Something Instead of Nothing

To additionally explain this:

From a Buddhist perspective, there is something called “dependent arising”.

This basically means that something else has to exist in order for something to exist.

What both of the phrases mean in terms of time is that in every moment, existence is just beginning to exist through the lack of isn’t, and dependent arising.

That’s why the present is so important in Buddhism.

The present moment is all of creation.

There is an inherent parsimony in scientific models. It’s an attitude which hides within it (or doesn’t) the idea that if we don’t have a really good model for why something exists and we all can’t find it in the lab, then it doesn’t exist. Another take on this is Occam’s Razor, as science groupies use it: this idea that the simpler model or context is the more likely one. (that’s a basterdization of the OR, but it does get used that way). So we have this tendency towards little or nothing or less in expectation. Taken to its extreme it means that something, the existence of whatever that something is, including the universe, bears the onus. Like something it weirder than nothing. Parsimony as ontology.

In that context the ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ question is a reaction to our, often, being immersed in this parsimonius ontology of the scientismists. And it should bother them. And it does bother them.

Yes there is ‘dependent origination’ [inter-beingness] is Buddhism, but there is also the concept of ‘Sunyata’ aka ‘emptiness’ and that is ultimately extended to ‘nothingness’ [it is contentious]. But I do not agree with the opposing view taking into the account the principle of the Buddhist Tetralemma.

All knowledge is ultimately subjective because it is mind dependent but how subjective it is is another matter entirely
But the degree of rigour that is applied to any truth claim has to be sufficiently high for it to be regarded as objective

The way I’ve had emptiness taught to me is that dreams are just as real as waking life, and thus, they are both not real, you must wake from the dream of the dreams and the dream of the waking life.

Since dreams are empty, and waking life is also empty, this is called “everything is emptiness”. Unless you wake up from both dreams, then you are called an “awakened one”, enlightened.

Ecmandu, you are a crazy bastard.

That’s where things get tricky though. When we speak of things being “conceivable” we are back to that which we still do not fully understand about the evolution of matter into minds able to conceive of anything at all.

Or there are those who insist that, on the contrary, it is mind [God’s or No Gods’s – the pantheists] that evolved into matter. But then they have absolutely no way in which to demonstrate that other than as an expression of the matter embodied in their own mind.

Human activity [in the is/ought world] is embedded existentially in conflicting renditions of meaning. And even in regard to the either/or world, we don’t grasp meaning beyond that which we are able to describe is in fact true or false.

We understand the meaning behind those activities that sustain our existence. But what can we understand regarding behaviors we ought to choose in order to accomplish this? Eventually we come to those interactions in which conflicting moral and political narratives arise.

Okay, but that is not the way in which others use the word teleological. For them it suggests a universe in which somethingness is embedded in an essential meaning or purpose. There is a reason why it is this somethingness and not another. Or why it is something and not nothing at all. And then many invent “the Gods” or “a God, the God, my God” in order to assure themselves that existence is not encompassed in the “brute facticity” of existence itself.

But in a No God world, what might that meaning be?

It seems reasonable that in a universal somethingness knowledge is only a “thing” if there is a brain/mind to have it. If the only accumulated knowledge in the entire universe is here on Earth and tomorrow the Really, Really, [b]Really[/b] Big One [asteroid/comet] strikes it and obliterates all life forms, what of knowledge then?

But in the interim, I agree, some of our collected knowledge seems clearly to reflect that which is true for all of us. We call this objective knowledge because it seems to transcend any particular subject’s point of view.

In a universe sans God.

Well, I know who my father is, so I’m not a bastard.

Actually, since I’m a “pill baby” (conceived of a mother taking the pill) I could actually be immaculately conceived !!

Crazy? Maybe. I’ll walk, actually run, into nooks of existence many fear to tread.

Good idea? Probably not.

Made me who I am today though…

Which I happen to think is a great idea.

Go figure.

Agree to an extent, but the point is ‘awakened_ness’ is also empty as with emptiness is also empty. Where one do not adopt this principle, there is a good chance the ego [self] will creep in to grab/cling [Upādāna] at whatever.

There are many [monks, gurus, mystics] who claimed to be awakened and had/have many followers but they turned out be involved in many evil scandals.

It will cease to exist because knowledge requires minds so without them it is no more
Information however does not require minds so it will carry on existing just as before

Although i find this funny, it is actually a bad idea to go around thinking people are crazy bastards.
It’s a trick where you compare yourself to the worst people therefor you are great because you aren’t as bad as they are.

Dan? Your post reads like you agree that I’m not only a crazy bastard, but among the worst life has to offer.

Was that your intent?

I was saying that the process of insulting people on forums is a mistake.

That was a most surprising strawman. Hopefully your questioning spirit can clarify many things.

What? I meant it as a compliment.

I only ever listen to crazy bastards. Ecmandu is one for sure.

What kinda sicko uses bastard to suggest you don’t know who your father is?

Lloyd Strickland from the Conversation website
theconversation.com/us

At least we can all surely agree here about that. What could possibly be more important to grasp than why there is something and not nothing at all?

Only after this either can or cannot be established does it make sense to move on to why this something and not another something instead.

Only how on earth is it possible to answer a question involving something that you are yourself inherently a part of? Here the objective truth is being pursued subjectively by a mind that is unable even to explain how and why it is embedded in something at all.

So: Is there any realistic way at all to explore this “reasonably”?

So, if human intelligence actually is the only source of knowledge in the universe, then all that existed going back to whatever actually explains somethingness itself, was still around.

Whatever that means?

Humans are recipients of knowledge not its source as that is the external physical world
For we acquire scientific facts through observation rather than through simple deduction

Okay, but however we attain our knowledge, how exactly do we wrap our heads [here and now] around a universe in which there are no conscious minds around [determined or otherwise] to acknowledge its very existence?

That’s one of the reasons mere mortals invent the Gods. To provide themselves with a frame of mind that is always around. A mind not only able to acknowledge the existence of the universe but to actually create it. That way we can always sweep the stuff we don’t know about it under the rug we call “God’s will”. His “mysterious ways”.

Then we are particularly in over our heads when we attempt to grapple with the origin of God’s knowledge.

It’s all this gigantic mystery. Not only do we seem unable to explain something rather than nothing at all, we don’t seem able to comprehend how on earth we would even go about explaining it.

Unless of course someone actually has and I am simply unable to grasp it.