
Ask HN: Why Does the World Exist? - photon_lines
So, most modern people fall into the 2 below categories:<p>1. The religious framework: an eternal god exists  and he&#x2F;she creates the reality we see around us.
2. We are an accident created by the wave function of the universe (Stephen Hawking and other scientific viewpoints).<p>Who here believes in something else, and if so, what do you believe in?
======
keiferski
This is an issue upon which thousands of philosophers and religious figures
have written about over the past 3,000+ years. To answer your questions, I'd
first start by realizing the possible answers are vastly more complicated than
your two options. I suggest a deep study plan of the history of religion and
philosophy, including all world traditions (Chinese, Japanese, Indian
subcontinent, Islamic, Christian, Western, and so on.)

Personally, I am drawn, in unequal parts, to Wittgenstein/the inherent limits
of language, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer's concept of the will, mysticism, and
Indian (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain) concepts of the universe. If I tried to answer
your question briefly (but again, I don't think it's nearly that simple), I'd
say something like: concepts like "exist", "created" and "god" are all wrapped
up in language and a human perspective. Logic and mathematics are patterns
viewed through human observation, not things-in-themselves. The idea that the
universe is explainable via the extremely limited tool of empirical science
seems hopelessly naive to me.

~~~
photon_lines
Perfect. Love your answer and this is exactly what I was looking for :)

------
mbrock
It seems quite likely that we live within a hierarchy of simulations. That
means the physics we observe don’t need to be ultimate; they might be whatever
the simulators wished them to be.

Maybe some outer layer of simulation involves no technological civilization
with intentionality but is just some massive computational process in a
dynamic substrate that we can’t imagine.

If time is a feature specific to our simulation then maybe causality itself is
kind of like a Kantian category and not a property of the real base universe.
So maybe “why” questions only apply locally.

It does seem sensible to assume metaphysically that our observed world of
causality somehow supervenes on some structure or energy that transcends
causality, some kind of God or higher reality, even if it is a “god of the
gaps.” We would be a part of this God’s “creative exploration” or something.

~~~
muzani
My belief is more that God is omnipotent and most benevolent.

In his benevolence, he has the power to create near infinite multiverses, with
a universe branching whenever each of us makes a moral decisoon. God gives us
consciousness in the one where we are at our best behavior. Maybe in an
alternate universe, I become an asshole billionaire, or marry someone who
drives me astray. Maybe in a parallel universe, a close relative commits
suicide and inspires me to join them. This world that I'm in is the best world
for me, but could be a bad world for someone who has recently committed
suicide in my conscious world.

It's not too far fetched. I got the idea while building some procedural plot
generators. The characters have their free will and diverging paths, but it
only picks the paths that were predestined for a reason.

~~~
photon_lines
What if God were part of the system itself though? Wouldn't that be a case
worth considering? From my perspective: if you were to ask God what created
him/her/it, I would think that there would be some sort of answer. Or sorry,
when I say 'create' \- I really mean having a casual mechanism without having
to invoke an ever lasting presence.

Your take on having parallel universes is also interesting: I believe that
there definitely are parallel worlds (this is where we extend into the 5th
dimension) - so we may have a very deep call stack!

'I got the idea while building some procedural plot generators. The characters
have their free will and diverging paths, but it only picks the paths that
were predestined for a reason.'

Wow - interesting! Now we're diving into 'free will.' So, the characters which
you programmed - would you say that they have a will? Or did you program them
to pick those paths? You can almost say that it's self emergent system?

~~~
muzani
I don't think it matters whether or not God is part of the system. It's a
layer of abstraction that we can't act on and doesn't affect anything.

"So, the characters which you programmed - would you say that they have a
will? Or did you program them to pick those paths? You can almost say that
it's self emergent system?"

I worked on a little system that generates plots. Plots follow a certain flow
- a beginning, an ending, an intro phase, 'centerpiece spectacular', and
climax.

There are patterns - some are solo, some are groups of two or three or up to
five. Characters are generated with backstories that fit these patterns, e.g.
someone solo might grow up in an environment where everyone else is
incompetent.

There are patterns for plots. A comedy might have a giant misunderstanding
between two parties. A monster story has a person built up to be a near
undefeatable monster. Monsters are common plot themes in religion, from
Pharaoh to Goliath.

The characters can develop personalities based on what they have, e.g. a
character may go through a traumatic event, which could make them cynical,
wiser, or more determined. While these odds are weighted, it's still sort of
their "free will".

The system then searches for a path that matches. If it doesn't match, it
rolls different characters or different character decisions. The first path
that matches these conditions is chosen.

I can't really say whether I programmed them to pick these paths, but in a
way, they pick paths that fit the story as it would be told.

I imagine there are a mix of good souls, evil souls, and everything in
between. These souls have all been assigned to their respective roles. Things
that are wholly nature not nurture are a part of our souls - willfulness,
arrogance, ambition, pride, and so on. The rest are a part of our paths
(nurture), even things like self-restraint and lust.

~~~
photon_lines
Very interesting! Thanks for the info and indeed - I can sort of see why you
have the viewpoints that you do, so thank you for sharing :)

------
photon_lines
By the way: this wasn't meant to be offensive or a discussion on other
beliefs. I'm trying to get a sense of how many people here think 'deeper.' In
the god framework, you eliminate causality, since you put attribution to a God
who simply avoids all sense of creation and you avoid the sense of causality
since you transfer it to being created by this ever lasting presence and
he/she simply exists and creates all that is. The other side: In our current
scientific framework, we say that we have the mathematical laws, and since
they're really complicated, we say that we exist within a universe which
embodies all probability lines leading to us - including ones which coincide
with an accidental existence. I don't believe that either one of those are
true, so I'm trying to write a piece which shows what I think - but prior to
doing that, I'd like to get a sense from the HN crowd: what do you think?

~~~
new_guy
Those viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. Look at this for a recent example
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614325/open-ai-
algorithms...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614325/open-ai-algorithms-
learned-tool-use-and-cooperation-after-hide-and-seek-games/) AI showed
emergent behaviour.

The universe could be the same, 'God' set it all up and he/she has no idea
what's going to happen either.

~~~
photon_lines
OK - but you're still not getting the point: what created the program / AI?

------
chris5745
These questions are wonderful to ponder.

I view the will of God as the “why” and the physical laws of nature as the
“how”. When people say “everything is connected” I interpret that to mean
while it’s true that physical causes and effects behave according to natural
law, the will for a desired outcome is provided by a higher intelligence.

To answer your question, the universe exists because God wills it to exist.

While we’re on the subject, many believe in a hierarchy of supernatural
intelligences (e.g. angels and demons). A scientific explanation for this
hierarchy may be living beings that occupy dimensions other than our own (e.g.
“higher” dimensions that operate on “lower” dimensions).

See, e.g., [https://m.phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-
dimensions.html](https://m.phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html)

~~~
photon_lines
Sorry, but your answer still assumes the existence of a super-natural being
(aka God) who doesn't have a causal mechanism. So - if you were to ask God,
what is the reason for his existence, or the mechanism for it, what would you
ponder the answer would be? Also: Einstein didn't 'ponder' the existence of
the 4th dimension - he proved that it exists in a manner in which it was
counter intuitive to what we thought it was. There is no 'static' concept of
time - it's a relative concept, so the computational mechanics that's being
used to create the universe doesn't have a 'highly parallel' processor that
Newton thought it had. And from experience: the universe we live in definitely
has more than 5 dimensions (there are parallel branches which don't mimic
ours). My big questions to you is: what mechanism created God? How do you
explain Him?

~~~
chris5745
I do not know.

~~~
photon_lines
Perfect! Neither do I. Now, let's sit down and try to program the laws
ourselves :)

~~~
chris5745
I like your probing. I think it is going to take a variety of viewpoints for
you to begin to arrive where you want to be. Which is great - it’s a path as
good as any. Some are born and are told and are happy with that. Others
question, and may end up somewhere entirely different from where they thought
they were going...nonetheless becoming who and where they need to be. I fall
into the second camp.

My view is only one viewpoint, and it is like a little painting I’m working on
as I progress through life. I’ve shown a part of it to you, and it has some
elements that may be imperfect. I think no matter what I do, there will always
be those axioms and initial conditions which you (or I, or anyone) can
question. When will the painting be finished? When it is perfect, or when it
is beautiful? It may never be finished by me or anyone in this life. But we’re
working on it. I think that’s saying something for us and life in general.

You’re ambitious, which is great. You’re respectful, even greater. I do,
however, believe it is beyond my individual right and ability to attempt to
provide an explanation for God, such as the causality of God’s existence. I do
not know if such a thing can even be known, at least in the sense you seem to
seek.

I feel God in my life, as real as the sun, grass, and breeze, but this feeling
is always just beyond my complete and total understanding.

Honestly, I think love is the answer. I also think more will be revealed, my
friend.

~~~
photon_lines
Thanks for the kind and insightful words my friend - and yes, I think that
your viewpoint is great. You've got to enjoy life - either way or whichever
truth comes forward I think will always have an incredible element of beauty
in it, so the only thing that really matters is enjoying the process and doing
the things we love to do. Thanks again for the feedback and all the best to
you :)

------
murm
From my experiences with psychedelics and ketamine I have come to the
conclusion that the answer to this question is probably too profound and weird
for the current human brain to grasp (if there even is an answer). So I try
not to think about this too much and just focus on struggling through my life.

~~~
photon_lines
I'm sorry to see that you're struggling my friend. I'd love to help you, so if
you ever need anything, feel free to give me more info on how I can reach you
and I'd love to get a chance to give you my take on life and try to help you
out...the fact that anything exists is amazing. Whenever I look at the world,
I think: wow. Why does anything exist at all? Why is matter, time, or even a
creator necessary? If you ask yourself this question, you'll find that you're
worries will melt away. Some other tips which I think will definitely help you
from my perspective: 1. Eat healthy (mostly plants and less meat) 2. Exercise
3. Keep in touch and meet great people who you love and 4. Have a meaning in
your life: strive to accomplish something which gives you meaning. I'm hoping
this helps? If anything, I'd love to have more of a chat with you and get to
know much more about you, so let's stay in touch :) Also, I love your
feedback!!!

~~~
murm
Thanks for your reply, but I meant struggle in a positive sense :) Life is
certainly not easy, and I think contending with its difficulty is what gives
its meaning.

~~~
photon_lines
I see!! Sorry, I might have read your comment as you saying that you're
struggling: In which case, I see that you definitely have the right attitude,
so I hope everything is OK :)

------
buboard
Because your brain likes questions and your brain thinks it exists. The world
neither exists or non-exists, it just is , and has allowed the evolution of
brains that ask invalid questions such as what is its origin and purpose.
Origin and purpose are useful concepts to avoid dying when an arrow comes from
an origin and aims to kill you. Our organic neural networks have a tendency to
apply these concepts to everything, that's sometimes vaguely useful, other
times it's just brain farts.

~~~
photon_lines
It does exist though. Our brains are information processing mechanisms which
have figured out some of the laws of the universe - and they continue to
question it. They do exist and reality does 'exist.' I suppose you're
questioning the validity of nature> If so - then yes, I would say it doesn't
really 'exist.' Mathematical fields are really what exists...but hey, who's
here to argue certainties! So what by your definition - or whom meets the
criteria of 'existing' then?

~~~
buboard
it could be that only our brain exists, maybe only mine , not even yours. or
not even that. mathematics and information and exustence are figments of the
brain too. Existence is only defined as opposed to non-existence. But yeah,
even though existence is indirect and subjective, it s OK to accept that it's
true, since its not consequential

I suppose that s not a fruitful way to think about it but neither is asking
questions about reason and purpose. Even if the universe has both of them,
they are just 2 arbitrary points with a trajectory across spacetime.

------
Gibbon1
Makes me think of this talk by Richard Feynman talking about magnets how do
they work.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA)

The take away is to answer a why question you need a framework to provide an
acceptable answer. Why the universe exists? We don't have possibility can't
contain such a framework.

~~~
photon_lines
Nice - I love Feynman! Actually, QED was the big reason why I got interested
in the question in the first place! I think that what he poses there is more
of: 'there's no way for me to explain to you what this field is - since I
can't formulate an analogy that you're familiar with, so I won't even try.' I
love Feynman's sense of curiosity: it was absolutely divine and he's a
personal hero of mine. One thing that I never understood about him though was
the fact that whenever someone would pose the question of existence or why the
laws exist, he would always shrug it off and say that he didn't understand and
that there was no point in trying to understand it. It is what it is - we do
the mathematics and take it as is. My take: I think that explaining it is
possible, and I think it's a question that's definitely worthy of trying to
answer. Even if we can't get there, the pursuit itself I would think would be
a worthy cause!!

------
raincom
What if the question itself is ill-posed? That's what Late Prof. Adolf
Grunbaum argued for:
[http://www.stafforini.com/existence/Grunbaum%20-%20Why%20is%...](http://www.stafforini.com/existence/Grunbaum%20-%20Why%20is%20there%20a%20world%20at%20all,%20rather%20than%20just%20nothing.pdf)

~~~
photon_lines
"Two widely read atheistic authors, Richard Dawkins (2006, p. 155) and Sam
Harris (2006, p. 73-74) have succumbed to the guiles of Leibniz’s PEQ by
countenancing it misguidedly as a searching question that rightly calls for an
explanatory answer. Thus, Dawkins allowed a “first cause, the great unknown
which is responsible for something existing rather than nothing” (ibid.). And
Harris capitulates to PEQ, declaring with very misplaced intellectual
humility: “Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know
why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance
on this point” [italics in original] (ibid. p. 74]. But surely the failure to
answer a pseudo-question does not bespeak ignorance on the part of scientists,
philosophers or even the man in the street. Thus, Dawkins and Harris very
misguidedly took PEQ as legitimate grounds for watering down their atheism."

I understand the sentiment of the paper, but it doesn't answer my question. Is
there a causal mechanism? If there is an intellectual being - what is its
cause? And if not - is there a cause for the cause?

Let me give you a bit more info on what I believe in: the universe has a self-
causal mechanism. We are all God, and intelligent life isn't an accident
created by the universe. It's an emergent and 'programmed' mechanism which
causes it to spring into existence. I'm hoping to see some other viewpoints
from the crowd here - so I do appreciate you're input, but it still doesn't
answer my question: what belief do you have which might be different from the
mainstream view? You seem to be leaning more towards what's already
there...what makes your viewpoint different?

~~~
perl4ever
I was thinking one day, that if you assume that in the beginning was a
consciousness, but nothing else, which for the sake of argument, we can call
God, then it could not create anything like our world (or the world of the
Bible) without inspiration. It couldn't even conceive of light or matter. It
would essentially be trapped in a void without time or space. So creating
infinite universes according to arbitrary and random rules and seeing what
would develop would be the best it could do to escape nothingness. And then
once something interesting developed, it would have to inhabit things (like
us) located in time and space to avoid it all being like a dead crystal or
painting.

I would speculate that the original state of things was hell, and the universe
exists as a mechanism to invent heaven and forget hell, but it's inordinately
difficult.

~~~
photon_lines
Ahhh - very interesting take!! But I see that your viewpoint essentially
states: consciousness is ever-lasting and it is the 'base.' There is no
consistency nor wonder in it: it just existed and created an infinite branch -
one in which we exist. Very interesting idea, and one which I see is a mixture
of having a creator and both having a 'wave function' trying out all paths -
but nonetheless, how do you get rid of the inconsistency of having something
there that doesn't have a logical base? Or maybe - we don't need a logical
base - some things just are I suppose?

------
0_gravitas
im mostly party to the 2nd option i believe, but i also see a lot of logic and
sense in the simulation argument (which i consider pretty different from the
religious one)

~~~
photon_lines
Interesting. What do you ponder created the laws then? Or is it self-emergent?
I'm not sure how to process your answer...

~~~
0_gravitas
A lot have explained it better than I possibly could, but I will try to give a
brief description as to why I don't perceive it as an entirely outlandish
idea.

Two possibilities exist:

1\. We are in the "true reality", the Real.

2\. We are not, and we are simply part of a simulation of reality.

Consider the following:

1\. We as humans have been creating simulations for some time now, with
increasing levels of sophistication overtime.

2\. As technical ability increases, our ability to create more sophisticated
simulations also increases.

3\. As our ability to create more sophisticated simulations increases, we get
closer and closer to being able to produce a simulation that can mirror how
physics itself works in what we understand as our "reality".

4\. All things are a result of physics- from fire, to life itself as we know
it.

5\. Therefore, from the ability to simulate physics, we should eventually be
able to have those physics interact in such a way that they would produce a
simulated version of what we understand as "life".

6\. As the sophistication of our technology increases, and the resources we
are able to utilize increases, we can create larger and larger forms of these
simulations, eventually reaching to a scale that we might consider "universe-
sized".

Assume the following:

0\. As time increases, technological ability and resource utilization of a
civilization increases.

1\. As a civilization acquires the technological ability to create a
simulation, they inevitably will, as it offers a powerful way of acquiring new
knowledge, and evaluating/exercising existing knowledge.

2\. So long as this civilization survives, they will continue creating and
using these simulations, to the extent of their technological ability at any
point in time.

3\. This civilization will eventually reach a point where they can simulate
the physics of their reality at scale.

4\. It will be in this civilization's interests to create as many of these
sophisticated simulations as is feasible.

5\. Suppose a question this civilization wishes to answer is possibly
something along the lines of: "What would things look like if the Big Bang
were to happen in a certain way?".

6\. Suppose the civilization attempts to answer questions like this one via
creating one or more simulations of a reality that they model to be as close
as possible -if not identical- to their very own.

Other relevant propositions:

1\. In the "true reality", existence must be infinite, as there should be
nothing that would create arbitrary limitations (we should have the assurance
that if we travel
10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^...
trillion km in one direction that we won't run into any "boundaries", no
"invisible walls"). Therefore, if we were to discover some phenomena that
might be described as an arbitrary limitation, it could be considered evidence
that we are _not_ in the "true reality".

2\. The Law of Infinite Probability _could_ be interpreted in such a way that
would imply that, in the "true reality", where existence is infinite, there
will inevitably be an infinite amount of civilizations that will advance to
the point where they can develop these sophisticated simulations. Therefore,
we can also then derive that there will be an infinite amount of these
simulations, and therefore there should also exist an inevitably infinite
amount of simulations that match identically to what we know of as our
"reality". (This is a whole other rabbit hole of stuff that I think is wildly
cool but requires a significant time investment itself to talk about in any
capacity.)

I think that if you buy into the above in any amount, the apparent chances of
us being a simulation vs not are impressive, and we just have to hope no one
trips over a power cord.

~~~
photon_lines
Ahhh very nice. Me and you have a very similar viewpoint! One note though:
you're still sort of creating the need for there to be a 'base' world creating
the simulation and trying out all possibilities to contain it ... My take is
very similar to yours, but my take on the 'simulation' idea is that the
concept of there being a 'real' or 'simulated' world doesn't matter. Even if
we're not in the 'base' simulation, we may be part of a universe which is
being simulated from another simulation, and which is also being invoked by
another simulation itself. In any case: all of these worlds are just as 'real'
as the base worlds - it would have to have a self-encompassing structure I
would think. Also - the concept of 'creation' is a tricky bit as well: the
universe in my viewpoint is never 'created.' All of space-time simply exists:
we perceive time as having a flow, but time itself doesn't have flow and this
is something that Einstein proved. The perceived 'flow' or perception of time
is a necessary part of the design though: you need it in order to 'create' the
beings which eventually go on to 'create' the creation or to have the system
reach self-consistency.

------
fuzzfactor
Because it has not been fully destroyed yet.

Sometimes it's good not to be modern.

