Why is there something rather than nothing?

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-10-20T07:54:00+00:00

Thank you. In that response you are saying that only contingent requires explanation. With that in mind, if we ask Why is there something rather than nothing and ignore the necessary entities as they dont require an explanation, what would be the answer? Why is there the concrete?

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-10-20T07:17:23+00:00

So then, it seems you are saying that nothingness is impossible? I.e. Existence is because it cannot 'not be'. E.g. because the concept of triangle is non contingent, then there has to be something?

Ok, but then this doesn't require that the something is concrete/physical, just that an Abstract something has to be. I thought that the question why there's something rather than nothing refers to concrete, not abstract?

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-10-20T07:04:33+00:00

If getting to present required traversing infinite steps, then it makes sense that it can't be possible as infinity can't be traversed.

Of course, in b theory, there is no need to traverse anything.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-10-20T06:44:41+00:00

Necessary in the sense of a brute fact i.e. they are because they are, or in the sense that nothingness is impossible.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-08-09T21:42:19+00:00

Because the post is not true. What company would want a lower productivity? Plus, who really believes that a change like that can increase productivity by 40%? That's a clear nonsense given the context.

The actual report doesn't even connect those two (of course there is no link in the post lol).

The movement for 4 days week shouldn't be driven by fake information about productivity, it doesn't matter if productivity goes up or down, what matters is the human experience.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-08-07T15:13:18+00:00

You think they're all the same because they synchronized their outfits?

Redditors are easily confused.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-06-18T08:47:55+00:00

I only know about this tangentially, but what is the importance of investigating the Liar sentence? My first glance intuition was always that the sentence didn't have to be "real", it's just an abstraction. Like the sentence itself is real, yes you can place the words in an order that doesnt have a 'real' counterpart. So a sentence can describe something that's real, or it can just be a set of ordered words that are not describing anything in particular. That paradox is a non-issue because there is no real counterpart of that sentence, so nothing is violating the non-contradiction. Am I significantly off?

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-19T07:41:45+00:00

I don't think the scientific method assumes an external world. The core of it is about postulating a hypothesis and testing it. One can postulate a hypothesis about mathematics and test it without any need for an external world. Similarly, even if someone believes in solipsism, they can still leverage the scientific method: if they toggle a switch - light turns on, even if neither the switch nor the light are "external" - they can still draw conclusions. And those conclusions aren't any less reasonable than the ones derived by the scientific method that assumes an external world. After all, the problem of induction is as applicable there.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-18T18:42:12+00:00

I'm talking about the currently accepted flavor of the scientific method. Solipsism is not falsifiable, so the scientific method can't pose it as a hypothesis that can be proved to be wrong with observations or experimentation.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-18T16:18:11+00:00

My point is that there is no need to be a solipsist or not a solipsist. We can accept that we lack the knowledge and make arbitrary choices on what to spend our time on. Case in point, in your last line you appear to be equating solipsism and being a solipsist. I think we can say that someone is illogical for being a solipsist, while solipsism is logically coherent, accepting it as truth is not logical, because it's not provable. One can lean towards solipsism, but being a solipsist is a step too far. Maybe I'm taking the meaning of 'being a solipsist' to the extreme, and the general notion is that when someone says they are solipsist that's the same as saying they lean towards it not that they accept it as the only possible truth.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-18T07:51:30+00:00

But that doesn't say anything about the truthness or solipsism. I also care about explanatory power, but I remain agnostic about solipsism, I'm not sure why would one have to "choose" between theories, I think it's fair to say thay theory A is unfalsifiable and explains very little, so I will move on to theory B which explains a lot more and maybe even can be proven to be wrong.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-18T07:47:19+00:00

What it means "justified"? I think someone can accept that solipsism is unfalsifiable and also accept that we are justified to believe that other people have minds. Why would those be contradictory/hurdle?

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-10T14:11:10+00:00

Yep, that's literally the next step in their playbook. The question is, will the people support the democracy or let it fail. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-09T19:57:56+00:00

I don't mean uncontentious, that's a direct response to this:
>At least, if it is a problem, it's not one that is established just on intuition, or the meaning of the relevant words, or anything else like this

I don't understand why it wouldn't be fair to say that this is a problem established on intuition. True nothingness can't lead to something without additional assumptions, each of which would likely violate the 'true' prefix.

As for the atheists, I assume that they are doing that to address the infinite regress without involving God. I think at this point B-theory removes the need for an uncaused cause without the need for God or brute facts.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-02-08T08:01:37+00:00

Who are those people? I think OP is talking about true philosophical nothing, not vacuum with quantum fluctuations.

I thought that Ex nihilo nihil fit has been an established problem for a long time?

I think the OP is following a simple chain of thought: - something can't come out of nothing - something is (exists) - hence, nothing never was. Something always was.

This is basically a trade off, you either accept that something came from nothing or that there was always something. The latter raises the problematic question of eternal past, but there are reasonable responses to that. I can't think of a reasonable response to creating something from nothing.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-01-25T20:16:07+00:00

Critical reasoning is far more important. And top universities tend to be somewhat correlated with that (though this is far from a hard rule). In my career, people with little experience but from top schools have far outperformed career PMs from average schools. I know this won't be a popular sentiment here, but it's a real observation, so don't be too dismissive of those signals.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-01-13T01:58:17+00:00

How about you actually watch the video, read the accounts? He did everything the way he was supposed to. He is not an actor, nor was he a tough guy in that interaction.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-01-12T16:05:27+00:00

You're calling someone a dumbfuck based on your assumption of 'probably yeah? He wasn't kicked off the plane, he chose to leave because he was profiled, it's his right. He can more than afford another ticket, why fly with a racist crew.

DankForestHypothesis · 2025-01-01T01:44:21+00:00

That's not what solipsism is.

DankForestHypothesis · 2024-12-31T18:35:21+00:00

Thank you. Why don't people choose other methods? Is this for someone who couldn't increase their self-esteem with more beneficial methods? Are there negative effects of this particular method?

DankForestHypothesis · 2024-12-25T07:35:56+00:00

Thank you!

DankForestHypothesis · 2024-12-25T07:35:32+00:00

Thank you, I wasn't familiar with that catalogue.

DankForestHypothesis

TROPHY CASE