Heidgger read too much Hegelian bullshit in his youth, instead The Critique of Pure Reason. If he would had done it, he would have known that metaphysical problems are posed because the logic of our language (the categories) is misunderstood. When the reason erroneously tries to operate beyond the limits of possible experience, then appear such questions.
In Wittgenstein´s words:
[....] what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we can not talk about we must pass over in silence.
About the solipsist, I will hit in his face, nobody can continue dreaming and suffer. this will prove him that he is not dreaming.
[...]While Zenon was talking about the impossibility of movement, Diogenes of Sinope, the Cynic, quite simply refuted his arguments against movement; without speaking he rose and walked about, contradicting them by action. [...]
"About the solipsist, I will hit in his face, nobody can continue dreaming and suffer. this will prove him that he is not dreaming."
To quote one of MY favorite philosophers: " Welcome to Earth. *punch* "
Name the movie and you get a cookie. I'll likely be watching it again on July 4 this year.
@Michael, Independence day? :P
Andrew, neither answer you give addresses the "why".
The first is an attempt at explaining "how". Though that you can be so sure a abstract, mathematically derived field such as quantum mechanics is a "fact of the universe, not a theory" is to me a little presumptious. scientific hubris?
The second answer is merely a confirmation that there is indeed something rather than nothing.
I have no answer myself, so well done for the effort.
First you have to define "nothing."
The Rock-biter in The Never-Ending Story tries to describe it, but he ends up talking in circles, as anyone will who tries.
None of us has ever experienced it, and just because we have given it a name and talk about it as a concept does not mean it is possible.
My answer: There is something rather than nothing because there is no nothing.
To give fuel to the fire, we can smell the theology in the origins of that question.... :P
Principles of Nature and Grace Based on Reason- Leibniz
7. So far I have spoken only of what goes on in the natural world; now I must move up to the metaphysical level, by making use of a great though not very widely used principle, which says
that nothing comes about without a sufﬁcient
reason; i.e. that for any true proposition P, it is possible for someone
who understands things well enough to give a sufﬁcient reason why it the case that P rather than no P.
Given that principle, the ﬁrst question we can fairly ask is: Why is there something rather than nothing? After all, nothing is simpler and easier than something. Also, given that things have to exist, we must be able to give a reason
why they have to exist as they are and not otherwise. [...]
(look at him doing his trick, jumping from the logical law of the reason of knowledge to the transcendental law of cause and effect in Nature.. shame on you, Leibniz! :/ )
here the perverts can read the whole essay.. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibpng.pdf
quantum vacuum fluctuation is a state, it's neither something nor nothing. If you mention a particle, there is something; if two particles of different charge meet, they will end up as nothing.But I think here, the philosopher was playing with words. If there is nothing in the universe, what is you? My personal answer is: now I am hungry, I find something to eat, so it's better to have something.
The second one is answered itself.
The third one is: my existance goes without saying from Physics point of view. But philosophically, it depends which school of philosophy you believe, I might be lucky if you believe in Anthropic Principle. No matter what philosophical opinion you hold, I'm too proud to be a figment of other's imagination.XD
@Salmon, I will hit again, and again, until he says: -ay!- -
ouch! - stop please! or whatever expression....
then I will say: shut up solipsist !!! I thought that solipsists only believe in private language.
In this moment, if I see a minimum spark of sanity in his eyes. I will try to point out that:
a) The words that we use to express feelings are not learned by ostensive definition, not equivalent to a name.
b) The use of these words is expressive and teaching and learning is to replace, for example, a cry for a speech behavior.
From here I will try to show him the inconsistency of defend a private language (i.e. the solipsist language). Then he needs to realize that all his doubts and questions about solipsism can only be expressed using a public language, and that implies more egos than oneself.
The anthropic principle makes me cringe. But then again, I'm not so sure if I'm a transhumanist or just a regular old misanthrope.
YESSSS thank you Adolfo, for that.
Ummm, this thread. tl;dr
@Andrew, I wish I could call myself posthuman, but it sounds a little 吹牛皮.
@Michael, ey!! where is the fucking cookie? :P
I shiver and feel goose bumps... shit!!! I´m going cold turkey
How did I miss this thread before?
Lizzie, Sartre (who was married to the woman who wrote "The Second Sex" and was actually the biggest intellectual influence on her) thought "nothing" was something impossible in the real world. It's an idea invented by humans in their language. We think in opposites all the time: hot & cold; high & low; something & nothing. Nothingness (or "true" nothingness) is actually impossible.
and from his grave, Parmenides also agrees with that.
For never shall this prevail, that things that are not are.
It is necessary to speak and to think what is; for being is, but nothing is not.
For this view, that That Which Is Not exists, can never predominate. You must debar your thought from this way of search, nor let ordinary experience in its variety force you along this way [...]
For the person to be part of your imagination, he or she must exists, either next to you or in past. Only this way can the image, or sound for the blind, have been created.
Nothing comes from something.
I wanted to point out that Sartre and De Beauvoir were kinksters, but Lizzie beat me to the punch.