This is an issue upon which thousands of philosophers and religious figures have written about over the past 3,000+ years. To answer your questions, I'd first start by realizing the possible answers are vastly more complicated than your two options. I suggest a deep study plan of the history of religion and philosophy, including all world traditions (Chinese, Japanese, Indian subcontinent, Islamic, Christian, Western, and so on.)

Personally, I am drawn, in unequal parts, to Wittgenstein/the inherent limits of language, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer's concept of the will, mysticism, and Indian (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain) concepts of the universe. If I tried to answer your question briefly (but again, I don't think it's nearly that simple), I'd say something like: concepts like "exist", "created" and "god" are all wrapped up in language and a human perspective. Logic and mathematics are patterns viewed through human observation, not things-in-themselves. The idea that the universe is explainable via the extremely limited tool of empirical science seems hopelessly naive to me.

Perfect. Love your answer and this is exactly what I was looking for :)

It seems quite likely that we live within a hierarchy of simulations. That means the physics we observe don’t need to be ultimate; they might be whatever the simulators wished them to be.

Maybe some outer layer of simulation involves no technological civilization with intentionality but is just some massive computational process in a dynamic substrate that we can’t imagine.

If time is a feature specific to our simulation then maybe causality itself is kind of like a Kantian category and not a property of the real base universe. So maybe “why” questions only apply locally.

It does seem sensible to assume metaphysically that our observed world of causality somehow supervenes on some structure or energy that transcends causality, some kind of God or higher reality, even if it is a “god of the gaps.” We would be a part of this God’s “creative exploration” or something.

My belief is more that God is omnipotent and most benevolent.

In his benevolence, he has the power to create near infinite multiverses, with a universe branching whenever each of us makes a moral decisoon. God gives us consciousness in the one where we are at our best behavior. Maybe in an alternate universe, I become an asshole billionaire, or marry someone who drives me astray. Maybe in a parallel universe, a close relative commits suicide and inspires me to join them. This world that I'm in is the best world for me, but could be a bad world for someone who has recently committed suicide in my conscious world.

It's not too far fetched. I got the idea while building some procedural plot generators. The characters have their free will and diverging paths, but it only picks the paths that were predestined for a reason.

What if God were part of the system itself though? Wouldn't that be a case worth considering? From my perspective: if you were to ask God what created him/her/it, I would think that there would be some sort of answer. Or sorry, when I say 'create' - I really mean having a casual mechanism without having to invoke an ever lasting presence.

Your take on having parallel universes is also interesting: I believe that there definitely are parallel worlds (this is where we extend into the 5th dimension) - so we may have a very deep call stack!

'I got the idea while building some procedural plot generators. The characters have their free will and diverging paths, but it only picks the paths that were predestined for a reason.'

Wow - interesting! Now we're diving into 'free will.' So, the characters which you programmed - would you say that they have a will? Or did you program them to pick those paths? You can almost say that it's self emergent system?

I don't think it matters whether or not God is part of the system. It's a layer of abstraction that we can't act on and doesn't affect anything.

"So, the characters which you programmed - would you say that they have a will? Or did you program them to pick those paths? You can almost say that it's self emergent system?"

I worked on a little system that generates plots. Plots follow a certain flow - a beginning, an ending, an intro phase, 'centerpiece spectacular', and climax.

There are patterns - some are solo, some are groups of two or three or up to five. Characters are generated with backstories that fit these patterns, e.g. someone solo might grow up in an environment where everyone else is incompetent.

There are patterns for plots. A comedy might have a giant misunderstanding between two parties. A monster story has a person built up to be a near undefeatable monster. Monsters are common plot themes in religion, from Pharaoh to Goliath.

The characters can develop personalities based on what they have, e.g. a character may go through a traumatic event, which could make them cynical, wiser, or more determined. While these odds are weighted, it's still sort of their "free will".

The system then searches for a path that matches. If it doesn't match, it rolls different characters or different character decisions. The first path that matches these conditions is chosen.

I can't really say whether I programmed them to pick these paths, but in a way, they pick paths that fit the story as it would be told.

I imagine there are a mix of good souls, evil souls, and everything in between. These souls have all been assigned to their respective roles. Things that are wholly nature not nurture are a part of our souls - willfulness, arrogance, ambition, pride, and so on. The rest are a part of our paths (nurture), even things like self-restraint and lust.

Very interesting! Thanks for the info and indeed - I can sort of see why you have the viewpoints that you do, so thank you for sharing :)

Love it. It's pretty close to my answer - my hypothesis is that it's a simulation which creates itself. I'm not sure if you can call this the 'base' - but essentially, it comes down to a self-recursion. It's information which calls itself and which calls itself, and which well...I'm not sure if you can define a base. 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... so mathematics itself is actually self recursive.

By the way: this wasn't meant to be offensive or a discussion on other beliefs. I'm trying to get a sense of how many people here think 'deeper.' In the god framework, you eliminate causality, since you put attribution to a God who simply avoids all sense of creation and you avoid the sense of causality since you transfer it to being created by this ever lasting presence and he/she simply exists and creates all that is. The other side: In our current scientific framework, we say that we have the mathematical laws, and since they're really complicated, we say that we exist within a universe which embodies all probability lines leading to us - including ones which coincide with an accidental existence. I don't believe that either one of those are true, so I'm trying to write a piece which shows what I think - but prior to doing that, I'd like to get a sense from the HN crowd: what do you think?

I like your question. No answers. Just some thoughts:

For point no2: What created those mathematical laws? Why do they exist? (I realize this isn't your question. I'm just posing it for myself)

And if those laws were to describe all probabilities, and so necessarily capture the point the universe came to exist. Can we also say this explanation is not meaningful because it is equally describing every other probability?

For point no1: I think any argument that explains even its axioms just based on its own axioms would have to feel tautalogical (Which I think is your concern mentioned with point no1). But equally I'm not sure that it is possible to explain the fundamental WHY of the universe just from our experience of the universe. Either we push the unexplained element elsewhere, or we must sound tautalogical

Is that correct?

Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical

I try to breifly pose some alternatives here [0] that others have had. But I am very simplistic and directly give an opinion, so apologies for that in advance!!

[0] https://tse.gratis/Creative_Snails

Nice answer and your response pretty much summarizes my theory:

"Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical"

The universe in my opinion is a self-causal mathematical loop. If you believe in God - he escapes causality, which to me ... doesn't really meet the truth and beauty equations I'm trying to complete. The other scientific hypothesis is in the same boat: they formulate a theory based on an accidental beginning which forms according to a wave function which 'tries out all possible laws' - and the same theory comes to a stop when trying to answer the question: what is it that created the wave function?

I want to see other viewpoints to try to see if anyone else is as curious about this as I am - so I hope I'm shedding a light on what it is I'm asking for.

And I think the God of the bible explicitly agrees with you on both causality and that he doesn't balance those equations

(Sorry for long quote on escaping understanding) “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him ... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him --

And I think its fair to say there are many quotes that would also agree with you on 'escaping causality' and God being outside of what we can judge

Which I would agree is not an equation giving us space to understand/evaluate or even really act upon!!

So I support your search for an alternative to things as described

The ray of light providing a twist on viewpoint no1 (in my opinion) is that God is also quoted at as saying he reveals himself, explains himself, and even makes himself accountable and submits to the decisions of people who seek him

I.e. Then the LORD passed in front of Moses and called out: “Yahweh, the LORD God, is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving devotion and faithfulness, maintaining loving devotion to a thousand generations

This and other quotes I hope are suggestive that God gives himself causality and interacts in a way we can evaluate?

Which if so, I think provides an alternative viewpoint

Or: sorry if I offend you: A human wrote those words and passed them on as being God? In which case (and once again - no offense): they gave their best thoughts as to what they perceived God was at the time, but didn't really understand much about what we currently are, nor what the real laws of the universe are. I tend to be open minded, but when people mention the process of creation to me and fail to account for Quantum Electrodynamics nor the design and laws of the universe - I don't tend to take them very seriously. You seem to be in the camp of attributing God to being beyond causality: beyond physical or mathematical laws. I disagree with your viewpoint: although I do respect your opinion and I'm glad that you chimed in, I think there's a way to explain existence with having causality, information, and logic tied in and no 'magic' happening behind the scenes. This is the central point I'm trying to bring across in this thread. If I'm confusing the living hell out of you, that's a good thing. This point I make is meant to be very confusing. I'm hoping that you sit down and think about what it is that I'm saying...

Thanks :) Your reply made me happy

Redefining the universe as a loop is neat. It answers where the universe came from at each single point

But if we redefine the universe, I think it is then reasonable to redefine the question: from "Why the universe?", to "Why the loop?"

For instance we can define the chicken in terms of the egg, and the egg in terms of the chicken. This _does_ answer a lot of questions. And we can even attempt to throw away the base of that recursion maybe by using a continuum, a loop, or maybe even infinity(?)

Which would be very neat. If I were to ask why that whole loop exists; we could say there is a loop of loops, or even an ad infinitium loop of loops of loops. But at each stage we can generalize to say we are answering the question X with "Because f(X)". You (in my opinion) have made f very small. Which is good. But if we ever truly remove f, then we are left with "Why X? Because X." Which is an unhelpful truism. "Why the chicken? Because the chicken."

So I guess that every argument needs to be based on un-proven axioms. I.e. mathematics is based on a small set of axioms. You can choose which axioms. But I've never seen someone manage to remove all axioms

So why is viewpoint no1 different (in my opinion)?

In a sense I agree with you that it isn't

To loosely quote Einstein (according to the internet): "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them"

I think the bible makes this same point on several occasions -- that the universe does not define God, and values based on this universe do not contain him

So any answer needs to step up. For instance: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Jesus uses several analogies at that point (John3) including the famous one of being born again. Since that is similar to the chicken and egg or universe loop, let me include an excerpt: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’"

> Or: sorry if I offend you: A human wrote those words and passed them on as being God?

Nice. You are very polite. If you offended I think the implication is I am reacting to a hole being poked in my beliefs. In which case I appreciate you poking more

Like mathematics I can move my axioms such as onto personal experience, logical evidence, the bible, or direct revelation

The standard Christian view point is, as you say, that humans _did_ write those words, pass them off as being from God, and gave their best as to what they percieved God was

They call it divine inspiration. I can understand the incredule response. But I think to engage with viewpoint no1, it is necessary to allow the bible, since from the axiom of the bible it is trivial to explain why the universe exists, and from the axiom of God creating the universe it is not a stretch to reach the bible

But I would agree with you that I am entering the same chicken and egg issue here. I have simply proved one in terms of the other, and there are still unanswered questions as to the whole

But maybe I am missing something?

A fantastic suggestion I hadn't considered, but others here refer to:

If there is no time, then the arrow of causality is lost. So there is probably no 'Why' 'How' or 'When'. So the question of why the universe exists is presumably answered by the question becoming null and void

I assume that if this reasonably voids the unanswered causality of the universe, then it also voids the unanswered causality of God?

And if so, I suggest to explain the existence of the universe this ways depends on something outside of time and outside of the universe and capable of a massive creative act

And you can predict my one track mind: this explanation of existence logically depends on God, or at least something with very God like abilities

This might be why God describes himself as "I AM who I AM." He is invoking this lack of causality outside of time. He simply is

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, and sorry if I haven't explained myself well

I definitely see your viewpoint - and like I said, you definitely write with great clarity and you seem to have a great sense of belief in the system which ... points towards a God who is ever-present or ever-lasting and isn't prone to causality. I'm just trying to see different takes on people who might be exploring a self-consistent system - once which may 'create' or 'contain' itself. I'm sorry if I can't put it in terms that are less confusing. Once again, I appreciate the feedback and it's great to hear other takes on this matter :)

I've enjoyed your lines of thought, goals, and chatting with you

So please keep it up!

And don't be held back by me not finding an answer that fits what you seek!

The only further things I could share might be some surprizing self-consistent elements or implications of viewpoint no1

Alternatively we could say some questions simply don't have knowable answers (NP=P or the halting problem anyone?)

But the world will be a much worse place if you let anything I've said hold you back. The question you ask is, I think, worth more than one lifetime

Self-consistent systems is a great thing to search for!

It would reduce complexity AND allow for a self-proving belief system. Who wouldn't want that? Could you even use it as a logic device to prove other properties?

Can we think of any examples of this kind of system? That might help us search for one that encompases the universe: Is there anything either truly fully self-contained, self-creating, self-descriptive, or fully self-anything?

For instance the Earth is very self-contained, but depends on sun light

A black hole is very self contained but still communicates via Hawking radiation

Self-creating head butts against the second law of thermodynamics -- that randomness or entropy always increases in a closed system. This law sadly implies we will have to reach outside the universe if we want to be self-consistent....

Edit: Outside of that are there any thought processes that are fully self-X, would visual illusions count, such as Escher drawing the world folding in on itself?

Maybe we can say the second law of thermodynamics doesn't globally apply, and the universe is an aberration within that system. But that is beginning to push outside the box of self-consistency

Sorry, I'm becoming stuck. Outside of paradoxes and unbalanced equations I can only think of one answer

Edit2: Oooh, in your favor is the effectively infinite amount of possibilities, which gives a lot of hope for finding other self-consistent systems. Since I'm not sure I can disprove their existence any better than as previously when defining self-consistency as 'X = X' and then suggesting this definition is an unhelpful truism

But I realize that is possibly not fair 'x = y+3' is not a truism; but then it is also not self-consistent. Maybe I am setting too high a bar?

---

I can't do better than repeat what Chris said:

> You’re ambitious, which is great. You’re respectful, even greater

Haha - thank you for the kind words - I'm trying to follow your argument here, but I'm having a bit of a hard time grasping everything that you're saying. I love the fact that you're incredibly curious and kind as well - so thanks for the great feedback and it's always great hearing other viewpoints :)

I can see that you've encouraged me ;)

Some thoughts:

On the negative side, the evidence against self-consistent systems as real, active objects is strong enough, that I'm afraid I believe we can basically say they don't exist in this universe (Can talk about this later)

On the positive side we can say you have already proven self-consistent systems possible in terms of data! As in you have thought of the concept and expressed it. This is in itself proof that it can already exist as a static object -- or data

Pure data does not experience causality, and we can describe the universe as pure data. Although all our experience suggests there is causality, we also cannot prove it is not an illusion. Like a video tape seems to have causality when you play it, but actually it is a static object

If we view the universe as simply a video tape. Then we can say the universe simply IS; in a similar way to how we said God simply IS. Sure there are still unanswered questions, and to me, to say "God simply IS" seems cleaner; but at least we have an alternative self-consistent answer

I think the problem with this answer mostly comes if we want to put the video in a video player, saying that we are not just a static picture, and our experience of time is real...

Think of it like a computer program. The program data can say "I am self-consistent!" -- okay buddy, we agree with you, and I can even run the program. The computer then effectively brings the program to life. It's interesting to see that context switches means the program is stopped and saved as data while other programs run; but the program is unaware of this; to its perspective it asks for the clock time, and the time always updates. We can say the program thinks it is alive and has causality and even believes it is self consistent

The problem here is that we also have a computer or video player in the mix, and even if the program pretends otherwise, I think we can prove that no computer can remain self-consistent. For instance they require electrical input in order to run

To solve this, we could place the computer outside the universe and allow it to run by different rules than exist within the universe. But at this point we have again created something God like: the closest bible verse might be "For in him we live and move and have our being"

---

So we've found a solution by removing time from the universe. Another commenter posted what I believe is an equally valid solution; that life is meaningless; nihilism; the universe equates to zero

Zero has got to be pretty self-consistent, and it resolves the question of why the universe exists in the same way as our solution: by making the question meaningless

Note the repetition here, we've removed God, and the answers we are finding are subtractive from how we would of hoped to describe the universe

This suggests there may be some more subtractive answers, and it interestingly is also suggestive of a match we find in mathematics

I know we've already covered maths, but lets do it again: We are trying to describe the whole universe, just using the universe. I.e. self-consistent. I.e. defining something purely in terms of itself. This definition may be very complex. But ultimately it must boil down to 'x = x'. This is really the definition of being self-defining

Similar equations that match this would be '0 = 0', i.e. nihilism. Or 'fancy_thing = fancy_thing', i.e. the universe is static and does not contain causality (which is our video tape solution)

Earlier we had considered a looping universe. I.e. 'looping(universe)', i.e. 'f(X)'. Which neatly and cleanly defined X, but left f undefined. But it seems that mathematics _requires_ undefined elements (axioms) to provide meaning. If we imagine those axioms were to become defined by that self same piece of mathematics, then the maths must reduce to 'self = self'. Adding a loop gives us 'loop(self) = loop(self)'. These equations are self-consistent, but not meaningful. I.e. "Why does the universe exist? Because the universe exists"

That is a pretty fascinating suggestion in itself!!! That having meaning requires something to be left undefined!!

And the suggestion seems to hold: it explains why viewpoint no2 of the universe being caused by a wave function really fails to define anything; and it explains why all mathematics uses axioms

It would be really interesting to consider this further. But one easy conclusion is that if I were a mathematician with no evidence of God, I would still conclude at a minimum:

-- To have meaning, or to provide a full definition for anything; we're going to have to step outside the rules of the universe

-- Or to put it another way; the universe cannot fully describe itself

---

I wouldn't consider that conclusive just because I make mistakes, but two other ways we can reach the same conclusion would be the second law of thermodynamics, or considering this universe does not allow us to create something out of nothing (the first law of thermodynamics)

Creating something out of nothing is really the same as what we covered above by a different name. It is equivalent to 'self = still self but something extra aswell'. In this universe that something extra needs to come from an external source. But including that source in the equation takes us back to 'self = self'

A THRID WAY

Last night I was wondering what a self-consistent system would look like: at it's simplest it would not send out anything, and it would not receive anything. If it did, then its contents would change and it would no-longer be self-consistent. Such a system would be completely invisible to us

A more complex self-consistent system could break the laws of physics to create something from nothing, and emit say light into the rest of the universe. An even more complex system could interact with the universe but then it would need to break more laws. For us to associate its inputs with its outputs but remain self-consistent: at a minimum it would need to bend to our laws of time, but still be outside time itself. A simpler, but still law breaking requirement would be just to provide outputs at any point in time at all (since it cannot be self-consistent and within time)

My conclusion from that was a simple self-consistent system must be completely outside of our experience; effectively null or zero to us, and so not conceivable and not relevant. Or a complex self-consistent system we can comprehend is going to break so many laws of the universe that we cannot conceive of it based on our current laws

((Which fits with earlier verses, or for instance: "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit"))

---

> You seem to be in the camp of attributing God to being beyond causality: beyond physical or mathematical laws

But he also chooses to bend to our physical and mathematical laws in order to make himself known

This means that we can evaluate him as a complex self-consistent system. One that provides:

> A way to explain existence with having causality, information, and logic tied in and no 'magic' happening behind the scenes

I could start to share reasons why I think this is a sensible viewpoint. But that would start us down a whole new avenue

---

Thanks for the ride. I didn't expect it to be so biblically validating

I certainly appreciate your generous comments! I realize it's not your goal to pick holes. But please reply with as many holes as you have. It will help us both find better answers

Another way is to say every creature has a birth and a death. Even every static object has a beginning and an end. Every mountain. Even every solar system

We can use a loop to say life creates life. But the universe tells us this still began somewhere, and will eventually end somewhere

From big bang to eventual universal heat death dissipation. No physical object we know of can avoid its eventual disintegration

For every object in the universe; to describe its birth and death we need to refer to something outside of the object -- at least if we want to say either event is meaningful, or to provide some consistency beyond the object itself

Since this applies to every object within the universe, it seems reasonable to apply this to the universe aswell

From there we can again say that explaining the universe requires something outside the rules of the universe

For us to have any testable theory about this thing; we will also need to say it continues to interact with the universe. Anything else gives us no evidence to prove or disprove

Invoking pure simulations, random chance, or meaningless; are maybe valid explanations; but they don't give us any way to test themselves

We _have_ to show that something, somewhere is breaking the laws of the simulation!! Otherwise, if not, then there is no reason to say it is not just the simulation itself

Those viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. Look at this for a recent example https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614325/open-ai-algorithms... AI showed emergent behaviour.

The universe could be the same, 'God' set it all up and he/she has no idea what's going to happen either.

OK - but you're still not getting the point: what created the program / AI?

Or sorry - to re-phrase my question - what created the God?

These questions are wonderful to ponder.

I view the will of God as the “why” and the physical laws of nature as the “how”. When people say “everything is connected” I interpret that to mean while it’s true that physical causes and effects behave according to natural law, the will for a desired outcome is provided by a higher intelligence.

To answer your question, the universe exists because God wills it to exist.

While we’re on the subject, many believe in a hierarchy of supernatural intelligences (e.g. angels and demons). A scientific explanation for this hierarchy may be living beings that occupy dimensions other than our own (e.g. “higher” dimensions that operate on “lower” dimensions).

See, e.g., https://m.phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html

Sorry, but your answer still assumes the existence of a super-natural being (aka God) who doesn't have a causal mechanism. So - if you were to ask God, what is the reason for his existence, or the mechanism for it, what would you ponder the answer would be? Also: Einstein didn't 'ponder' the existence of the 4th dimension - he proved that it exists in a manner in which it was counter intuitive to what we thought it was. There is no 'static' concept of time - it's a relative concept, so the computational mechanics that's being used to create the universe doesn't have a 'highly parallel' processor that Newton thought it had. And from experience: the universe we live in definitely has more than 5 dimensions (there are parallel branches which don't mimic ours). My big questions to you is: what mechanism created God? How do you explain Him?

I do not know.

Perfect! Neither do I. Now, let's sit down and try to program the laws ourselves :)

I like your probing. I think it is going to take a variety of viewpoints for you to begin to arrive where you want to be. Which is great - it’s a path as good as any. Some are born and are told and are happy with that. Others question, and may end up somewhere entirely different from where they thought they were going...nonetheless becoming who and where they need to be. I fall into the second camp.

My view is only one viewpoint, and it is like a little painting I’m working on as I progress through life. I’ve shown a part of it to you, and it has some elements that may be imperfect. I think no matter what I do, there will always be those axioms and initial conditions which you (or I, or anyone) can question. When will the painting be finished? When it is perfect, or when it is beautiful? It may never be finished by me or anyone in this life. But we’re working on it. I think that’s saying something for us and life in general.

You’re ambitious, which is great. You’re respectful, even greater. I do, however, believe it is beyond my individual right and ability to attempt to provide an explanation for God, such as the causality of God’s existence. I do not know if such a thing can even be known, at least in the sense you seem to seek.

I feel God in my life, as real as the sun, grass, and breeze, but this feeling is always just beyond my complete and total understanding.

Honestly, I think love is the answer. I also think more will be revealed, my friend.

Thanks for the kind and insightful words my friend - and yes, I think that your viewpoint is great. You've got to enjoy life - either way or whichever truth comes forward I think will always have an incredible element of beauty in it, so the only thing that really matters is enjoying the process and doing the things we love to do. Thanks again for the feedback and all the best to you :)

From my experiences with psychedelics and ketamine I have come to the conclusion that the answer to this question is probably too profound and weird for the current human brain to grasp (if there even is an answer). So I try not to think about this too much and just focus on struggling through my life.

I'm sorry to see that you're struggling my friend. I'd love to help you, so if you ever need anything, feel free to give me more info on how I can reach you and I'd love to get a chance to give you my take on life and try to help you out...the fact that anything exists is amazing. Whenever I look at the world, I think: wow. Why does anything exist at all? Why is matter, time, or even a creator necessary? If you ask yourself this question, you'll find that you're worries will melt away. Some other tips which I think will definitely help you from my perspective: 1. Eat healthy (mostly plants and less meat) 2. Exercise 3. Keep in touch and meet great people who you love and 4. Have a meaning in your life: strive to accomplish something which gives you meaning. I'm hoping this helps? If anything, I'd love to have more of a chat with you and get to know much more about you, so let's stay in touch :) Also, I love your feedback!!!

Thanks for your reply, but I meant struggle in a positive sense :) Life is certainly not easy, and I think contending with its difficulty is what gives its meaning.

I see!! Sorry, I might have read your comment as you saying that you're struggling: In which case, I see that you definitely have the right attitude, so I hope everything is OK :)

Because your brain likes questions and your brain thinks it exists. The world neither exists or non-exists, it just is , and has allowed the evolution of brains that ask invalid questions such as what is its origin and purpose. Origin and purpose are useful concepts to avoid dying when an arrow comes from an origin and aims to kill you. Our organic neural networks have a tendency to apply these concepts to everything, that's sometimes vaguely useful, other times it's just brain farts.

It does exist though. Our brains are information processing mechanisms which have figured out some of the laws of the universe - and they continue to question it. They do exist and reality does 'exist.' I suppose you're questioning the validity of nature> If so - then yes, I would say it doesn't really 'exist.' Mathematical fields are really what exists...but hey, who's here to argue certainties! So what by your definition - or whom meets the criteria of 'existing' then?

it could be that only our brain exists, maybe only mine , not even yours. or not even that. mathematics and information and exustence are figments of the brain too. Existence is only defined as opposed to non-existence. But yeah, even though existence is indirect and subjective, it s OK to accept that it's true, since its not consequential

I suppose that s not a fruitful way to think about it but neither is asking questions about reason and purpose. Even if the universe has both of them, they are just 2 arbitrary points with a trajectory across spacetime.

This is an interesting answer - one I have never heard of. I can’t say I agree with the premise that the world neither exists or non-exists. Am I missing something, or are you saying the boolean value of existence has a 3rd option?

Makes me think of this talk by Richard Feynman talking about magnets how do they work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

The take away is to answer a why question you need a framework to provide an acceptable answer. Why the universe exists? We don't have possibility can't contain such a framework.

Nice - I love Feynman! Actually, QED was the big reason why I got interested in the question in the first place! I think that what he poses there is more of: 'there's no way for me to explain to you what this field is - since I can't formulate an analogy that you're familiar with, so I won't even try.' I love Feynman's sense of curiosity: it was absolutely divine and he's a personal hero of mine. One thing that I never understood about him though was the fact that whenever someone would pose the question of existence or why the laws exist, he would always shrug it off and say that he didn't understand and that there was no point in trying to understand it. It is what it is - we do the mathematics and take it as is. My take: I think that explaining it is possible, and I think it's a question that's definitely worthy of trying to answer. Even if we can't get there, the pursuit itself I would think would be a worthy cause!!

What if the question itself is ill-posed? That's what Late Prof. Adolf Grunbaum argued for: http://www.stafforini.com/existence/Grunbaum%20-%20Why%20is%...

"Two widely read atheistic authors, Richard Dawkins (2006, p. 155) and Sam Harris (2006, p. 73-74) have succumbed to the guiles of Leibniz’s PEQ by countenancing it misguidedly as a searching question that rightly calls for an explanatory answer. Thus, Dawkins allowed a “first cause, the great unknown which is responsible for something existing rather than nothing” (ibid.). And Harris capitulates to PEQ, declaring with very misplaced intellectual humility: “Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point” [italics in original] (ibid. p. 74]. But surely the failure to answer a pseudo-question does not bespeak ignorance on the part of scientists, philosophers or even the man in the street. Thus, Dawkins and Harris very misguidedly took PEQ as legitimate grounds for watering down their atheism."

I understand the sentiment of the paper, but it doesn't answer my question. Is there a causal mechanism? If there is an intellectual being - what is its cause? And if not - is there a cause for the cause?

Let me give you a bit more info on what I believe in: the universe has a self-causal mechanism. We are all God, and intelligent life isn't an accident created by the universe. It's an emergent and 'programmed' mechanism which causes it to spring into existence. I'm hoping to see some other viewpoints from the crowd here - so I do appreciate you're input, but it still doesn't answer my question: what belief do you have which might be different from the mainstream view? You seem to be leaning more towards what's already there...what makes your viewpoint different?

I was thinking one day, that if you assume that in the beginning was a consciousness, but nothing else, which for the sake of argument, we can call God, then it could not create anything like our world (or the world of the Bible) without inspiration. It couldn't even conceive of light or matter. It would essentially be trapped in a void without time or space. So creating infinite universes according to arbitrary and random rules and seeing what would develop would be the best it could do to escape nothingness. And then once something interesting developed, it would have to inhabit things (like us) located in time and space to avoid it all being like a dead crystal or painting.

I would speculate that the original state of things was hell, and the universe exists as a mechanism to invent heaven and forget hell, but it's inordinately difficult.

Ahhh - very interesting take!! But I see that your viewpoint essentially states: consciousness is ever-lasting and it is the 'base.' There is no consistency nor wonder in it: it just existed and created an infinite branch - one in which we exist. Very interesting idea, and one which I see is a mixture of having a creator and both having a 'wave function' trying out all paths - but nonetheless, how do you get rid of the inconsistency of having something there that doesn't have a logical base? Or maybe - we don't need a logical base - some things just are I suppose?

im mostly party to the 2nd option i believe, but i also see a lot of logic and sense in the simulation argument (which i consider pretty different from the religious one)

Interesting. What do you ponder created the laws then? Or is it self-emergent? I'm not sure how to process your answer...

A lot have explained it better than I possibly could, but I will try to give a brief description as to why I don't perceive it as an entirely outlandish idea.

Two possibilities exist:

1. We are in the "true reality", the Real.

2. We are not, and we are simply part of a simulation of reality.

Consider the following:

1. We as humans have been creating simulations for some time now, with increasing levels of sophistication overtime.

2. As technical ability increases, our ability to create more sophisticated simulations also increases.

3. As our ability to create more sophisticated simulations increases, we get closer and closer to being able to produce a simulation that can mirror how physics itself works in what we understand as our "reality".

4. All things are a result of physics- from fire, to life itself as we know it.

5. Therefore, from the ability to simulate physics, we should eventually be able to have those physics interact in such a way that they would produce a simulated version of what we understand as "life".

6. As the sophistication of our technology increases, and the resources we are able to utilize increases, we can create larger and larger forms of these simulations, eventually reaching to a scale that we might consider "universe-sized".

Assume the following:

0. As time increases, technological ability and resource utilization of a civilization increases.

1. As a civilization acquires the technological ability to create a simulation, they inevitably will, as it offers a powerful way of acquiring new knowledge, and evaluating/exercising existing knowledge.

2. So long as this civilization survives, they will continue creating and using these simulations, to the extent of their technological ability at any point in time.

3. This civilization will eventually reach a point where they can simulate the physics of their reality at scale.

4. It will be in this civilization's interests to create as many of these sophisticated simulations as is feasible.

5. Suppose a question this civilization wishes to answer is possibly something along the lines of: "What would things look like if the Big Bang were to happen in a certain way?".

6. Suppose the civilization attempts to answer questions like this one via creating one or more simulations of a reality that they model to be as close as possible -if not identical- to their very own.

Other relevant propositions:

1. In the "true reality", existence must be infinite, as there should be nothing that would create arbitrary limitations (we should have the assurance that if we travel 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^... trillion km in one direction that we won't run into any "boundaries", no "invisible walls"). Therefore, if we were to discover some phenomena that might be described as an arbitrary limitation, it could be considered evidence that we are not in the "true reality".

2. The Law of Infinite Probability could be interpreted in such a way that would imply that, in the "true reality", where existence is infinite, there will inevitably be an infinite amount of civilizations that will advance to the point where they can develop these sophisticated simulations. Therefore, we can also then derive that there will be an infinite amount of these simulations, and therefore there should also exist an inevitably infinite amount of simulations that match identically to what we know of as our "reality". (This is a whole other rabbit hole of stuff that I think is wildly cool but requires a significant time investment itself to talk about in any capacity.)

I think that if you buy into the above in any amount, the apparent chances of us being a simulation vs not are impressive, and we just have to hope no one trips over a power cord.

Ahhh very nice. Me and you have a very similar viewpoint! One note though: you're still sort of creating the need for there to be a 'base' world creating the simulation and trying out all possibilities to contain it ... My take is very similar to yours, but my take on the 'simulation' idea is that the concept of there being a 'real' or 'simulated' world doesn't matter. Even if we're not in the 'base' simulation, we may be part of a universe which is being simulated from another simulation, and which is also being invoked by another simulation itself. In any case: all of these worlds are just as 'real' as the base worlds - it would have to have a self-encompassing structure I would think. Also - the concept of 'creation' is a tricky bit as well: the universe in my viewpoint is never 'created.' All of space-time simply exists: we perceive time as having a flow, but time itself doesn't have flow and this is something that Einstein proved. The perceived 'flow' or perception of time is a necessary part of the design though: you need it in order to 'create' the beings which eventually go on to 'create' the creation or to have the system reach self-consistency.

Because it has not been fully destroyed yet.

Sometimes it's good not to be modern.