John Leslie - The Mystery of Existence

[@Hengo07]

Congratulations to Closer to Truth channel.

[@zeven341]

It’s a useful discussion in the context of an often used argument by creationists that something cannot come from nothing as they say science claims. This is actually a straw man argument, because neither scientists nor philosophers believe that an absolute nothing ever existed or can exist. In science ‘nothing’ has no scientific meaning at all.

[@simonhibbs887]

It's the argument that having an answer is inherently superior to not having one, as though admitting we don't know something for sure is some sort of failure. Hence apologists will say the universe 'demands explanation', as though if you don't make one up and profess eternal commitment to whatever pops into your head, you lose.

[@louisbullard6135]

In the beginning there was heaven and earth so if you follow that philosophy there you have it something always existed heaven and earth. I don’t know 🤷‍♂️ actually but it would be nice knowing.

[@zeven341]

@@louisbullard6135 no, in the Christian religion heaven and earth were created, not eternal. And it’s religion not philosophy.

[@browngreen933]

Something exists -- that's about the only thing we can say for certain. 😮

[@dongshengdi773]

But science has already proven that nothing exists. That's why science is the best .

[@marionow6227]

@@dongshengdi773 well at least there is science, so thats one thing that exists...

[@greghamilton6681]

@@marionow6227 That sounds more like guesswork to me than logic. Max Planck blew science's cover when he said this: "Science can't solve the ultimate mystery of Nature because we ourselves are a part of the mystery we're trying to solve." That won't stop scientists trying to find answers in the material universe. It was the same Planck who said that matter is created by consciousness, not the other way around, as scientists want to think. The clue lies therein. You say "That's one thing that exists" and it was a deep insight. Planck would agree. This "existence" we enjoy is dreamt the same way we dream in bed at night. We imagine we're individuals when in fact we aren't. We're Everything and Nothing having ourselves on as being separate to one another and "real". Scientists don't wish to know much about this perspective of our condition. Alas. I don't think they're up to it the way Planck and his colleagues were. I’ve spent the last forty years searching for a plausible answer. The Italian writer Giovanni Papini said something that shed some light on the notion of contact across the dimensional divide; of observing and being observed. “I am,” Papini said, “because someone dreams me; a man who sleeps and dreams and sees me acting, living and moving - and who is dreaming at this moment as I am speaking to you. When he dreams, I awake to life; when he awakes, my existence vanishes. I am a whim of his inspiration, a creation of his mind, a visitor in his nightly fantasies.” There are strong inferences of a higher reality here-(i) of the binary nature of life here and elsewhere, (ii) of the on-off nature of existence in both a material realm and a spiritual one, and (iii) of the oneness or singularity of Being. It's food for thought if nothing else.

[@mogley840ify]

I think the underlying contradiction in "nothingness" is that for there to be nothing there at least has to be one thing... The possibility of there being nothing... Which means a universe cannot be completely empty

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Even in the darkest, "coldest", most desolate and remote pockets of the universe, there exists SOMEthing. A 100% and complete void, "empty" vacuum does not truly exist. Not even COLD truly exists; only a lack of heat. Things can become infinitely hot, but NOT infinitely cold. "Absolute Zero" isn't actually the absence of ALL heat. It's only what we can measure (which isn't much). 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@RyanJesseParsons]

I disagree with your premise. Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything, even an empty void. We are incapable of conceptualizing absolute nothingness. The closest we can come is an empty void, which is something.

[@thekravika5258]

He was great on the wheel of Fortune.

[@laraparks7018]

I think a conversation like this proves that the tree of knowledge can lead to madness 😮

[@Ouiofcourse]

They are arguing with supposedly logic, about the non-existence...😑 But why did you include logic in the non existence, it's like saying that non-existence only apply to matter why do you think logic would still exist in the non-existence...? Really stupid, let's talk about something that we don't know like we know it, and pretend that we know, what we don't know...

[@laraparks7018]

@@Ouiofcourse and how do we really know what Stephen Hawking said? The drooling genius in a wheelchair who speaks through a computer and we just accept it, as facts, from him, because they said so lol

[@Ouiofcourse]

​@@laraparks7018they are insulting real philosophy... I think, real philosophy can only be practice by scientists. A scientific hypothesis = Real philosophy Otherwise it's just nonsense, you need the knowledge to do real philosophy... If Science and Mathematics cannot answer your question, and you absolutely NEED an answer, then you can try to squeeze logic by using philosophical method. Or you can do like me and wait for science to catch up...

[@laraparks7018]

@@Ouiofcourse we're living in a vanilla sky hologram lol nothing is real, start with the news , media and political meat puppets...was I made for such a time as this?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@Ouiofcourse *"A scientific hypothesis = Real philosophy. Otherwise it's just nonsense, you need the knowledge to do real philosophy..."* ... Science is limited to evaluating "after-the-fact" data (i.e., "observation"). Anything beyond what can be directly observed is beyond the scope of science. That's where the importance of Philosophy is demonstrated. Science can tell you what exists, where it exists, and how much of it exists, .... but it cannot tell you why it exists.

[@dominicvijayanand1971]

Keep up the Good work sir. Its good for believers of God and also believers in science or physical proof to examine. Both are good only for good cause and effect.

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

Non-existence is necessary as part of logic when one has to explain its counter- part,the existence.

[@alekstube1423]

Nonexistence is not absurd, just because people think it is. Nonexistence is likely simply things not existing. However, I am personally also a believer of, nothing comes out of nothing. In other words, nothing isn't really something that fully is. In the character development of who we are, I have begun to discover disassociation. A danger of being. If you are interested in hearing more about my thoughts, respond with a comment if you wish.

[@lucifer.Morningstar369]

Doubt it. For something to exist in the first place, then something has always existed. The mystery to me is what fuels the energy to make things exist or create. It definitely isn't random events happening for eternity, there is a self existing base of reality, whatever the nature of that is probably not knowable to human brains, but that self existing thing is what has and will always exist. That is the existence itself. Fo my study. It is the fundamental light. It is the one thing that is everything at once.

[@byronbates7404]

Like a blank canvas, nothing gets created on a blank canvas without the creativity found within the mind. That same mind was formed over vast amounts of time and from the stuff that forms stars...

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

That's why it most definitely FEELS as though there is a certain "curtain" beyond which mankind cannot truly see. I don't necessarily mean d34th, but that could indeed factor into the equation. And it should come as no surprise to anyone that Sagan's explanation of the proverbial "4th Dimension" (via his "flatlanders" example) and tesseracts might indeed be at least a fractional shard of the puzzle. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

"nothing minus nothing is still nothing" - Jayne Cobb

[@gettaasteroid4650]

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me" -Sir Newton

[@Jacobk-g7r]

3:57 potential. Do you understand how every other human has potential tied to their very being? Like all the cells and atoms have potential they are it by the dimensions they are crossed. So using shared relatives we expand potential because it’s not just in humans but tied to all things. You can see something farther because you are made of a bunch of measurements, you are made of differences sharing. We look and hear to absorb and what we absorb shares in our heads unlocking potentials not bound to our current but shared to be visible like a simulation seeing a relative but a really far relative. Look at entanglement and see how it shares, not takes or gives. The weight of each other is shared and crosses the measurements of each to expand into differences. It’s so easy to see but hard to understand until you live or learn enough about the connections.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Existence is simple to understand if we understand Depende Origination of all phenomena. If we don't understand Dependen Origination, we can spend all eternity wandering through the "thicket of views", and we will be doing nothing else but adding to the confusion. People say, "the more we know, the more we don't know". Does this sound to anyone like getting closer to truth? To me it sounds like getting farther and farher from it ..

[@anthonyclegg1511]

It is probably impossible to have nothing.

[@edwardlawrence5666]

We can do an experiment at a party. Lets say a group of people is sitting in a room watching football on the tele. Ask them to leave the room during a commercial. Count them leaving the room until the room is empty. But it is just empty of people. So, you have to understand that it is all relative. To me, this issue goes back to Parmenides who distinguished “what is” from “what is not” and suggested that what is is the path to truth and what is not leads to error. Stick with what is, IMO, of course.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

It's definitely odd to think that at one point, humans weren't humans at all. They were merely ONE CELL. Then, two. Then four and more. Who knows why it's lasted this long, but it behooves mankind to be extremely judicious with whatever hours remain. For, in a flash, the proverbial reset button could be stomped once again, and then we'd need a few million years for anything substantial to restart.

[@rochford59]

Existence has a need,purpose,a goal,striving for knowledge,but with all that,what is one going to do with it,and once again,for what purpose🤔...but thats me!

[@maspoetry1]

From nothing, nothing arises, so there was always something. However, one is then left is another strange idea, that the universe existed forever. But,...can the universe commit unicide? Also, and more down to earth, what was surrounding the big bang ? Was there space-time already?

[@josualnew1512]

Consciousness is the key. But we don't know what. it "IS"

[@nsbd90now]

“To be is to do”-Socrates. “To do is to be”-Jean-Paul Sartre. “Do be do be do”-Frank Sinatra.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Creation is truth of universe

[@SuatUstel]

Universe didn't exist until it 13 . 8 billion years ago??????

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

@@SuatUstel creation can happen anytime 🤔

[@SuatUstel]

@mohitsoodbadlapur creation is not happened in time but with time????

[@TheRemake1]

Why doesn't he try interviewing a Yogi or a reputable spiritual master or high level religious scholar. He would have a lot of questions answered. Perhaps he already has but I am not sure. I would love to see him interview Sadhguru that would be interesting.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Sadhuguru is a complete phony, much like Deepak, and many other false "philosophers". Science is the true candle in the darkness, and I would highly recommend that people study folks like Sagan, Parnia, DeGrasse Tyson, Nye, etc.

[@jazzrus9499]

I imagine a world in which the beings in that world would "think away" all other possible worlds.

[@darkstatehk]

It gives me tremendous comfort that there’s a version of me in a universe somewhere, lay next to my beautiful wife, Kate Beckinsale.

[@bdnnijs192]

There's also a universe where Kate Beckinsale weighs 500kg's. Maybe it's the same one.😊

[@darkstatehk]

@@bdnnijs192 Haha! Good one :)

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Human being dies of maturity and if he dies his existence remains till end of universe

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Non Existence is also existence

[@rochford59]

Yes' there's always something,even if there's nothing at all🤔...seems to apply to most things in the Universe,and life in general!

[@lucifer.Morningstar369]

Non existence is the absent of existence

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could possibilities have an existence, even if not physical existence?

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Human being is confused about god but god plays well here by making him universe conscious 😮

[@KareenaKapoormba]

Earth is universal thing

[@kimsahl8555]

Existence is a property of all elements of nature.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Is the signal really a property of the radio? I don't believe so

[@kimsahl8555]

@@S3RAVA3LM The radio-signal is a property of existence The radio is a property of existence Your missing belief is a property of existence.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@kimsahl8555 is consciousness a property of matter?

[@kimsahl8555]

@@S3RAVA3LM Consciousness is linked to the animate nature as a property that is the end of an observation process. Animate nature depends existentially on inanimate nature, inanimate doesn't depend on the animate nature.

[@matswessling6600]

existence is not a property.

[@EdwardAmesCastellano]

Ah yes the single thing.. but what is a single thing? The Large Hadron Collider is searching for it. But it will never find it. RLK and myself make 2 people, so you could surmise that we are each one single thing, but we are not. Semantics and linguistics are devilshly delightful. All apologies to His Majesty.

[@KareenaKapoormba]

Enquiry on universe is only a philosophical statement not scientific.

[@tunahelpa5433]

This channel does questions of philosophers and scientists. This is one of thosefor phosophers. Scientists ask where, what, who, when, and how but are ill prepared to say why. That is what philosophers do.

[@matswessling6600]

@@tunahelpa5433no. not wise philosohers. Asking "why" when there is no intention a stupid question.

[@Dr.Z.Moravcik-inventor-of-AGI]

Do you think philosophers will stay until last human disappears?

[@guitarpick335]

Without existence math would have nothing to define. So math would also cease to exist. Non-existence would be void of all things and ideas, including the number zero. Lets rejoice that the creator of our universe must have always existed and will forever and ever.

[@jasonmcghee1266]

I like this thought, but who gave birth to the creator or created the creator?

[@guitarpick335]

@@jasonmcghee1266 The short answer would be no need to give birth since the creator has always existed. And as you know, no one really knows how this is possible. But this kind of thinking makes me feel better about my temporary worldly existence. Somewhere there must be a permanent existence outside of our universe. Maybe we can all be there someday.

[@jasonmcghee1266]

@@guitarpick335 well said. :)

[@martytdd1606]

​@@guitarpick335Why need a creator? You could also say that the univerese also always exisited.

[@guitarpick335]

@@martytdd1606 If the universe were stagnant and never changing, I would tend to agree with you. But cosmic inflation shows that’s not the case. I believe the big bang caused its creation and the creator used the bang to make it happen. Just my opinion... I love videos like this that make us think deeply about the beginning of existence.

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

Doing so, one sees what the notion of dualism is.

[@tunahelpa5433]

Dr Kuhn's question goes deeper than it seems. Of course there is something, or we wouldn't be asking tg queston. But why? This isn't a question for science but for philosophy. If one were to say that God created it, then you have the question of why was there a God to begin with? Even if you follow a belief like mine, that all of existence is a simulation, you still have to ask who or what is creating the simulation.

[@ronhudson3730]

A total absence of everything; matter, energy, spacial dimension, logic, mathematics, life, time, history, etc. would still be something - nothing. it can be defined as a complete lack of anything. Is it possible? Not in our experience. So, why existence at all? Several answers come to mind. God. It's a logical necessity for reasons we can't speculate upon. It just is and cannot be otherwise - everything that exists, exists because it must and cannot be otherwise, for reasons, we cannot formulate or understand.

[@simonhibbs887]

You don’t need to postulate god for any of that though. It’s a superfluous addition to the rest of it.

[@cuiperindy2120]

Why "everything that exists MUST exsist? Was it you that decided what MUST exist? In my Universe, everything that exists just, oh well... exists. See how deep I am? :)

[@anonymoushuman3657]

A total absence of everything means nothing exists. And nothing isn’t something.

[@edwardlawrence5666]

I like the “It just is” response the best.

[@ronhudson3730]

@@simonhibbs887 I don't need to but its a free country and I do. You need't do so. if it offends you.

[@siji4]

42

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

non-existence notion is necessary logically to legitimate the existence.

[@peweegangloku6428]

Blank (nothingness) is relative. It is the only reality when consciousness awareness is lost.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

If a human being is dead there will be no meaning for god about human being but if human being is alive he' s meaningful for him

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

"If 'God' did not exist, it would be necessary for mankind to invent one." --V 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@marcelquaegebeur6365]

god is real it all start with a light WE CAN T SEE EACH OTTER DURING THE DAYTIME WE NEED THATLIGHT

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what is logical basis for laws of physics only coherent one way?

[@wisdomseeker3937]

But wouldn't a blank still be something?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"But wouldn't a blank still be something?"* ... Not based on logic. "Nothing" and "Something" are diametrically opposed conditions. If _nothing_ is also considered a _something,_ then you have yourself a logical contradiction. That would also necessarily equate _something_ with _nothing_ ... which is obviously not the case.

[@lapis591]

In this context, nothing means _nothing_ . In other words, if nothing existed, there would be absolutely no universe, no gods, no grand architect, not even the empty void of space would exist, because even that has potentiality. Nothing would exist and no possibility of anything could ever exist that could interpret that there is nothing. You really have to imagine that there is nothing, which is very difficult and very frightening to think about.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@lapis591 *"Nothing would exist and no possibility of anything could ever exist that could interpret that there is nothing."* ... Nothing cannot exist because there is nothing available to constitute any type of existence. *"You really have to imagine that there is nothing, which is very difficult and very frightening to think about."* ... You can quasi-imagine a single state of Nonexistence, but you cannot conceive it. No imagination or conception of a state of "nothingness" can happen without the presence of a single conscious agent capable of imagining or conceiving that particular state. And if this single agent is present, ... then there is no state of absolute nothingness.

[@cuiperindy2120]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC"blank" as "everything, "nothing" etc etc, will always be something. I.e. words invented by humans to communicate, perverted by too many. In fact there are those who take abstractions, ideas ( words) as real things. It is called hypostatizacion. A plague.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Nothing is subjective, something is objective. The nothingness of scientists is diametrically different from the nothingness of the philosophers. If you can meditate a little bit you can easily feel the nothingness of the mystics. Try reading one of the osho's book.. "Meditation : The first and the last freedom".

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

We are gods children we have no right to fear to death in life 😊

[@johnrichardson7629]

The laws of mathematics don't depend on there being countable things. So silly.

[@noelwass4738]

Cantor's diagonal argument proves that the real numbers are uncountable.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Assume god don't exist but existence word is universal thing

[@browngreen933]

True. We know that Existence exists. We don't know if a God exists.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Existence > death i.e existence is greater then death for sure

death ie non-life is a form of existence, applicable to 99.9999999% of matter.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Science is dependent 100 percent on existence such as of existence exists science is known

[@bbouchan1]

Subjectively nothing is easy to define.....It's when you are dead.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Given Sam Parnia's decades of work, I do not personally believe that even d34th invokes "absolute nothingness". Something bizarre occurs, and it's obviously beyond all of mankind's current tools of measurement. Well, mostly. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

your molecules still exist

[@byronbates7404]

Last report said Energy equals matter Xs the speed of light squared however maybe the exietence or the co habitation of nothing and something create energy which is in fact the speed of light squared is that possibe maybe its like a friction between nothingness and somethingness ie gas and gravity create forms of matter that eventually form mass which creates emergy ie the stars and the light they put out ?

[@rmvanravesteijn]

Lets be real, rather existence is a constant or not, both are equally freaky.

[@jsmcguireIII]

I feel the universe seeks self awareness through humans and humans seek awareness through the universe.

[@jasonralston8603]

Nothing and something is one and the same. It's the left to the right, the up to the down, the yin to the yang, the necessary counterpart to something. I even believe it's possible that subjective awareness transcends death because given the infinity of time and space, it seems likely "you" will happen again somewhere out there, in some shape or form.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Words Vs Worlds 😅😮

[@tedgrant2]

One of the mysteries of existence is the temperature at 50,000 feet. We know it is well below freezing, so how can we live up there ? According to Paul, we will meet the Lord in the air (and freeze !).

[@simonhibbs887]

In low pressure environments the air can be thin enough, hence it's thermal conductance is low enough, that the rate of heat loss from our bodies is survivable. At least for a while. Though, 50k feet seems a bit high, you'd need a pressure suit, perhaps you mean 15,000 feet?

[@tedgrant2]

@@simonhibbs887 I assume Heaven is very high.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@tedgrant2 Oh, I get you. 😄

thermal underwear

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Universe is possible thing

[@bxlawless100]

Logic is a result of language. Wittgenstein

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

Wouldn't a Singularity only have a single Idea? Maybe when there was only One there were no alternate idea's, all these Worlds we can "imagine" are created after the One became many. Some say He created us to see His universe through us, and even the word Uni Verse suggest one idea, it's a man made word but if there is a God who created us to see His Universe then we are co creating or at least taking notes for Him. All those beautiful and colorful JWST and Hubble images are of wave lengths we can not see, our machines can see what a God can see and are showing that to us (intentionally of course, they are programed and built to show wave lengths and radiation were can't), that is the best proof that were are indeed here to view His Universe for him.

[@peterloedden9716]

Your comment is interesting after watching this clip. I've been interested in this whole idea of existence for quite some time, but this clip gave me a thought, which may be similar to yours, going one step further. For this thought one would have to subscribe to existence of God/Creator, whatever you want to call it, that doesn't matter. Since a believer in God will accept the idea that we are a) spiritual beings and b) created in his image. Now the thought; the universe doesn't exist AT ALL! Nothing exists except spirit and this is all an effort of god "experiencing" himself through us, through this universe; in effect this is all only a spiritual (please use this word correctly in this context) exercise.

[@nypala]

Nothingness does the only thing that it can do, that is not existing. If it were to exist, it would be Something. Which is exactly what exists. Parmenides was not a fool.

[@MushyPeas-q5m]

I blame Aristotle.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Existence is a word that proves theory that any thing can exist so why not god

[@graphicmaths7677]

I'm not sure how a word can prove facts about the universe. But leaving that aside, the theory that anything can exist is provably wrong. As mentioned in the video, married bachelors can't exist.

[@browngreen933]

If God exists then he's part of Existence just like us. That would make him an alien, not God.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

@@graphicmaths7677 Existence meaning is such

[@MarkGubrud]

You both miss yourselves over and over describing The Void (i.e. a hypothetical alternative to the existence of *something* or anything at all) as *being* a possibility. But a requirement of The Void is that nothing can *be*. This is what makes it absurd, or even self-contradictory: The Void cannot be a fact. Alternatively, it cannot enforce itself. This may be related to the idea that in quantum theory The Void (however it is described) would be unstable. One might argue that quantum theory has to pre-exist then, to make The Void unstable. But we view this from the side of existence. Perhaps, looking back, the facts that make quantum theory true vanish. This resembles Leslie's argument that we can get to The Void by making everything disappear, but what would the Last Thing be? An atom? It needs space to exist. The argument that The Void is logically inconsistent seems more fundamental. It also can't occupy the Time Before; it can't occupy time at all. It can't come before, because The Void isn't just a matter of where or when. It demands to be absolute, because it cannot withstand even the possibility, in quantum theory, of a fluctuation giving birth to something, a universe, a multiverse. The Void demands that even quantum theory, even pure mathematics, basic arithmetic, cannot exist, with nothing to represent it in nature, let alone on the pages of textbooks. If math can exist, quantum theory can exist, and then The Void is unstable, and so was never true to begin with. But we are just animals, and this is way above our pay grade.

[@TheCosmicRealm3]

Im glad the big bang theory has finally been put to rest. That was the dumbest theory a human ever came up with. I found it to be hilariously terrifying that people actually fell for it and believed it that everything blew up out of nothing and created everything so perfectly, lol.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

As a human being we should believe in existence.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

zero dimension of infinitesimal time might be God's nothing from which free will and quantum wave mechanics develop material reality and conscious reality?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(7:20) *JL: **_"It could be that they are believing that ultimately the laws of physics are somehow in the end dictated by the laws of logic, and as a good philosopher, I say this is nonsense"_* ... Actually, it makes perfect sense. When you consider that in order for anything to exist, it must first be *logically conceivable,* (1st Law of Existence), then suddenly logic becomes far more important than Leslie suggests. As far as the *"existence of possibilities"* is concerned, if something is logically conceivable, then it is also logically possible. Something being logically conceivable / possible doesn't mean that it _must exist,_ but rather that the odds for its existence cannot be set to zero. *Example:* A unicorn is logically conceivable, so the odds for its existence cannot be set to zero, whereas a square-circle is logically inconceivable, so the odds for its existence is necessarily set to zero. *"Nonexistence"* (what Leslie calls "a blank") is logically inconceivable, therefore you cannot have a single existing state of Nonexistence. Conceivability requires "something" to be conceived, and "nothing" doesn't qualify as "something," so it cannot be a card-carrying member of Club Existence. ... *Logic* is the core structure of "Existence," and everything that exists must be justified. Unfortunately, Leslie doesn't recognize this as relevant. ... To him it is all just nonsense.

[@browngreen933]

I like that argument. 😮

[@Ouiofcourse]

Sorry for some reason KZbin doesn't allow me to respond to your comment... supposition* my mistake Look we can spend hours arguing, back to back and will end up with "it is just your opinion" so instead, just explain to me what is wrong with my point of view...? I say that we can only reason validly with the knowledge that we assume to be true, but not with ignorance... you say if I understood you correctly that, science, mathematics and philosophy are tools of valid reason?... well I don't disagree with that... I disagree with what constitutes true philosophy today... think about it, what is reasoning? Apply logic, what is logic? a concept imagined by human intelligence, intelligence based on what? Perception, perception based on what? Observation, Empirical evidence... So if logic is based on empirical evidence that leave us with 3 option... 1. We know everything about logic, logic is complete 2. We don't know everything about logic, logic is incomplete we need more valide information 3. Or understanding of logic is based on false assumption, we are wrong. What does that mean? That empirical evidence, can even change logic! that mean it can even change reasoning! Add to that, that the only place where it is possible to make mistakes is in our imagination, (the physical world does not make mistakes because it dictates the rules) So knowing all this, the question naturally arises: am I asking myself an imaginary question? (what is the color of the fire that the sea dragon spits) or a philosophical question? I'm saying the only way to know that, is with science, because science bring us empirical evidence and that bring to us logic! So my conclusion is that the only people that can, truly practice real philosophy are true scientist. otherwise you're just asking yourself imaginary questions and giving yourself imaginary answers... that doesn't mean that we can't use philosophical methods but we can't do real philosophy because we don't have real knowledge

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@Ouiofcourse *"Sorry for some reason KZbin doesn't allow me to respond to your comment."* ... I feel your pain. A lot of great information has been lost to needless, broad-brush filtering. *"supposition* my mistake"* ... Got it! However, I like the idea of using "superposition" for people who waffle in their arguments. A "superposition of claims," per se. *"I say that we can only reason validly with the knowledge that we assume to be true, but not with ignorance..."* ... Ture, but many times we have 75% of a mystery solved and we are forced to speculate on the remaining 25%. Philosophy regulates the range of what we can speculate about the missing 25%. *"So if logic is based on empirical evidence that leave us with 3 option."* ... I'm not totally on board because I think logic is axiomatic and not based on anything other than what it is. And Philosophy explores whether logic is something that can exist all on its own or only within a physical arena. Science can't shove logic under a microscope or swish it around in a test tube, so we need the other information processing techniques (like Philosophy) to get the job done. *"That empirical evidence, can even change logic! that mean it can even change reasoning!"* ... I disagree! Empirical evidence cannot change logic. The only thing that can happen is that "humans" can completely misinterpret what they are observing (Empirical Evidence) because it's illogical, but instead of questioning the accuracy of their results, they simply rewrite logic to match what they are observing. *"So my conclusion is that the only people that can, truly practice real philosophy are true scientist."* ... Well, I disagree. You have your reasons for thinking that way, and as you alluded to at the beginning, all I can really do is juxtapose my opinion with yours. I will add that I am neither a philosopher nor a scientist on paper, but I feel competent in both. I have no official credentials for either discipline, but I can intelligibly discuss the topics. I was born with a strange gift of art, creative insight and introspect. I look at "Existence" differently than most people, and I have a book that serves as a ToE that states how I see reality. Existence offers a wide variety of human brain types that can solve many of life's greatest mysteries. They don't always find their way to the lofty realms of science, biology and physics, but their thinking is profound, regardless. It is better to consider Philosophy an important discipline of thought because limiting our knowledge base to only the disciplines we feel are "worthy" is to unnecessarily limit our intellectual resources. Even Religion has a profound message that has obviously sculpted and shaped our modern world. And Philosophy would be a good option for figuring out how that happened. Regardless, I appreciate your zeal! Bonus points for detail and not holding anything back.

[@Ouiofcourse]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCwell sadly KZbin don't allow me to respond

[@katerees-williams]

Universe of Unicorns 🦄 my type of universe 😊

[@Chris-te3ce]

I think nothing is impossible there always is something and thats a brute fact thats what I guess

[@iks812]

Human being trying to understand the existence is like a house fly trying to understand the quantum mechanics. Mankind or whatever can never understand the universe.

[@simonhibbs887]

Maybe on what Kuhn calls the 'ultimate questions' , but then look at how far we've got in only about 150 years. From Newtonian balls banging into each other, to the limits of the Planck Length and the furthest edges of the observable universe. We are knocking on the door of the extreme limits of what can ever be knowable even in principle. What a time to be alive!

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Should everything of our universe/Cosmos dissolve I would like to remind all, GOD said; " I AM that I AM ". Within which, there would be no Past, Present, or Future There would be Eternity, no Entropy, what I call, Eternal/Perpetual Now , respectfully, ordinarychuck Hotmail...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...We, Man, are only a breath/heartbeat away from Eternity...

[@simonhibbs887]

A Hebrew scholar, possibly on this channel, said the colloquial meaning of that statement is along the lines of "mind your own business" or "don't ask stupid questions".

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Even today human being etc is born that means god have eyes on 🌎 earth

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

Philosophy nowdays is a lot of words meaning nothing. What a shame!!!

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Soul actually is a micro biology 😅😮

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

God's existence beyond existence of anything else?

[@lokeshparihar7672]

David lewis, who?

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Creation and Science needs to redefined in terms of context of God and Existence

[@tarekabdelrahman2194]

The supreme creator proposition is indeed derived by science, as follows. - Our universe is governed by science - Science based on thermodynamics laws proves that anything cannot come out of nothing. Hence creator is necessary. - Science proves as well that it creator will not come out of nothing leading to an infinite regression. Hence it is necessary to have an uncreated creator. - Existence of uncreated creator in our universe forms a paradox modelled by Russell Paradox. And Russell Paradox has a proposed logical resolution ZA. That is science as well. - Science represented by ZA is Russell’s paradox resolution which proves that an uncreated creator is not defined in our universe and must exist out of it. - Therefore, science proves that an uncreated creator must exist but is not defined in Our universe. Hence science proves GOD.

[@simonhibbs887]

Where did the creator come from? You can’t just establish a rule like “anything can’t come out of nothing”, and then flatly contradict it in the very next statement. Well, clearly you can, because you just did, but it makes for a self refuting argument.

[@graphicmaths7677]

@@simonhibbs887 The standard argument is that the creator is eternal and immaterial, and therefore doesn't obey the laws of the universe. Some even go as far as to say it is a logical fallacy to ask where the creator came from. Although if we are allowed to say that something eternal could exist, I would cut out the middleman and suggest that the universe itself might be eternal. Science doesn't really confirm that our universe started at the big bang, and there are various cyclic models that support the idea that the universe has always existed in some form. That would seem to offer the most parsimonious explanation, why invent unnecessary supernatural beings?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@graphicmaths7677 Exactly, if we can just arbitrarily declare something as uncaused, then clearly that’s a thing we’re allowed to do now. As you say, why not say that about the universe, which we know exists, instead of some additional complex entity full of infinities for which we have no evidence. The fact that this argument is supposed to be such evidence seems absurd.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

How do you deify science? You say science governs the universe. That is very unfortunate for you.

[@tarekabdelrahman2194]

@@simonhibbs887 The argument is based on a contradiction which is the fact of our life experience and universe laws. How can we prove any existence in light of thermodynamics laws. They are contradictory. This model of paradox is resolved by logical propositions. But the resolution entails an explanation not being confined by the whole recognized universe. Logic proves its own incompleteness.

[@OBGynKenobi]

Hang on, you didn't exist before you were born. That means no universe for you, nothing, non existence.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

That isn't necessarily true. You do not REMEMBER what occurred prior to your terrestrial birth. In fact, I doubt you recall what it was like in the womb. Therefore, to assert that "nothing" existed for you prior to whenever you RECALL your own consciousness is flawed by default. The bottom line is that mankind needs to begin studying what children (yes, *young* children) remember PRIOR to birth as soon as it is possible. Fortunately, the other end is being addressed by folks like Sam Parnia and many others. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@lucifer.Morningstar369]

Nonsense. You don't even remember being 3 years old. Yet you definitely existed. So therefore our lack of memory doesn't equal lack of existence. And if a soul were to exist then the whole point of living as a human is not to know

[@OBGynKenobi]

@@lucifer.Morningstar369 I never said anything about memory. I said EXISTENCE.

[@davidcasagrande267]

If we were standing in front of the great creator ( who ever it is ) , and asked the question , why is there existence and not nonexistence , I believe the great creator would just GIGGLE , and say I DON'T KNOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@lapis591]

Well, if there is a grand architect of the universe, then it wouldn't matter that the universe exists or doesn't. The idea of nonexistence means that absolutely _nothing_ exists, no possibility of anything, no grand architect, no Gods, absolutely nothing to even interpret that there is nothing.

[@davidcasagrande267]

@@lapis591 Holy cow . This is the first intelligent reply I have gotten in the last 10 years . Think about this . If , nonexistence is ABSOLUTE , then existence could not have come from nonexistence . If existence did not come from nonexistence , then The only option left that I can see is that EXISTENCE must have NEVER BEGAN . You and I are somehow , right now , in the midst of ETERNITY. Eternal existence . If, If eternal existence, has to be conscious to actually exist, then we also are in the midst of ETERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS . My personal belief is that , Eternal Consciousness , created this planet and universe as a place to spend eternity . Where else could we spend eternity but right here on planet earth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Physics need to prove life = death i.e action = non action😅

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Actually god has brought human to existence and going from existence to non existence may not be gods will !

[@sf-5584]

ferst

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

absurd indicates you reach the limit of your contribution to knowledge

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Make sure this guys keep out this subject with experience out. This are not philosophy or physic and principles of math. They are talking about rambling.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

Can mathematcian mathematize luck ? 🤔

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

God is only distance for human being and physics formula is d = s x t Therefore its all about speed x time to get god 😅

[@LindsayIna-r2t]

Wilson Michelle Anderson Karen Wilson Charles

[@PhatLvis]

A married bachelor is only Literally a contradiction - a liguistic/logical one. However, we've all seen fellows who live as bachelors (with the requisite "bachelor's pad," the endless entertaining of women, etc.) and yet happen to be married. If all Things in the universe were to vanish one by one, the end result would not, technically, be Nothing, as the Empty Space would still remain - as many have pointed out. One might then propose that the Emptiness itself vanishes - and here we reach an impossibility, at leat linguistically/logically, as we cannot describe in Words what Absolute Nothing could possibly be. This, again, stems from how language works, with sentences requiring a Subject (even it's only implied). All so-called Contradictions share this quality, that they confound Truth as can be expressed Verbally. We, in fact, accept many Contradictions as True, and in such cases relabel them Paradoxes, for if we didn't do so, we'd scarcely be able to have discussion about Existence - a state of affairs we believe, by consensus based on logical inference, is traceable to the Big Bang. We then ask, "But WHAT went Bang? And WHERE did it do it?" Serious people end the discussion at this point, as they recognize its approach toward a precipice into paradox, the point at which the very logic that had led them there cancels out - or, Contradicts Itself. (A MORE serious person might then start to wonder if the matter, all along, hasn't been something in the peculiar nature of a Zeno's Paradox.)

[@jimliu2560]

Why is it a mystery ? We exist because “something” always existed….

[@DE-gb3wq]

Ok thanks

[@lapis591]

The question is why does something even exist in the first place. Why does the universe exist, not why does Earth life exist.

[@jimliu2560]

@@lapis591 Something exists because : 1. Something always existed…..everything else is just a combination/rearrangement of the thing… 2. “Existence and Nonexistence” is a larger possibility than just Nonexistence alone……..Reality always tend to “More possibilities”…..ie Higher Probability…

[@sandradixon6205]

@@lapis591 The universe exists because our Creator decided to bring it into existence. The same can be said of the earth and all life on it. The first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1 says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. The law and order in the universe is no coincidence. Our Creator is the great Lawmaker and Organizer. His almighty power is far beyond our comprehension. Recently, it was said that the most distant galaxy found until now is 33.6 billion light years away! That’s mind-blowing! The Bible says at Hebrews 3:4 “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God”. If you came across a beautiful house in the middle of nowhere and it was fully furnished, with a refrigerator stocked full of different types of food, and so on, you wouldn’t believe that the house and the contents just came about by chance. It’s obvious that there was a designer, a builder, and so on. If that’s true of a house, how much more so when we think about the universe, the earth, and all life on it. It’s a scientific fact that life can only come from pre-existing life. As the Bible says, God is the Source of life. (Psalm 36:9) Also in the Bible he answers all our important questions about life, such as, why are we here? What’s the purpose of life? Why do we grow old and die? What happens to us when we die? What does the future hold for the earth and mankind? The Bible is like a letter from a father to his beloved children. Our Creator wants us to learn about him so he has told us everything we need to know to have a meaningful life now, and in the future.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@@jimliu2560So why does that eternal something exist? Saying something has always existed doesn’t answer why that thing exists.

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

According to Elon Musk Human being is information then this information is consumed by whom in universe this means there is someone out there in universe to consume information 😮😅

[@simonhibbs887]

Why do you think information has to be consumed? Do you think all apples must be eaten, or they aren't apples?

[@ShradhaKapoorBsc]

All apples are born to be consumed but nature has bad habit of growing it in abundance or non abundance​@@simonhibbs887

[@Mohitwedsmaureen]

@@simonhibbs887 nature of information is to be informed so 😆

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Mohitwedsmaureen That's like saying the nature of apples is in the eating. Consider zero knowledge proofs, these are super cool. They're a way of proving the existence of information that you don't ever get access to. So an automatic system can have information such as a passkey that is never accessed by any human, even in principle, but the zero knowledge proof means we know it exists.

[@clarkedavis488]

I think it is a stupid question like what happens to my lap when I stand up or, my fist when I open my hand. It's a word game like, "I don't exist."

[@lapis591]

It is a terrifying question. I think you may misunderstand its implications. Why does the universe exist? Why does any of it exist at all? Think of all the trillions of galaxies within the universe. Why does any of it exist? If we think of the alternative, what would that mean? What if nothing ever existed, no stars, no planets, no life on Earth, no human thoughts? Not even the empty void of space would exist, because even that has potentiality. Just nothing at all, ever.

[@lucifer.Morningstar369]

Ah well thankfully some people are curious and smart and not like you or we'd have no technology or scientific achievements. It's a perfect valid question. Because believe it or not, there is a reason for everything

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

Closer to truth? If truth is anything like Robert Lawrence Kuhn thinks it is, we know we are farther from the truth. This is painful, armchair nonsense.

[@Ouiofcourse]

Thank you... he include logic in the non existence... why would you do that? Nonexistent is the idea of nothing at all... not nothing but logic...😑

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

The wisdom in "seeing all in nothingness" is more important than most people can possibly fathom. But it's literally beyond many individuals' mental faculties, and that's just the reality of various intelligence levels. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@mrsavedbygrace2569]

We used to do acid in the 60's and have convos like this all the time

[@ThomasChalloner]

Here's a mystery of existence..... Raise your bed at the feet at one end six inches high.... Keep it at that for your sleep... A life hack... For you...

[@sandradixon6205]

When it comes to our universe and everything in it, including earth and all life on it, there is no mystery. The opening verse of the Bible says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Only in the Bible can we find the answers to life’s most important questions, such as, why we’re here, the purpose of life, why we grow old and die, what happens when we die, what the future holds for the earth and mankind, to mention a few. The mind of the most brilliant human is nothing compared to our Creator’s vastly superior mind.

[@simonhibbs887]

Not just in the Bible though. There are plenty of creation myths from all the religions of the world. Why would we prefer the Babylonian mythology fan fiction in the Bible over the original, for example?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"Why would we prefer the Babylonian mythology fan fiction in the Bible over the original, for example?"* ... Why should we prefer Multiverse over Big Bang?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Inflation theory is part of big bang cosmology. It helps explain some of the features generated by the Big Bang. Thats an irrelevant point though. Its doesn’t address the question. Even if inflation theory is disproved, we still need to have a reason to prefer the Bible over other religious texts, including ones it’s clearly based on.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"Inflation theory is part of big bang cosmology. It helps explain some of the features generated by the Big Bang."* ... And different religions serve to clarify what they all perceive as God. That was my point. *"Even if inflation theory is disproved, we still need to have a reason to prefer the Bible over other religious texts, including ones it’s clearly based on."* ... The same would apply to religion should Islam or some other religion be disproved. They would move to the next most plausible religion.

[@anthonyclegg1511]

I don't believe fairy tales.

[@NicholasWilliams-h3j]

This idea that there is a metaphysical realism is silly, it's all just physics, I wouldn't say that mathematics is metaphysical, it's a real compositional and computational substrate of the universe, therefore if you get nothing you get nothing, it doesn't have to be more complex than that.

[@simonhibbs887]

Mathematics is a descriptive language though, surely. I think we should maintain an awareness of the distinction between a description and what it describes.

[@NicholasWilliams-h3j]

@@simonhibbs887 That's a good point, thanks for that, I was trying to put that into words earlier when thinking about it.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@NicholasWilliams-h3j It’s an interesting problem. The physical world seems to be a consistent system with a lot of regularities in its composition and structure, and any such world should be describable using mathematics, but you need a consistent medium with a regular composition and structure in which to compose mathematical descriptions. I do see why some people say they think the universe is “made of mathematics”, but it’s not made of all of mathematics. Only those part of mathematics that describe it, whereas all of mathematics is made of bits of the universe.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Mathematics mimics nature, arithmatics deals with principles, and metaphysics is all about principles. Everything you're aware of in phenomena is an attribute of something or a modulation of some principle. Principles can not be changed, nor are subject to phenomena. There is no difference between metaphysics and physics.

[@NicholasWilliams-h3j]

@@S3RAVA3LM I agree with that, good points. I also think the language of mathematics is a direct analogue of what reality is doing, minus probabilistic prediction mechanisms, which I don't think that ever realistically factors into what the world really is, nor do I think randomness is real either, because every random generator or probability calculation we have came up with is deterministic, rather it's a simple way of saying "I don't know what this complex deterministic process is doing, but this random gen and probability machine gives pseudo answers that allow a degree of prediction" they don't actually describe our deterministic reality. We measure conservation of energy every time, I just don't have a valid reason to think it's not mathematically deterministic, the evidence is pointing towards mathematical determinism.