion, depends on which era or period one belongs to. Calling an idea, a question, a point of view, etc. stupid could be rather premature given the facts of history. Just saying...

I don't see why science should be given the authority and power to answer all the big questions leaving philosophy like an abandoned vagrant sitting in the gutter. Also, the scientists have come a long way, but perhaps there is a lot left to discover, and who knows, perhaps philosophical thinking may inspire their searches.

How soon you've forgotten: the incorrigible misuse / abuse of intelligence, knowledge and/or judgment that inadvertantly does harm for no gain or profit. That said, in the context of the original thread (linked by my user name), "stupid question" was merely sarcastic and seriously descriptive; a more accurate adjective would've been "pseudo" rather than "stupid". — 180 Proof

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

You must be feeling particularly pseudo(wut?) today. :smirk:

Stupidity is, as my link points out, a congenital species defect which intellience struggles with / against and occasionally exploits (e.g. pioneers, explorers, thrill-junkies, young parents ...)

Science isn't "given the authority"; rather its domains consists in quantifiable matters of fact. Philosophy, on other hand, concerns formal, methological & conceptual topics. Whenever a question can be answered factually it's no longer philosophical and is translatable into a scientific hypothesis, or problem, to be 'solved' experimentally (which may be interpreted philosophically in terms of "what it means ..." ethically / aesthetically / ontologically, etc). Scientific theories, however, are approximate explanations of the world and are therefore fallable and reviseable / replaceable by better approximations. Philosophy isn't superceded by science any more than a mother is superceded by her children.

But there is a possible world that is empty.

Noun. attle. dirt; filth. (mining) rubbish or refuse consisting of broken rock inholding little or no ore; especially, the worthless rock left over once the ore has been selected.

I guess your phone was right.

How unsettling.

"Empty" of separable things or quantifiable facts but not structure (re Noether's Theorem) ...

Empty in not containing any individuals - hence Noether's Theorem could not be proved.

I think that you are right to suggest that 'philosophy is not superseded by science any more than a mother is superseded by her children'. Perhaps, the two can work alongside one another and philosophy have an important role in aiding with the interpretation of the facts emerging in the sciences.

Noether's Theorem concerns symmetries of (voids) from which conservation laws are derived and that entail structural descriptions constituting (voids) and not "individuals" therein. To my mind, a (void) is a possible world-structure that's "empty" only of all "individuals".

Hasn't philosophy done so since the pre-socratics?

An empty world - symmetry relies on there being a something to be symmetrical. If you like, an empty world has no state, and hence no Lagrangian, and hence Noether's Theorem cannot be applied.

The symmetrical "something" is the (void) itself.

...that's not an empty world, then, since it contains a void... :razz:

:roll:

:roll: — 180 Proof

There's something unconvincingly trite about 's post. It's a sort of revers ontological argument. Existence or lack thereof should not result from mere logical consideration.

There's a long line of philosophical discussion of empty worlds; see Nothingness.

I'm pointing out that the grammar of possible worlds allows for an empty world. So while there may be no possible world in which there is no world, there is at least one empty possible world. Hence the question in the OP might become "Why is the empty possible world not the actual world?"

And the answer is, it just isn't.

:up: