Why is there something rather than nothing?

First: yes, there is something. I will not dispute that. How could there not be something? Even Descartes didn't dispute that when he showed with his Second Meditation that the only thing to truly and indisputably exist is something doing the experiencing. Aka, you. So even if everything you experience is false, you yourself still exist, because something is doing the experiencing. But the question is, why?

Before we can even begin to answer such an amazing question, we must discuss the reality of how the universe works. As I see it, there are two possibilities. One, you exist and the entire universe that you exists in will continue to exist even if you are not there to perceive it. Or, two, you exist, purely subjectively, and the idea that things exist outside your experience of them is a false assumption. It's the classic "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest with no one around, does it make a sound?" question.

Possibility One - The Universe Exists in Independence

The tree will still make a sound as it falls even if you are not around to hear it. This seems to be the more intuitive (and, quite frankly, less egotistical) idea. Things happen and events take place outside your realm of observation. How accurate your observations are (as they are perceived through fallible senses) is up for debate. But the main point is that things happen that are beyond you perception, and their effects slowly reach you over time, rather than random effects being generated by our senses, and interpreted by us as cause and effect. 

This way supports that things exists. Not only is there an experiencer existing, but also something being experienced.

Possibility Two - You and Only You Exist

Even proving you exist as you think you exist can be tricky at best, impossible at worst. However, it is indisputable that something exists because there is something to be doing the experiencing. Now, if we say that just you exist and nothing else exists as you experience it, then how are you experiencing anything? Well, remember how there is an epistemic horizon disallowing you from really seeing how your "consciousness" works, and creating the illusion of "free" will? There are actually two epistemic horizons. One, as previously mentioned, is the subconscious horizon. The second is the horizon of your senses, or your sensory horizon. The sensory horizon hides how and what we are actually perceiving, and the subconscious horizon hides how we are actually processing this information. This unfortunately leaves us with a quite a narrow band of "conscious" thought. So, you are still experiencing things, but they are through your senses, and your senses lay beyond your sensory horizon. This means that for all you know, sensory input is another part of you, just on a superconscious level. You are quite literally dreaming.

All of this does explain how you can exist and nothing as you experience it does, but it does not quite answer the question of why. We'll get to that, Alice. First we must continue down the rabbit hole.

Either way, things exists, so why does it matter? Well, each view changes it's reciprocal; that is, nothing. And is there a way to prove or disprove either one? Well, there are two ways to do this, and they both involve disproving Possibility Two: you either have to experience something that could not, at all, have been produced by your superconscious (and therefore go completely and utterly insane), or you could die. Seeing as how our options are limited, let us simply explore both venues. 

If Possibility One (the universe exists in independence) is true, then let us apply Superstring Theory to this idea. Superstring Theory ends in the tenth dimension (that is, Everything, capital E), and never explains an eleventh. However, if we apply Possibility One's nothing to this eleventh dimension, then the eleventh dimension becomes a curve of probability between Everything and Nothing. Obviously, we fall on the Everything side because we can do the experiencing. Nothing can't fall on Nothing, because if it did, it would be Nothing, and therefore not exist. So this true Nothing exists, but doesn't exist, because there is nothing ever to say that it does exist. That is why it has us so befuddled, because even nothing is something, and is therefore not nothing. Because this 11th dimension Nothing exists but can't, automatically, we exist. Voila.

However, if we entertain Possibility Two, there are still questions. If only we exist, then that means Nothing outside of us exists. But Nothing can't exist, so we exist as everything, everywhere. Then why are we reduced to such small visceral states? Whys do we seem bounded when we must be boundless? Ah, it is the nature of Everything. Everything seems boundless, but it is a trick of infinity. We are infinitely complex, but not infinitely big. This means that the Nothing exists only as a counterpart to how we are complex, rather that large. We exist as we do because you fell that way on the curve of probability that extends between Everything and Nothing. You can exist in differing states between Everything and Nothing because of the way you are infinitely complex, and you infinite complexity allows for such a limbo to occur. 

To sum up, while I cannot yet give an answer as to which is right, One or Two, I can tell you, in short: we exist because Nothing does exist, but can't. We are the default. Or rather, I am. There is no proof that you exist. Nothing you could present to me to prove that you are actually presenting it to me. Alas, that is the curse of existing. Because we are not Nothing, we must be Everything. 

How The Sky Could Actually Be Not Blue

People will often ask the question "What color is the sky?", or "Is the sky blue?", usually with verbal irony to point out that something is obvious or indisputable. But really, now. This conclusion that the sky is blue is really based off two assumptions, and where there are assumptions, there can be mistakes. So let us, truly, examine the question: "Is the sky blue?", beginning with two assumptions.

First: color is an inherent property in things, and is not just perceived by an observer of these objects. But honestly, who is to say that color is something that is inherent in the universe. How could you convince someone that color is real, and not simply something your brain adds to the world to try to make sense of the reality in which it exists? Or is color really a property of something, because two people can look at two things of the same color and match them together consistently? Well, the truth (as usual) probably lies somewhere in the middle. The difference between whether something is inherent or perceived depends on whether or not the property is quantifiable. For example, thermal energy is something inherent in an object, but whether is is hot or cold is subjective, and therefore, perceived. Applying this to color, color itself can be said to be inherent. You can measure the wavelength of light, and since this is what gives light "color", then it is quantifiable. But the instant we say something is "green", or "dark" or even "bright red", we switch to color being perceived. This is because there is no way to measure "greenness" or how bright a color appears. In summary: color (or rather, wavelengths of light) is technically an inherent quality; but it's experienced subjectively, and is therefore (to people) actually a perceived quality.

Second: people have no way of knowing that the color they perceive as "blue" is the same blue for other people. This is the real crux of the matter. Since color is actually perceived, and subjective, there is no way to know that your mother didn't see the sky in a color you would call "green" or "brown", while you see it in a color she would call "orange". Your mother taught you the color of the sky is "blue". However, there is no way to teach you what the actual color blue really looks like, because it is impossible to try to prove that you two are experiencing the color in exactly the same way.

So between color being a subjective property and the uncertainty of how it is perceived, the sky could (in theory) be not blue to you compared to anyone else's "blue". One could argue that because we both give the name to that perceived color "blue", it is as good as the same, because we both think  of it as blue. But the name and the color are two completely separate entities. So yes, the sky is "blue" (according to you), but in reality, it may not actually be blue (according to everyone else). It could be red. They key word here is could. So the next time you think "The sky is blue.", now you know to doubt even that axiom of your existence.

On The Existence of Free Will

It seems all a great mystery, whether or not we are truly free. Authors have written narratives centered around the idea of free will since fiction became a popular pastime. It's a great theological debate on whether or not we are truly free to make our own decisions or not. It certainly seems that way at times. After all, people should be accountable for their actions. One should't be allowed to escape from consequences simply because they can claim that they are not free to do as they choose. But how can one factor the idea of free will into a causal and scientific universe? These conflicting ideas seem to create two distinct camps with opposite views. A dichotomy, if you will. But dichotomies are almost always wrong.

However, let us examine the two sides of the story first. In the first place, the idea of free will existing. It almost seems it must. You can choose whether or not to move your left index finger now, or the next second, or not all. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, how can people be held accountable for their actions without the idea of their having made their own decisions that allowed them to commit an act that was against a set of laws? If one factors out the idea of free will, many questions open up, whose iterations never seem to end, as is what happens when someone tries to answer a subjective question objectively. So the answer to this subjective question must be subjective as well, hence free will must exist to some extent. Not to mention that the causal model of the universe entirely ignores superstring theory of branching time, and quantum probability. To try to eliminate this idea opens up a whole untangle-able can of worms.

Next, free will not existing. How can free will exist in our causal and physical existence? If we allow the idea of free will separate from external influences, aka, free from causal interference like everything else, then the only thing else it can be is random. A random influence upon our "consciousness"? The idea isn't free will, yet how can something be free and non-causal, yet not random? The idea causes cognitive dissonance because it's impossible. Yes, there is probability, and time branches, but these are not caused by free will, but by the probabilistic nature of the universe. No free will involved.

So, who is right?

Well, it's presented as a dichotomy, so let's step back and allow for the idea that neither are 100% correct. First, let's do this by realizing that there is a difference between free will and just plain will. Second, that even in the causal model of the universe, you still have to deal with your epistemic horizon, that is, you can only know so much about yourself and what makes you do what. Third, quantum probability does factor in to allow for superstring theory, but only over a broad spread.

Here is the solution as I see it: free will itself is an illusion, but will, the intent, is entirely different and real. The epistemic horizon allows for the complete illusion of free will. So you are predictable, and not technically free of causal relationships. But only over a short period of time, and by that, I mean, a subjective estimate of how someone will immediately react (so long you have enough information about said person and the stimuli they will receive) (also emphasis on estimate). The quantum probability and time branching means that the future is not deterministic. Everything is still probabilistic, but there are simply things that are more likely to happen that others. So there isn't free will, but the future is still random. It's just not up to your decisions on how things pan out in your reality.

To sum up: no. There isn't such a free will. It's an illusion caused by being human. But we should continue to pretend for ethical reasons, the fact that the future is still probable, will still exists, and I am not one to advocate anarchy.

On Solutions to the Subjective Panacea

There are certain questions that puzzle people, mostly because the seem to have no real answer. For example, the paradox of the Ship of Theseus (also known as the "George Washington Axe" puzzle):

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."
        —Plutarch, Theseus

The basic idea is that you have a ship, and each day you replace one plank of wood until you have replaced all of the ship. Is it the same ship? What if you where to take all the cast-away pieces and put them back together? Which is the original ship? You could say that one, or the other (or neither, for that matter) is the original. However, there is no real answer, except for the idea of it being different for each person because each person has a different perspective, hence a difference opinion. AKA, a subjective solution. Another example where this fits is on "what makes someone human", which can also be solved subjectively.

So the question that remains is; what is the solution to subjective problems? Because by allowing ourselves to answer questions in the manner of "oh, no, we couldn't possibly answer that, it's based off too much empirical data" is not actually answering the problem, it's merely categorizing the question under the heading of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer." So how does one actually answer these questions?

Well, because we are compelled so heavily to answer those questions with the panacea of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer," it seems almost pointless for one to try to answer the question in any deterministic and purely logical way. The problem is our epistemic horizon; that is, our ability as pragmatic beings to fully comprehend every single minutiae of our existence. Let's face it, no one can fully grasp all the inputs their brains receive that lead them to make a decision (this actually has bearing on the question of free will, but that's a story for another time). In any case, the fact remains that we do not have a high enough or specialized enough "consciousness" to answer the question towards the problem of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer" (which bears upon our own consciousness to begin with, hence the difficulty).

In conclusion, we cannot answer the question of subjective answers, and the idea of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer" will just have to sate us until someone or something with a varied and elevated position will allow us an answer. But will we understand, or even recognize, the answer when presented to us? I do not know. We shall see.

On Origins of Fate

Why is it that people find it so compelling, the idea of a god (or gods)? The existence of divinity manifest? How come it permeates every culture, this idea that there is an ulterior, supernatural force guiding even the smallest facets of mundane existence? Casting aside the idea of needing an explanation for the beginning of creation or a "holy purpose for life", and focusing on how people can reaffirm faith in routine divine intervention, we can begin to answer the question.

It seems to me, that the thing that motivates this belief is the faith in the fact that everything happens for a purpose. Faith in the fact that someone is doing all this consciously deliberately for an eventually better and brighter future. This is not a necessarily negative or detrimental belief, for, as Karl Marx once wrote; "Religion is the opiate of the people." And sometimes the people need to opiated, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that the prolific idea in question is that of Fate. Everything happens for a reason. Now, depending on your theological standing, you may or may not agree with this. However, you cannot deny that the idea of "destiny" and, by extent, divine influence, is indeed prolific. To understand why it is so prolific, we must look at the common factor. Ah, and what is this factor?

Here, it is the idea of an ending. Stories where, in the end, all the strings are gathered neatly together, and the conclusion is definite. Anyone not born yesterday realizes that is not the case in the real world, but allow me to explain. The idea of an ending, of the natural progression of a story, is perpetuated by us looking at past events and seeing how "everything tied together to allow this moment". To an extent this is true, but the belief that your moment is special because of it's existence is erroneous. In any case, there is a reason that all modern "major" religious belief systems are based off scripture, aka, a giant compilation of stories. And even those religions not fortunate to make the top 5 list, still have a set of tales and anecdotes that pass from generation to generation, allowing for the idea of a story to continue to flourish.

The reason for this is that a when you tell a story (or recall any series of events, for that matter), you automatically implement the basic structure of a story; a begging, middle, and end. To do otherwise is simply rambling through a string of events, and theatrically speaking, it would be quite dry. When you relate anything, you automatically arrange your story into a beginning, middle, and end, to make it more tellable and easier to remember. And so this idea of an ending perpetuating everything from divine scripture to how you when about your daily chores allows the complete propagation of endings (and subsequently, Fate) in our lives. So while it may be simpler to accept the easy answer, to allow ourselves to believe in fate simply because it would be easy to, one must realize that the ease of accepting that viewpoint in life is an illusion created by psychology.