Let's say things exist. If something does not exist, something

>>1744436
It must have been created by something else?

>>1744436
Define thing. Is thing a material thing, or is thing a pattern of material things?

File: MontyHall.jpg (109KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1366x768px

>>1744442
Correct, correct! You are correct!
A baby can only be born from a mother and a father.
A toaster can only heat toast from electricity.
And a bodybuilder's muscles will only come should he eat protein.
However, this is not creation, it is transformation.
All these things ultimately already exist, and therefore, cannot be said to not exist.
They exist in the future, and, when the future comes, they become the present, and eventually turn into past.
Logically speaking, this could mean three things:

A- everything exists in an infinite circle
B- things that do not exist cannot come to exist
C- something superior to the laws of logic can freely created and destroy things as it pleases

Which option do you find more likely to be true?

Good thread.

>>1744436
>how can something that does not exist come to exist?
By the destruction/transformation of something else.

>>1744436
Define "things" and "exists." Remember kids, existence is only a concept.

>>1744476
Nothing is in and of itself a reason for its own existence.

File: 1456619454658.jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1280x720px

>>1744436
It comes to exist by the transformation of already existing things into other types of things.

Duh.

>>1744476
Everything above fundamental particles and forces don't really exist, they are just convenient groupings/simplifications that happen to make categorization and actions easier.

>>1744476
I would say A. Much of string theory derives from the idea that parallel universes are crashing all the time, and that's how new universes come to be. They're infinite. Everything ends up being cyclic.

>>1744643

Many madmen believe this to be possible.

>>1744476
>the future has a real ontological status

File: Letsstudy.jpg (628KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1920x1080px

>>1744604
>>1744636
>>1744643
Buuu!
I can tell you that the option (B) is wrong. Things that do not exist can come to exist. That can be proved by the existence of singularities and the subsequent realities that are followed.
Another argument is that your consciousness did not exist at some point. "Cogito ergo sum". Since your consciousness came to exist, nothing became something!
That being said, you are about to give your final answer.
Will you change your choice?
Statistically speaking, you have a higher chance of being right should you to change (A) for (C).

>>1744665
>"Cogito ergo sum". Since your consciousness came to exist, nothing became something!

Descartes's cogito argument is not an argument about the origin of the mind; it is an argument set out simply to prove that the mind exists by the fact that there is thinking taking place.

>>1744665
I would argue that "exists" is a fairly imprecise and meaningless term. Does Mickey Mouse "exist"?

Nothing can be said to 'not exist'. All things exist, in God.

File: 15789.gif (98KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x364px

>>1744706
If it did not exist, how would you even know its name?

>>1744706
Maybe things can exist in different ways.

>>1744707
t. Spinoza

>>1744710
If all it takes for something to exist is to know its name, then the problem is solved. Things "come into existence" as soon as they are referred to. And because language is productive, anything that is a valid utterance comes to exist in that way.

>>1744719
Fallacy.
It was said that the fact that you can name something is proof that the name exists. You are implying all it takes for me to be right is to claim I am so, in which case, we could be both wrong and right at the same time.

>>1744717
That's what I'm getting at. The things that come in and out of "existence" do so on a much different level than the eternal things they are composed of, the matter and energy present at the beginning of the universe. Every other thing that "exists" and later does not, or vice versa, is just some temporary arrangement of the more fundamental. The ways in which they "exist" are very different.

>>1744730
I didn't ask if Mickey Mouse's name exists. I asked if Mickey Mouse exists.

>>1744665
>That can be proved by the existence of singularities and the subsequent realities that are followed.
wat
I suggest you read a tensor calculus book, followed by a relativity theory one. That is, assuming you already have basic mathematical knowledge (analysis and algebra). Maybe then you'll stop saying random science-like words you heard on pop-sci site your friend linked on Facebook.

ITT: We place strict terminology onto something as subjective and unprovable as "existence".

>& humanities

>>1744436

What is a "thing"? Is a chair a "thing"? A chair comes into existence when you chop up a bunch of wood and nail it together into the shape of a chair. Is a proton a "thing"? A proton comes into existence when some quarks and some gluons blob together. Is a photon a "thing"? Photons are emitted when an electron drops from a higher orbit to a lower one. Are magnetic fields a "thing"? What about abstract concepts, like governments? Is the United States a "thing"?

Until you define what, exactly, you mean by "thing", your question is meaningless. And that's even before we get to "exists", another loaded term with no single clear definition.

tl;dr- 0/10, try harder.