metaphysics, existentialism, & subjective consciousness

I think what you're really asking is what is the purpose of existence?

Hmmm... I'm not sure.  What I really mean (I think) is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"  This is a fundamental question that is simply too deep to ever be answered (in my opinion).  There are two possibilities:

1) The "something" was created out of nothing--this is obviously ridiculous

2) The "something has always existed--this is also obviously ridiculous

or I guess you could even say

3) Nothing exists--this is really ridiculous

The question can never be answered (IMO).

Interesting views.  Basically you're saying that the universe is ridiculous.  I can relate to that.

According to Taoism - which has played a large part of this topic - Something does come from Nothing.

I think that although we can't come up with a definite answer to those questions we can use logic to come up with the most likely one.

1.  Despite what Tao says it makes no sense that you can have nothing and it can turn into something.  Physics clearly says that in a closed system energy is conserved and I think the entire universe can be considered a closed system (or maybe we mean the multiverse).  It is definitely possible that there could be a something that we can't understand or comprehend but that's different to there actually being nothing.

2.  I think this is only ridiculous because we like to divide things and group them.  I don't think anything in this world actualy has a legitimate beginning but rather a beginning from a particular context and is really a continuation of what has gone before.  For example when does a person "begin"?  When the egg is fertilised?  When the egg is created?  When the egg creators are created?  You can trace a person back to the beginning of life - and even beyond that.  Yes there maybe a contextual beginning to the universe as we know it but surely that happened as a continuation as whatever happened before that.  Just because we can't know what caused it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Beginnings and endings are human concepts, not things in reality.

3.  Hard point to argue but essentially as far as anything exists we exist.  I think you can only debate that the world doesn't exist if you first change the meaning of the word "exist".

Regarding being part of a computer program I think that really raises the question - what's outside this universe?  If we're just a computer program then the computer must be in another universe.  Is it too, part of a computer program?  How many levels are there - a set number or an infinite number?

People interested in this might like to watch "The 13th Floor" I always felt it did the concept of living in a computer program a lot better than The Matrix did. Matrix made up for that with more awesome action, but un-made up for it with crappy sequels.

Anyways, the point of 13th floor was that they actually created one of those computer programs of an older time, a complete town filled with people. They enter the program and craziness ensues.

Yeah I enjoyed 13th floor and also the Matrix because of the philosophy (although the third movie destroyed the whole trilogy).  I did think 13th floors ending was probably the most predictable "twist" ever concieved but I like questioning reality movies even if they're getting a little cliched these days.

I have a theory to deal with the who "something from nothing issue" (assuming matter truly exists out of our [collective] conciousness). It works sort of like an infinite loop.

The universe works on a cycle. It begins, ends, begins, ends, begins, ends, ..., etc. It always has, and it always will.

Matter (again, assuming it exists), is made up of proto-matter (ie. sub-atomic particles [most likely smaller than the already discovered forms]). Proto-matter is created as a "left-over" of the ending of the existence of the universe. So, the lifecycle of matter is:

Proto-matter
Matter
Proto-matter

You could say that proto-matter begets matter, which in tun begets proto-matter.

There is no need for a creator, since existence creates itself (in a sense).

I have a theory to deal with the who "something from nothing issue"

Your "theory" in no way answers how something can come from nothing.  You state that something has always existed.  You can't explain why or how.  Your "theory" seems to be sort of like the Big Bang--Big Crunch theory.

Quote from: "prototism"

I have a theory to deal with the who "something from nothing issue"

Your "theory" in no way answers how something can come from nothing.  You state that something has always existed.  You can't explain why or how.  Your "theory" seems to be sort of like the Big Bang--Big Crunch theory.

How is his "theory" anything like the Big Bang theory? The Big Bang makes no attempts to explain what happened before. Perhaps the laws of physics did not apply before, and something did come from nothing, or perhaps they still applied and all matter or energy existed before the B.B. (Of course until some time after the B.B., there was no matter- it was all in energy form).

How is his "theory" anything like the Big Bang theory?

Are you familiar with the Big Bang--Big Crunch theory?  That the universe used to be really really big, then got really small (Big Crunch) then got really really big again (Big Bang)?  Some scientists subscribe to this idea--that it has happened multiple times.

Quote from: "prototism"

I have a theory to deal with the who "something from nothing issue"

Your "theory" in no way answers how something can come from nothing.  You state that something has always existed.  You can't explain why or how.  Your "theory" seems to be sort of like the Big Bang--Big Crunch theory.

i just worded it wrong. forgive me.