d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > How Did Existance Come Into Existance?
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 23,792
Joined: May 30 2006
Gold: 1,149.93
Jul 6 2009 09:56am
Q.) How Did Existance Come Into Existance?
A.) You spelled Existence wrong and to make a long story short, our senses are not capable of answering this question yet.

Quote (Wikipedia)
In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses, but in philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, and is often contrasted with essence. Philosophers investigate questions such as "What exists?" "How do we know?" "To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?" "What is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and abstractions."

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word existere meaning "to appear," "to arise," "to become," or "to be," but literally, it means "to stand out" (ex- being the Latin prefix for "out" added to the Latin verb stare, meaning "to stand").

The word 'exist' is certainly a grammatical predicate, but philosophers have long disputed whether it is also a logical predicate. Some philosophers claim that it predicates something, and has the same meaning as 'is real', 'has being', 'is found in reality', 'is in the real world' and so on. Other philosophers deny that existence is logically a predicate, and claim that it is merely what is asserted by the etymologically distinct verb 'is', and that all statements containing the predicate 'exists' can be reduced to statements that do not use this predicate. For example, 'A Four-leaved clover exists.' can be rephrased as 'There is a clover with four leaves.'

This philosophical question is an old one, and has been discussed and argued over by philosophers from Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, through Avicenna, Aquinas, Scotus, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard and many others.

In mathematical logic existence is a quantifier, the "existential quantifier", symbolized by ∃, a backwards capital E. To symbolize "Four leaf clovers exist," mathematicians would first define predicates, P(x) = "x is a clover" and Q(x) = "x has four leaves", and then form the well-formed formula (∃x)(P(x) and Q(x)).

For the question of why the universe exists in the first place see Cosmogony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony  :

Cosmogony, or cosmogeny, is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or about how reality came to be. The word comes from the Greek κοσμογονία (or κοσμογενία), from κόσμος "cosmos, the world", and the root of γί(γ)νομαι / γέγονα "to be born, come about". In the specialized context of space science and astronomy, the term refers to theories of creation of (and study of) the Solar System.

Cosmogony can be distinguished from cosmology, which studies the universe at large and throughout its existence, and which technically does not inquire directly into the source of its origins. There is some ambiguity between the two terms; for example, the cosmological argument from theology regarding the existence of God is technically an appeal to cosmogonical rather than cosmological ideas. In practice, there is a scientific distinction between cosmological and cosmogonical ideas. Physical cosmology is the science that attempts to explain all observations relevant to the development and characteristics of the universe as a whole. Questions regarding why the universe behaves in such a way have been described by physicists and cosmologists as being extra-scientific, though speculations are made from a variety of perspectives that include extrapolation of scientific theories to untested regimes and philosophical or religious ideas.

Attempts to create a naturalistic cosmogony are subject to two separate limitations. One is based in the philosophy of science and the epistemological constraints of science itself, especially with regards to whether scientific inquiry can ask questions of "why" the universe exists. Another more pragmatic problem is that there is no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity.



Member
Posts: 4,853
Joined: Apr 1 2007
Gold: 4.20
Jul 6 2009 02:58pm
I was here all alone and I had nothing else to do.
Member
Posts: 1,557
Joined: Jan 1 2009
Gold: 729.00
Jul 6 2009 10:22pm
Big Bang Theory = Bible's Creation story

This post was edited by H911ADA on Jul 6 2009 10:22pm
Banned
Posts: 15,251
Joined: Feb 23 2009
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 10%
Jul 9 2009 11:23am
Quote (asdzx2 @ Wed, May 13 2009, 12:56am)
Explain yourselves.


we can't understand this because we comprehend something without a beginning.
We are very Limited in our capacity for understanding.
Member
Posts: 57,755
Joined: Mar 7 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jul 10 2009 04:27am
we dont know and we not supposed to know, thats why we only able to use like3% of our brains. Thats how it supposed to be.

This post was edited by -=vasya=- on Jul 10 2009 04:29am
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Jul 10 2009 07:30am
Quote (dothe @ Fri, May 15 2009, 03:56am)
bovine is right it has been proven there is a finite amount of mass/energy in the universe. stabilized ofc by its conceptual counterpart dark matter. a bit of logical deduction should lead you to this conclusion even without researching it. infinite is INFINITE and like bovine said, this implies that everything everywhere would be consumed by matter or energy. how would u explain the void of space where the particle count per cubic meter is in the 100's?

however i dont agree with bovine on the idea that the universe always existed. there's plenty of researched evidence that shows the universe is expanding. this implies only one conclusion; that it must have a physical provenience. perhaps i misinterpreted your theory and you believe the universe existed as a singularity for an eternity before the big bang...but i dont think thats what u meant. i suppose thats more rational, but still it presents a huge logical fallacy. because how would it exist unchanging for an eternity and then suddenly ignite into the vastness it is now? and if there is no origin to the universe, there is no origin to time, and so how could time have a direction? better yet how could time exist at all? if something has absolutely no effect on anything that defines the physical universe, then it must be a fictitious invention. but we all know time exists dont we?


Just because space is stretching wavelengths doesn't mean that the big bang happened. Sure, the big bang is the leading cosmological model, but it has a some holes covered up with patches on it. For all we know, the expansion of space could just be a effect that happens to be happening in our locality.

Just because something is not logical does not mean that it cannot happen. I believe logic is defined by existence, and not by some platonic form that exists in la la land that all existence that partakes of that form must conform to.

As far as I'm concerned, cosmological models that explain cosmogony are still in the domain of religion.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Jul 10 2009 07:32am
Member
Posts: 3,383
Joined: Jun 24 2008
Gold: 90.00
Jul 11 2009 07:26pm
There are signs on Venus (I think it was) that there may have been life forms there long ago. I think that the human race (or maybe a different race) moved to Earth because they knew their planet was coming to an end. When they moved to Earth, they left most of their technology behind making them unable to survive. The human race almost began to extinct until some people adapted to the environment. Cave men were created.

This is just a thought, none of it may be true.
Banned
Posts: 953
Joined: Jul 10 2009
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
Jul 11 2009 08:38pm
nice equivocation there, asshole
Banned
Posts: 4,537
Joined: Apr 28 2009
Gold: 0.22
Jul 14 2009 08:05am
Simple answer. It was ALWAYS there. You just didn't know it. Just because you can see the overlapping effects in this dimension, doesnt mean you can see all of them.
Member
Posts: 24,533
Joined: Sep 26 2006
Gold: 42.00
Jul 14 2009 11:08pm
Quote (stacked @ Fri, May 15 2009, 01:24am)
Also due to the fact the 3D universe is mathematically infinite in all directions, therefore there is an infinite amount of matter/mass/energy.
The universe expands and moves. It doesn't create and destroy the space it moves into, there is actually an area of "nothing-ness". So it can't be infinite.

This post was edited by 1messdkid on Jul 14 2009 11:08pm
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll