My mind is on fire with philosophical questions right now so I am just going to throw some of them out there.

Why do atoms exist?

Why do electrons exist?

Why does reality exist?

Why do the laws of physics purportedly apply to reality, who decided that reality should work in one way and not another? Do the laws of physics apply to reality or are they just perceptions of phenomenon occurring within reality

Does reality really exist? If not what is this? Is it possible for reality not to exist since I am typing this up. Or is this something other than what is being perceived?

Do atoms exist? We have never seen an atom, and if we did see one - is it an atom or is it just something we perceive to be an atom?

Why does gravity exist? *Note* this is not asking "how" does gravity exist, but the underlying reason as to why it exists.

Does gravity exist or is it really something else?

Why does the universe appear to work based off of a system of action and reaction, why does this happen?

Why do electromagnetic fields exist?

Where does space begin or end?

Does space have a beginning and an end? If so, what happens when you reach the end?

Is the universe circular? What happens if you go in a straight line for a very very very long time at the speed of light?

Why do things seem to seek a state of balance between polar opposites in the universe? Is this true or is it just what we perceive to be true?

What is truly random?

What is nothing?

What is space? What is the area in between atoms? Is it nothing? If so, what is nothing?

Oh and im throwing this one in for good measure. See if you can think in four dimensions



Well I will stop for now, I think this is enough to get your neurons firing, mine are in an inferno right now, tell me what you think.

What you are doing here is assuming that those things must have a reason to exist. What if they just exist. No reason. Just like our existence. We just happened to exist.

First you must ask something like - does there have to be a reason for things to exist?

I suggest reading epistemology. It will most likely not answer those question but what it will do is show you why you have those questions to begin with and most importantly why those are nonsensical questions. They are projecting human perspective on objective reality.

You evolved to fit the reality, not the other way around.

That doesnt make any sense. Reality cannot exist out of nothing, you cannot create something from nothing. There must be an underlying cause as to why atoms exist, they cannot simply "magically exist just because" thats just a nice way of saying "we dont have the answer so deal with it".

There is a reason why things fall - gravity. Just as there is a reason why atoms exist.

By your logic there should not be a reason why things fall. In fact if you follow your logic through, by its standpoint, nothing has a reason why anything happens or exists.

People exist because of a chemical reaction which occured billions of years ago forming primitive cells, which evolved into complex cellular organisms and eventually, into people. There is a reason, it may not seem purposeful - but it is still a reason.

There may not be a purpose as to why atoms exist, but they still have to exist somehow. Why and how they exist and how they came into being are worthwhile questions to further our understanding the universe and reality.

Also, what is objective reality, have you ever seen it and if not - how do you know it exists?

What you are saying is like going to Newton as he sits under the tree and asks why does the apple fall?

And replying "the apple simply falls, there is no reason why it falls, it just does, why does there have to be a reason for the apple to fall?"

Like you noted what i meant is closer to the concept of Purpose then Reason. There doesn't have to be a first cause, that is just a human habit of perception as noted by many epistemologists. Perhaps an apple falling has to have a "reason" for falling but the gravity doesn't have to exist for a reason, and apple itself can be said to fall because of nature of things which include gravity as part of its laws. It may simply be the nature of things. We can describe that nature and with that description explain why an apple falls but at some point we hit a "simple idea" like gravity or even beyond into the quantum mechanics, but eventually we will hit a concept that just exists. Why is there something and not nothing? No reason.

To revise a little what i said. What i mean is that there are a number of set laws like a gravitational concept and why that specific number exists and not other, there might not be any reason and to demand a reason might be a result of human habits of perception. We are used to there being "reasons" for everything but that is simply a habit. Just like we see time as something uniform, independent of speed by intuition, but in reality it is different dependent on speed. Can you conceive it? Probably not, but it was proven to be true.

Also i must add, you are confusing HOW and WHY. How we came to be, can perhaps be explained, but why doesn't have to have an answer, at least outside of our subjective meanings.

Why we came into being was to increase the chances of survival for cells. There is your reason.

Why gravity exists can be in part dependent on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. You can first start by looking at why the space time continuum is distorted by objects. Think of it this way, why is it, that the laws of physics work in the ways they do, as opposed to any other way that they could work? If there were an alternate universe with different laws of physics governing them - then why does one universe work in one way and the other universe work in the other way.

In the end, why does something work in the way it does, as opposed to a different way?

Simply saying "they just exist and it is humans who try to put purpose into something" is just avoiding the question.

You have to understand that everything has a reason. Why does rain fall? Why does the sun glow brightly? Why do like fields attract and opposite repel?

You know why everything has to have a reason? Because of the most fundamental law of the universe - action and reaction.

The entire purpose of science is to observe phenomenon and explain that phenomenon. I am simply observing something (the laws of physics) and seeking to explain that phenomenon. Also, what is proof of truth? Throughout history people have believed that their beliefs are correct, now we believe that our beliefs about the universe are correct and theirs are not.

I can guarantee you, 1000 years from now, science is going to have very different theories about the universe than what we have now. They are probably going to say 90% of our science is wrong.

And so, truth is an opinion. You have never viewed objective reality, you only believe it exists - but there is no proof of it. Only what you perceive as proof.

Zhenka, I think it might help if you get out of the "thinking about thinking" loophole you are in, IMO. Max is exposing some very provocative conjectures if you look at them from the right angle.

A fundamental law or habit?

I guarantee you that 1000 years from now 90% of current science will still hold valid, just that we will know much more and add to our understanding.

Even if there really is HOW for everything, it doesn't mean there is a WHY.

I would appreciate if you could elaborate a little more on my mistake : )

It is you whom are confusing why with how.

How does the apple fall? By being pulled down by gravity.

Why does the apple fall? Because gravity exists.

People used to believe the earth was flat, now it is round. They used to believe the sky was the limit, now it is the universe. They used to believe everything was comprised of four elements, now it is atoms. Science has changed more in the past 1000 years than you would imagine.

Its arrogant to believe that what you know now is the absolute truth, you are trying to turn science into a religion. Science continues to change and most of the theories we consider correct will be made incorrect at some point in the future. Why just look at how much astrophysics has changed, its staggering.

The string theory has already been replaced, it hasnt been around for anywhere remotely near 1000 years and they have already thrown it out the window.

Science is not religion, science seeks the truth and recognizes that many theories will eventually be proven wrong by different theories.

Many things in the past which were once considered fact, are now considered false. It seems rather absurd to believe now man kind has obtained perfect and flawless knowledge of the universe. I suggest you read about the theory of theories.

Did i say we know the truth? I said WE WILL BUILD UP on what we know and what we know is 90% accurate. When we discover something else, it doesn't make everything before it false, it just adds to already existing knowledge unless is disproves a theory at the same time, and still it would be just one theory.

Btw, the how and why thing, it is just a language ambiguity. I assumed you meant something like WHY as in meaning not as in how it happens to work. So if you meant the latter, i apologize, i misunderstood you.

By your logic we have "built up" from believing the universe is comprised of 4 elements to believing the universe is comprised of atoms.

The theory that the universe is comprised of atoms is considered true and the theory that the universe is comprised of 4 elements is considered false. There is no "building up", there is simply discarding one theory and replacing it with another.

Why does gravity exist and how does gravity exist are two fundamentally differing questions.

Why gravity exists is a question of the role gravity plays in the structure of the universe and how the actual way in which gravity works came into being.

How gravity exists is a question of the way in which the laws of gravity occur in the universe. You see, if we knew things like why gravity actually exists (not how it exists but why it exists) and acts in the way it does, we would have a much deeper understanding of the universe. There is a reason why things fall, which is gravity. However when you think about what gravity is, it is supposed to be a distortion in the space-time continuum.

Therefore this poses the question, why does the continuum become distorted by mass in the way it does, what is the underlying causality for the distortion and in what ways does this play a role in the overall scheme of things. Why is it that the continuum even exists? Or does it? There are more than one theories of gravity.

The question why allows one to go beyond what they know and delve into the unknown. Why do people do the things they do? This is a question neuroscience and psychology work to answer, as well as how they do the things they do. Why do electromagnetic fields exist and how electromagnetic fields work are two different questions that are joined at the hip. You are still trying to think of why as purposeful - I am saying electromagnetic fields must have some godly purpose, but they do clearly play a very important role in the universe, understanding electromagnetic fields and the role they play allows one to extract a reason for its existence by deducting it as a piece of the universal puzzle.

Obviously something cannot be created from nothing, so understanding the reason why electromagnetic fields work in the precise way that they do is a thing of theoretical physics. Which is where these questions delve into. How electromagnetic fields work involves prediction and calculation, why electromagnetic fields exist involves the theory of everything. Since something cannot be created from nothing, this leads one to the conclusion that something must always be in existence. So what course of events lead the electromagnetic fields to behave in the way they do? Did the laws of physics ever work differently than they do now? If not, why not?

Also, could there be an alternative universe in which the laws of physics work differently? And if so, then why do the laws of physics work in one way in one universe and in another way in another universe. Fundamentally one must ask what reality truly is. Obviously there is no definitive answer, but one can further their own understanding about reality and the universe by asking such questions.

This world could be a computer program, it could be a figment of the imagination of someone in a coma, designed to keep the mind alive while the body repairs itself. There are so many possibilities, but when you think outside of the box, it allows you to see solutions to theoretical problems that would have otherwise been invisible to you. If nothing else, it forces you to think in a different way other than how you have been taught to think in school. If you have the means to do so, I suggest you take a philosophy course at your local university, not to learn philosophy, but to learn to ask questions. The bottom line is science is most certainly not always right and scientists almost never unanimously agree on anything. There is more than one theory of gravitation and not everyone agrees (I would be afraid if everyone did).

So, if you want to do more than just know, but to discover new things - you have to question everything, including reality itself. You can memorize every scientific theory in the world, but the bottom line is, that will not make much of a difference. The real advancement is made not by rigidly sticking to current theories but by OPENING YOUR MIND and asking questions to discover answers that cannot be found through rigid acceptance.

Finally, 'Why' is the very difference between understanding and knowledge. You can know something, but to understand and truly comprehend it you must do more than know about it, you must comprehend the underlying structure of the knowledge and the supreme question which has been responsible for much progress throughout history...

"Why?"

Something has to be there to give cohesiveness to form, I liken your statements to 'Why do bricks exist' when you look at a house.
This is the ultimate question and I doubt anyones qualified or imaginitive enough to answer it. I think reality is simply the space that all reactions happen in.
The laws of physics were extrapolated from reality, because of this they simply have apply to reality.
The word 'reality' obviously comes from the word 'real'. Whats real and whats not is down to the commonalities between every conscious beings idea of reality.
Is a dog really a dog, or is it just an animal form we've named 'dog'. As long as we're not seeing atoms with our own eyes, we can never be 100% sure the model we've come up with is correct, and the shape of an atom was chosen because of natures choice of spherical forms in the cosmos (efficiency?).
Gravity gives cohesion and form, and facilitates nuclear reactions in stars. Its certainly one of the more esoteric forces you can ponder.
If our models match our data, does it matter? Of course if you want to find out where the force is coming from and what that means to the Universe, then it does matter.
This is kind of like saying 'why does the past happen before the present'.
Polarity seems to be consistent throughout the universe on all levels. Electromagnetic fields are a by-product of it. The seeking a state of balance I'm assuming your referring to one of the laws of thermodynamics and similar. I think the energy in an initially volatile process will gradually subside and settle into a balance. Take the big bang for instance, massive reaction then billions of years of solar system creation and planets settling into orbits. The energy's still there, but its being replaced by smaller scale eruptions (Fire, lightning etc). I believe this is happening on Earth too, with wars being replaced with competitive sports. The attitudes of Us and Them are still prevalent there.
You fall off! Seriously though, its the old question of 'If the Universe is expanding, whats it expanding into?'.
The universe is probably some form of hyper-torus. Don't ask me to draw it!
Depending on your views, nothing!
Its an abstract concept to me, I understand it, but if you think about it, nothing is really nothing.

I have on occasion had to use four dimensions in my work. As a programmer you have to use arrays, these are lists of data you can access using an ID:

1 dimensional array
0 - A test
1 - B test
2 - C test

array(0) = A test
array(2) = C test
sometimes you have to use two ids to retrieve the info, I visualise this as a table of data like a spreadsheet:

array(0,0) = First cell

very rarely I have had to go to three dimensions, which I visualise like a cube:

array(x,y,z) = First cell in cube

Once you get paset three dimensions you have to stop the visualisations and just remember the pattern of data retrieval:

array(x,y,z,t) = four identifiers to retrieve the information.

It seems like a lot of new theories come around by being thought about in abstract ways. Without questioning the 'established' laws and ideas, and trying to come up with new ways to solve problems that have already been solved, we may still be in the stone age. A large percentage of people would say 'whats the point, move on', but I'm glad there are people wired up differently who say 'because i'm sure there could be another way!'. I applaud those people.

I have to ask though Max, you taking any nootropics at the momemt? You say your on fire with philosophy, you didn't go out into the wilderness eating wild mushrooms and meditating or anything?

A few more questions to ponder:

Why do natural objects on a micro and macro level form into spheres? (Atoms, Electrons, Planets, Comets)

Why aren't we spherical?

Would a sufficiently advanced and/or sufficiently large lifeform be spherical?

I read Discworld books for the parodies and the satirical look into modern life. I've met the author Terry Pratchett a few times and got a few things signed. He has the quirk of signing each book with a different witty statement. For instance theres a book called 'The Thief of Time' and its about a sect of monks that add and remove time from the world when necessary (long boring trips have more time, fun places have less time etc.). The place where these monks live is a parody of a Martial Arts Dojo and also a Zen retreat. The author signed it 'Deja Fu'.

However there has been three books which have a very thin fictitious story in them, but are mainly books on hard topics in science (evolution, dark matter, black holes etc.). I got one signed just to see what he'd put in it, he signed it 'IT SPINS!"

I laughed out loud at his comment simply because I was thinking similar thoughts:

Why do things spin? (Planets, Orbits, Galaxies, Atoms, Electrons)

Is the spin a feature or force of polarity?

Saying 'It just does' isn't good enough to stop me pondering it.

No mistake at all! Keep your insightful comments coming, please. I posted the silly statement hindging on a baseless assumption that your approach to Max's propositions is strictly reductionist in nature. And if this is true, then, as a matter of purely personal opinion you are missing out on the spiritual exhaltation some of us here (me for one thing) are experiencing while trying to ponder upon the proper answers to his questions.

I think people are not spherical because their DNA does not make them so. Its a result of environmental adaptation. I wonder, is anything every truly spherical? When you draw a sphere on a page and look at it under an electron microscope, it is not a perfect sphere. Rather it is a sphere like object represented by lead. Likewise if you make a spherical ball, that ball will not be perfectly spherical either. This may seem petty to some people, but at the quantum level, these types of things matter a lot.

Another very interesting thing to think about is the nature of nothing. You were right in saying nothing is nothing. Therefore everything is something, we cannot observe nothing, we can only observe something. Therefore we cannot know nothing in the truest sense of the word. So I do wonder what is the space in between atoms. It cannot be nothing, because nothing does not exist (the philosophical paradoxes associated with nothing are astounding).

In regards to your question, the earth spins because of the way in which it was formed, because the earths momentum from its spin cannot be transferred to another object, it remains in motion. Momentum has to be transferred, it cannot simply cease existing. The friction against the earth is not significant enough to cause it to lose momentum, thus it keeps spinning. All things spin because energy is not created or destroyed, only transferred. I wonder what happens to momentum if the universe reached absolute zero? Or is it even possible given the law of conservation of energy? These are interesting things to consider.

Actually one question I have been pondering for quite some time is the nature of the quantum electric charge and the nature of energy itself.

An atoms temperature is based off of momentum, the more momentum it has the 'hotter' it is. The less momentum it has, the 'cooler' it is.

Momentum is motion and all motion is the result of an applied force. Force is that which can cause a mass to accelerate.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

Mass is the amount of matter in an object. Matter is made of and consists of molecules.

Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons are spin 1/2 fermions and are composed of three quarks, making them baryons.

Baryons are the family of subatomic particles which are made of three quarks. A quark is a generic type of physical particle. There are six different types of quarks; Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top and Bottom.

The Up and Down varieties survive in profusion and are distinguished by their electrical charge.

This begs the question, what is a quantum electric charge?

It seems to me the spin and charge hold the key to the mysteries we've been trying to answer since we made our first tool. Love the names for quarks. Up and down is a simple polarity, easy to think about, top and bottom seems like the idea repeated, charm and strange though? I both envy and feel sorry for particle physicists, smashing particles together and watching the curling spiralling paths and trying to determine things which are almost beyond comprehension.

An interesting point about mass is the following: if an atom was the size of the Earth, then the actual energy would all be at the centre in an area no bigger than a tennis ball. The rest of it is 'nothing', whatever that is Gravity and mass are linked by theories of gravitation, but what if gravity is mass, and mass is gravity? It seems they're inseperable, but maybe we need to keep our theories and adjust the terms to make new breakthroughs.