WARNING: Philosophical musings of an un-sane person about to occur. Infectious mind concept virus will be initiated. Do not worry, you need no warning, this is positive brain food. MSG BEGINS...../////!!_________--///\/\/\\\\

Many was the night and day my mind mused over the philosophy and metaphysics of cosmology.

WHY ARE WE HERE?
HOW WILL THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE END?
HOW DID IT BEGIN?
WHAT IS TIME?
DO HIGHER DIMENSIONS EXIST?

etc. etc. etc.

This is one of my favorite arguements I ever came up with and it concerns:

Why is EVERYTHING here rather than NOTHING? (NOTHING not being and empty 4D spacetime event but literally no dimensions and no time, EVER)

The answer that I finally arrived on seems like a little logical trick and obviously is created within the axioms of language and logic, but nevertheless seems intuitive to me and intuition is the best yardstick for truth in my humble opinion.

And it is this:

There has to be EVERYTHING or NOTHING.

Nothing can be defined logically as: The set of everything that is not identical to itself.
The one thing that is impossible.

Hence EVERYTHING must be.

MSG ENDZ.......//////-----((())))%%^^^****____/\/\/\//5Dx

Peace

Going on your '4D' notion of space-time, which in itself is nonsense (sorry Einstein), I suspect you're basing your musings off the back of the Cartesian way of thinking about spatial dimensions. This is an assumption of best-fit that we all use because it seems to describe the world outside of us very well, it works well with our mathematics and physics models too;

But do you see a Cartesian grid anywhere? Have you or anyone ever seen one? It is a really poor way of thinking about spatial dimensions because it begins by setting up particular lines of thinking right from the start. It implies you can take a point and measure from it, irrespective of its relation to all other points and the quality of those relations, and most importantly its relation to 'you'. Cartesian ontology separates out in fact the three distinct qualities that make up existence (matter, mind, God).. when in actuality they may not be distinct at all. This is the inherent flaw in much of our philosophical and scientific thinking, that anything can be separated at all.. again most importantly from 'you' - matter, mind, God, are one.

Without going into why 'time' is a fiction in and of itself, when you realise that both space and time are complete figments of our imagination then you're left with the prospect that by virtue of all distance and motion being reduced down to zero that all of 'this' (everything) is actually occurring where 'you' are right now, at no-distance. The view, viewer, and viewed, are essentially all occupying the same space and time, which is zero/nothing.

So.. actually there is everything and nothing simultaneously. And 'twas never not.

I’m with the op... and I think the same thing was determined by some physicist at one of them big fancy Ivey league colleges... “nothingness” is impossible or at least has never really been proven based on the fact that “nothingness” can’t exist as long as there’s “something” which there clearly is because, well it’s all around us. Nothingness can’t exist within something or it’s not nothing it’s just another form of something. Another universal expression. I love pondering things like this🤔 ... another good one is if you order a digorno on amazon.... is it still a digorno?🤯🤯🤯.. boom... mind blowing, I know... anyways, good post op... I look forward to getting other people’s feedback on this topic.. plus the digorno thing to if any of our brainy members can crack that code..

In reference to the Digorno thing- Are you talking about some kind of paradox...?...How Digornio, advertised as delivery quality at home in the freezer, can never actually be delivered, because doing so would essentially make it something other than itself? Did I crack it? Is there a prize?

^ lol you cracked it but tbh it was just a joke... and as for your prize you get a trophy 🏆 good job guy

My first thought was that due to the fact the Amazon basin is famous for its Ayahuasca usage, and we're talking on "The Nexus", you were talking about the Amazon river "delivering" a mysterious "something" informally known as "DiGiorno" to the "sea". But I couldn't figure out the meaning of "DiGiorno" given the limited context.

So then I thought you were perhaps referencing the "Amazons" ala the D.C. Comics universe. Then I thought of my wife dressed as Wonder Woman two Halloweens ago. And damn if that really didn't suddenly narrow my mind down to a single vision.

In this moment of blissful clarity, while all the voices in my head were quieted, I heard a still small voice whispering "Take it more at face value". So I did.

😂😂😂 lmao.... yea it was just a light hearted joke man, but hey... it gotchya thinking. I suppose that’s what a thread like this is all about. Anyways. Good post again op and here’s a little article on the topic you may find interesting https://www.google.com/a...g-physicists-debate.html

Enjoy

I think achilles is right. When we think of nothing, we tend to think about empty space. But it could very well be that space itself is already something.

About the logical definition of "nothing"...maybe our minds are not realy equipped to conceptualise or imagine "nothing".

Everything our minds do, seems to be based on experience.
If you would build an AI that is an expert on art, but that would not be familiar with the works of the greatest creative geniusses in the history of mankind, and you would order it to guess of every piece of music, every painting, every sculpture, etc, made by any of these creative geniusses, when and where it was made, the AI would easily succeed.

So even the greatest minds in history seem to be able, only to "rearrange" bits of information, or to make compositions out of the elements available to them.
Not to create something that is in no way familiar to what we already know.

And we only know "something" instead of nothing.

My formal logic is a bit rusty, but i think i see where it's coming from. But isn't this just a definition of the set of all logical contradictions?
I suppose you normally would be inclined to believe that the empty set is nothing, but in set theory, the empty set is an element of all sets, so it is clearly something.
I don't know if you can realy describe "nothing" in set theory or any other formal system because it's more than likely you would always end up with something like "the set of all things that aren't in a set".

I don't know what a digiorno is. It sounds like a piza.

Ok, i just googled it....it IS a piza.

We don't have digiorno where i live, see? We have dr oetker piza's, but no digiorno.

mmmmmmmmmmm Pizza. yummy. LOVE THAT STUFF.

nice to read your comments and I believe we wont be able to necessarily crack this problem here or ever!

you all make good points.

and currently I'm too tired to formulate a proper response or argument!

nice to banter and pizza rules KO

^^

Schrödinger's everything!!!

Somehow this reminds me of 'ain in that kaballah chart thing.

Yes
.
.
.
just yes.

To find the end of this question we must go back to the beginning

The circle of life

So, Werner Heisenberg got pulled over by some traffic cops and they asked him how fast he was going...

He told them as accurately as he could, and never received the speeding ticket.