https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all
What is all this nonsense?
all me tbh
What would be my… how should I call it, spontaneous attitude towards the universe? It’s a very dark one. The first thesis would have been a kind of total vanity: there is nothing, basically. I mean it quite literally, like… ultimately…there are just some fragments, some vanishing things. If you look at the universe, it’s one big void. But then how do things emerge? Here, I feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics, where, you know, the idea there is that universe is a void, but a kind of a positively charged void. And then particular things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed. And I like this idea of spontaneous very much that the fact that it’s just not nothing… Things are out there. It means something went terribly wrong… that what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance, cosmic catastrophe, that things exist by mistake. And I’m even ready to go to the end and to claim that the only way to counteract it is to assume the mistake and go to the end. And we have a name for this. It’s called love. Isn’t love precisely this kind of a cosmic imbalance?
I was always disgusted with this notion of “I love the world,” universal love. I don’t like the world. I don’t know how… Basically, I’m somewhere in between “I hate the world” or “I’m indifferent towards it.” But the whole of reality, it’s just it. It’s stupid. It is out there. I don’t care about it. Love, for me, is an extremely violent act. Love is not “I love you all.” Love means I pick out something, and it’s, again, this structure of imbalance. Even if this something is just a small detail… a fragile individual person… I say “I love you more than anything else.” In this quite formal sense, love is evil. They inform me they play chess. I like that.
[...] there are just some fragments, some vanishing things.
If you look at the universe, it’s one big void.
One thing nullifies the other.
We saw in a former chapter that the exchange of commodities implies contradictory and mutually exclusive conditions. The differentiation of commodities into commodities and money does not sweep away these inconsistencies, but develops a modus vivendi, a form in which they can exist side by side. This is generally the way in which real contradictions are reconciled. For instance, it is a contradiction to depict one body as constantly falling towards another, and as, at the same time, constantly flying away from it. The ellipse is a form of motion which, while allowing this contradiction to go on, at the same time reconciles it.
I'm not sure I'm following here.
What is nothingness made out of?
Is the universe eternal?
Where was I before I was born?
You didn't exist before being born and you won't exist after dying.
>>6
You made nothing, but you have "made" it. All sorts of spontaneous nothingness keep happening as long as you still exist. To achieve true nothingness you must kill yourself, thus eliminating the conceptual nothingness, but you still never know if any other being is there after you die. I can't promise you nothing.
test
>>8 Oh come on. A corpse is no more nothingness (in the sense of the question) than a living thing.
Nothingness itself is incoherent: it is that which is not. If there ever were a state of true nothingness, a state with no spacetime or causality or laws of physics or any of the rest of it- what then?
With no conservation laws, say, what is to prevent the universe from springing into existence?
>>10
s/kill/destroy/
No one can observe true nothingness. When it happends there won't be another universe. By intuition I think this is impossible, just like I don't think the universe come from nothing. So I tend to believe the universe is always there, forever.
>>10
s/kill/destroy/
No one can observe true nothingness. When it happends there won't be another universe. By intuition I think this is impossible, just like I don't think the universe come from nothing. So I tend to believe the universe is always there, forever.
The universe is not there forever. Eventually, even in a nihilist's worldview, there will be a heat death of all that is, and eventual dissolution into subprimordial chaos.
>>13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#Opposing_views
Why is the chaos excluded from the universe?
The main purpose is for moving ads and user data to the edge network.
even in a nihilist's worldview
You mean especially.
>>14
If the universe is a closed system, it will succumb to entropy and die a heat death. If the universe is an open system, it's possible to avoid a heat death while still letting thermodynamics operate. The problem is that the nihilist can't know whether the universe is an open or closed system because the universe is simply not fully observable.
>>17
The universe can't be closed because we got all this stuff in the beginning.