Skip Navigation
42 comments

  • Awhile back, I decided that I needed to compartmentalize my areas of concerns into two overarching categories, things I can affect, and things I cannot. The latter category is not to be worried about, planned on, or otherwise take away from the things I am able to work on.

    But theory is always fun, so I enjoy the concept of being a cosmic accident after many billions of other cosmic accidents that came before me. I am no more or less important than any other collection of atoms and will continue to exist in this configuration with minor changes until such time that I don't. There doesn't need to be a grand plan, or a special meaning behind any of this, but I can see the allure of believing that those accidents which led to us being something more.

  • It's a metaphysical question.

    Metaphysical cosmology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as the totality of all phenomena in space and time. Historically, it formed a major part of the subject alongside ontology, though its role is more peripheral in contemporary philosophy. It has had a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion. The ancient Greeks drew no distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos. However, in modern times it addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of the physical sciences. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods (e.g. dialectics).

    Cosmogony deals specifically with the origin of the universe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all

    You can theorize about it, but for most theories, you aren't likely going to be able to do much to test them.

    We just don't have any knowledge that we can get from the world that would let us make much of a call on it. Nothing we're going to learn is likely going to let us provide an answer.

    It also probably won't provide much useful predictive power about the world, which is normally why we want to gain knowledge.

    It's like asking whether there are decoupled universes that we can never interact with, or why the specific physical properties of the universe are the way they are -- we can maybe dig deeper within physics, come up with simpler or more-accurately-descriptive models but at some most-primitive level, that falls off of physics and into metaphysics. At that level, physics can only say "this is the way things work", not why.

    So I'm not going to worry too much about it. There are hard questions that we don't know the answers to that are within the realm of testability, and that do have predictive power.

  • It's a long lasting, constantly evolving, multi-versal fluke.

    We can't see, experience, or detect most of the universe — read: existence — let alone measure it. That pretty much means, to me anyway, we can't explain it.

    Explaining existence, then, is limited to explaining my own perception of existence. To be brief: The things that exist got here the same way we did and use the same materials and rules. Conscious beings stay in the universe by maintaining consciousness; for us, that generally means being alive, awake, and alert — in that order. Upon death, consciousness ends, or departs, or continues (no one knows) and our corporeal form goes back to existing as atoms in other states within the environment. Present existence, then, pregnant by the ghosts of all existences that has gone before and is carrying to term all existences that will exist after. It's an endless, cyclical flow of atoms, energies, and absences. A crossroads of Space and Time culminating in experiential states and chains of causality. Billions of years in a blink.

    Other conscious beings may operate or perceive differently. We can't individuall confirm or know. That's another of those rules.

    That said, we only get to ride this existence thing for a short time. Build up your XP and use your one and only life doing good. Not necessarily well, but good.

    Imagine standing outside of Time and Space and making a divine survey of the grand tapestry of the possible. It would look like math painted onto bubbles that glow from within, I think. That's what Existence may be.

  • I can't for lack of evidence and aside from curiosity I don't really need to. It is interesting to ponder.

    Scientific theories exist but I'm not sure how one can reliably determine which, if any, are the better explanation.

  • Probability. Nothing is impossible, only improbable.

    So no matter how unlikely it is that the universe exists, and that there is sustained, complex life on this one; probability says that at some point; given enough time, enough iterations, etc it would have all lined up to create our little blip in time...and in some likelyhood, others too.

  • If nothing existed, it would not be possible to raise a question of this - or any other - type.

    So that is that determined.

    Whether anything beyond my instantaneous perception of thought relating to this question exists is another matter. I can't prove it. I wouldn't really say that I do 'explain' it either. I merely have an experience of it.

  • There was nothing. And immediately as consequence the negation of nothing, a thing, emerged. Nothing and a thing cannot occupy the same locus. Thus a place apart came into being. The first thing fell apart. Thus two nothings were. But this couldn't be so two things emerged. And so it went until there was a universe with increasing entropy and chaos for all.

  • The totality of manifestation, and everything therein, is consciousness itself, the Unicity. All there is is consciousness, not aware of Itself in it's noumenal subjectivity, but perceived by Itself as phenomenal manifestation in It's objective expression. ... such understanding must comport the realization that there is no individual entity as such. What we think we are is merely an appearance, an insubstantial shadow, whereas what we really and truly are, is consciousness itself, the formless Brahman.

    • Ramesh Balsekar
42 comments