The problem of existence; interested in thoughts/articles
 

More or less my first post, and it's pretty amateur-philosopher-metaphysical, so bear with me:

Lately I've been considering the question: How is it that anything exists? By "anything" I mean more than just the matter that makes up me, you, and the universe; "anything" includes the laws of science and mathematics, basic notions of order such as "space," "time," and "causality" as well as any thoughts we might have. Why is there a universe to begin with, as opposed to absolutely nothing at all?

Of course one simple answer that should explain everything is "god." However, the presence of god doesn't really exclude the possibility of "absolutely nothing," unless god is taken as a given, an "axiom" to existence. An axiom such as "god necessarily exists" would be part of "anything" however, and would therefore require explanation for its own existence. In the same way, it seems that attempts to root existence in any entity, tenet, axiom, or other construct necessarily fails, leading to at best a recursive question defying an ultimate answer, similar to the repeated "Why?s" children employ.

Is existence necessarily inexplicable? Can a world exist in which existence somehow justifies itself? I'm currently of the mindset that whatever flicked the "on" switch to our universe is beyond the grasp of science and religion alike, what do you think?

I'd love to see your thoughts or any links to similar discussions or relevant articles. Have any noteworthy intellectual figures tackled this issue?

Do a google on Existentialism.

I doubt Existentialism can explain why the universe exists in the first place.

The notion that the universe has a why or a purpose requires that there is some concept of something beyond the universe with a will or a purpose. As I see it, this leaves us two options. Either we belive in a will or purpose beyond the universe or we stop asking why and just accept whatever happens.

The last chapter of A Brief History of Time discusses this problem, but doesn't really make any significant progress with it.
We have to avoid getting ahead of ourselves. The first step in this problem lies with first of all understanding what we've already got. And that means science (yes that dirty word); lots of very difficult science; should be more than enough to keep us busy for at least another few centuries (in reality probably much much longer).
Only then, when we understand what we are dealing with, can we hope to ask the further questions. In all likelyhood, they will remain unanswerable, even then. At some point you simply have to accept an equation or a law or whatever as a pure brute fact that doesn't depend on anything else; something that just is.
I don't see that humankind, or anything else for that matter are in a position to access any further information about the world.

And that, I am afraid is the most optimistic view I can put forward on this subject.

I think therefore I am.

This should explain everything you need to know.

The only attempt to answer your question (which is, I take it, "Why is there something rather than nothing?") I've come across is from Peter VanInwagen, who in a nutshell argues that there is something because God necessarily exists, which is equivalent to saying that God is the cause of his own existence. Naturally Peter puts it better than I do.

existentialism has a lot more to do with how we exist, not why we exist.
"existance precedes (or, instead of) essence" is the definition sartre gave of existentialism.
we are not predefined to any destiny/path/etc before we exist.

the question at hand is kind of convoluted and doesn't seem to be a question of why, so i think it boils down to this:

"can i prove that anything else exists, other than myself?"

if you're asking a question about whether or not you exist, then i believe that in asking the question, that is enough for you to understand that you must exist in some form, on some level.


google solipsism, read some kant.

this kind of sounds like Gödel's ontological proof (google for it)

Godel did one too? Yeah, it's a lot like the Ontological Proof. Wish I could remember more exactly how it goes... Maybe I have a copy laying around somewhere. If I do, I'll try and give a better account of what Peter says.

No lostinlife. I think therefor I am. You aren't aware of this but you are just another aspect of my consciousness

+ ten chars