We have no prior reason to expect that “nothing” would be a viable alternative to “something.”
I absolutely agree with this. To establish that “non-existence” is exclusively opposed to “existence” requires a careful analysis of the nature of existence.
Can anybody point to work along these lines? I am actively researching the topic.
Trying to explain “why existence” is pointless; existence is, inherently.
I’m not sure how you mean this. By “why existence”, do you mean something like the “purpose of existence”?
Explaining how existence works is the useful and meaningful goal.
I agree. I think that this topic ties directly to epistemology; explaining the nature of existence will help to explain the nature of knowledge.
I’m not sure how you mean this. By “why existence”, do you mean something like the “purpose of existence”?
I mean in the sense “why does existence exist?”. It’s really an inappropriate question, despite our ability to phrase it in what seems like a grammatically/linguistically correct way.
Then I agree that this question is probably poorly formed. Certainly it isn’t obvious to me that it is a meaningful or useful question.
I’m not sure why we have been down-voted for these comments. I suspect that it is because questioning existence in this way appears to challenge the “objective existence” aspects of scientific realism. (Down-voters please comment if I’m wrong.)
I’m not sure why we have been down-voted for these comments. I suspect that it is because questioning existence in this way appears to challenge the “objective existence” aspects of scientific realism. (Down-voters please comment if I’m wrong.)
I have had a fair amount of downvoting on this topic, with very little explanation. It’s somewhat frustrating.
I absolutely agree with this. To establish that “non-existence” is exclusively opposed to “existence” requires a careful analysis of the nature of existence.
Can anybody point to work along these lines? I am actively researching the topic.
I’m not sure how you mean this. By “why existence”, do you mean something like the “purpose of existence”?
I agree. I think that this topic ties directly to epistemology; explaining the nature of existence will help to explain the nature of knowledge.
I mean in the sense “why does existence exist?”. It’s really an inappropriate question, despite our ability to phrase it in what seems like a grammatically/linguistically correct way.
Then I agree that this question is probably poorly formed. Certainly it isn’t obvious to me that it is a meaningful or useful question.
I’m not sure why we have been down-voted for these comments. I suspect that it is because questioning existence in this way appears to challenge the “objective existence” aspects of scientific realism. (Down-voters please comment if I’m wrong.)
I have had a fair amount of downvoting on this topic, with very little explanation. It’s somewhat frustrating.
Same here.