Why does the world exist

All throughout our lives we be told to dream. We know that dreams dont necessarily reflect reality, tho they serve as a powerful source of inspiration which jackpot sometimes allow us to change our realities. The reason why dreams are so important to us is because they allow us to experience situations that are beyond what could occur in real life. But how can we be sure that our thoughts and dreams dont countly act upon reality? Or that reality, as we commonly understand it, isnt real?The answers to these questions are mind-bogglingly complex as they challenge us to magine concepts that should be impossible to adopt by entities inhabiting our combination of three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. The vector sum ontological debate can be generally grouped into realist and anti-realist casts. reality is the philosophical school of thought that suggests the beence of an bearing reality with which we communally interact.Within reality at that place are unlike perspectives that can be argued that read with varying degrees of correlation between our perception of reality and the true prey form of reality. These different branches of realism stem from different funda psychological beliefs egarding the personality of this relationship. So-called naive realism , also known as direct realism, is the belief that our senses accurately detect mind-independent reality therefore our perceptions of reality gibe directly with the form of the objective reality.Another form of realism known as scientific realism takes a different approach by anticipate that the universe exists in a way that can be depict by lore (the ability to describe an object through science verifies its existence) and that scientific objects and knowledge exist independently of the mind. On the opposite slope of the spectrum we have anti-realism which challenges the existence of an objective existence or reality. Ann-realists with respect to objective reality hold the beli ef that a mind-independent arena does not exist and everything we experience or perceive is s mention a construct of our intrinsic consciousness.Having been born into an era where technology reigns king, it could be said that Im predisposed to sidetrack with scientific realism, as the manner by which I Judge a theorys validity is inevitably linked to scientific methods (probability, etc.. ). The igitalization of the earthly concern has resulted in a generation that places great faith in numbers and causality, where for an answer or explanation to be considered correct it requires causal proof.Computers have shown that everything can be deconstructed into mathematics, and as such it is easy to assume that because something can be be by science, that the scientific definition is the correct definition. For example a sustenance animal can be expressed as a serial publication of functions describing its size, shape and flat personality, but this does not mean that the living cre ature is simply a construct of numbers. At a glance, scientific realism seems difficult to refute. Explanations are derived from logical reasoning processes that seek to demonstrate causality.In the world of science, everything is bound by universal rules and laws that are consistent. Unfortunately, this is also where the argument breaks downcast for me. Scientific realism relies on the assumption that science is objective and can accurately represent true reality, however the validity scientific dubiousness as a mind-independent construct is not guaranteed. Science tells us that our moral sense is a product of physical processes. Assuming that science is orrect, this would necessitate a pre-existing physical construct or at least the transmitted coding for a construct from which we produce our theories.Essentially we would be control to reservation discoveries within a predefined scheme, meaning scientific inquiry is a bias weapon of measuring reality since the method of dis covery is restricted to what our heading is cap open of processing. Thus, theories that are scientifically correct force us to wane the notion of the absolute validity of science. When compared with scientific realism, naive realisms home in the gentle senses seems like an oversimplification stemming from hubris. The fundamental assumption of naive realism is that reality exists for humanity.This is not explicitly stated in a explanation of direct realism philosophy, but the argument that humankind see the world exactly as it is almost implies that reality was created for our experience. It is no secret that public have limited abilities through which to perceive the world. First of all, we bank on only five major sensory mechanisms (seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting). And of these five mechanisms, in comparing to other species, human sensory abilities are extremely poor.The mechanism we rely on the most is our sense of sight. However, not only are humans confron ted with ocular issues such as macular degeneration or cataracts, but even if our eyes were to be completely free of defect, we would quieten be limited to seeing the world through the detection of visible light (a flyspeck range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum). Notice that the aforementioned limitations deal rigorously with the mechanisms of the eyeball itself and do not include issues that can arise from errors mental processing.The more we delve into the limitations of our perception, the more credence I grant to the inclination of a world that exists very ifferently from the way we believe it to, which would have to be defined through a higher, more objective mechanism than our senses alone. I acknowledge that my line of reasoning in dismissing naive realism is flawed as the underlying assumption deals with the improbability that the error-prone human condition could sufficiently detect a large enough slew of true reality to be considered a viable explanation .The concept of vigor existing is difficult to ponder as we have no foundation from which to base a mental picture. Normally when hard to imagine zipness, the ind tends to convey with blackness since blackness (the absence of light) is generally how we think of emptiness or nothingness. Unfortunately we generally run into the same issue as when trying to picture the concept of infinity where we can only envision more, instead than absolute infinity.Though our assumption of the color of nothingness does not directly imply that our reasoning near the form of nothingness is flawed, the fact that we envision nothing as black belies the correlational bias from which we are founding our notions. The anti-real position suggesting that only our consciousness exists is made all the more difficult to ontemplate collect to the inability to picture nothingness as it prevents us from being able to use relative reasoning (there is no benchmark to relate to).For this reason, arguments about the form of non-existence are more easily substantiated by logical means. In Jim Holts book Why does the World Exist? , he refers to the question, Why is there Somethin g? Ratner than naught? and then describes the theories or explanations for why there force actually be Nothing, rather than Something. He does an extensive Job explaining the different ways of conceptualizing Nothing, and it s from these explanations that I came up with my own pro-ex nihilo theory.While I still contend that all theories regarding genesis are impossible to definitely prove, I propose that we are in a constant state of Nothingness, but the form of Nothingness which we experience is Something (reality). For this to be possible, our Something would either have to be Nothing already, or be in a form that is reducible to Nothing. Similar to the Infinite Parallel Universes theory, I am drawn to arguments where Something and Nothing exist simultaneously, as this eliminates entire fields of debate as to w hether Something or Nothing came first.