Official "Test" Manga
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
- Messages
- 214
My favorite part is when Naruto Ketchum uses the Dragon Balls to obtain the Death Note.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,166
better then solo leveling
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 41
Loffy finally obtains the One Piece
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,662
ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊ ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊๊
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
- Messages
- 1
This just connects on a deeper level. A whole other level of deep.
It just resonates with me, and to be honest, no piece of work and pure art has been as beautiful as this, it just means so much and has so much power. The words displayed are displayed with such cleanliness and beauty, it's remarkable. I do recommend you read this amazing manga.
10/10
It just resonates with me, and to be honest, no piece of work and pure art has been as beautiful as this, it just means so much and has so much power. The words displayed are displayed with such cleanliness and beauty, it's remarkable. I do recommend you read this amazing manga.
10/10
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 23
10/10
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2020
- Messages
- 5
where
- Joined
- May 1, 2019
- Messages
- 36
what
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2018
- Messages
- 35
who
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2020
- Messages
- 34
While I’m not a good critic, this is just spectacular in so many ways. This manga changed my life. I can never repay it with anything. I’ll give it a 10/10 because A̶̢̨̢̨̛̛̛͍͇̪̝̰͔̞̩̯̣̖͉̬̭̫͕͓̯͉͔̞̝̺͓̫̠͓̹͉͓̺͖̞̜̙͚͈͎̣͙̯̺̪̠̖͍̞͍̣̖̅́̊́̄̔̒̓́͋̍̿͑̏̌̒͗̅̋͊̇̒̉̈́̂͆͑͋̿͗̐̊͐̓͒̓̓̀̇̔̌̀̌͋̌͛̀̂̀̾͆̏͗͌͘̕̕̚̚͜͠͠͝͝͝ͅĄ̷̡̨̡̨̢̧̨̢̨̨̧̨̢̗͔͔͓̦̣͍̞̺̝̰͕͍͙̳̲̫̙̥̱̹̥̰̯̖͕̮̻̠̼͉̳̙̯̮̩̯̮͚͍͚̟͍̹̫͍͖͉̝̲͕̤͉͙̦̯̬̩̗͖̥̪͓̻͍̠͙̩̭͈̭̙͖͙̮̻͔̬͕͓̙̜̳̬̤͉͙̯͔͇͇͕̩̘͇͈͓͈͚̟̗̗̥̤͕̰̹̜͓͕̟͖̗͇̭̯̝̮̬͎̩̲͌́͐͊̇̀̉́͛͂͊͊̈́̈́͌̔͆͊̽̃͋̈́͘͘͜͝͠ͅͅͅͅȀ̸̡̨̢̛̛̛̛̛̗̪͙̖̙͔͈̮̭̪̻̯̖̘͖̣͎̖͕̟̲̙̪̞̖͕͉͉̟͍̣̤͔̥̞̫̞̦͙̝̹͍͖͉͙͖͎̮̜̖̳̤͕̱̞̳͇̥͍̠́̂̾͗͐̊͋́̋̌̇̅̈́̃̔͌̐̄̾͐̈͐͗́̽̽̋́́̀̇͆̈̀̌̑̓̀́͛̉͆͆͊̅͛͒̎̉̉̅̃̑͛͛͐̔̈́͌̋́̅̍̒́̇̒͗́͒́̿̄͊̌̀͑̀̍̽̌̊̌̉̾̔̈́̍́̊̃͐̎̑̾̈̉͐̈́͑͛̽͑̋̕̕͘̕͘̕͜͝͝͝͠͠͝͝͝͠ͅͅĄ̴̢̨̡̛̠̯͈͍̥͕̬̹͙̥͙̤̜̹͚̠͍͍͈͇͎͕̝͖̤̭̠͎̖̪̝͉̟͇̩͎͔͓̪̭̠͍̦̪̙̥͕͍͓̫͖̫̣̯͖͇̮͓̝̞̣̼̹̪͕̞͔͕̯̗̳͕͈̯̖͕͍̪̘͓͚͔͙̮̪̍͆̔͋̊͆͛̄̂̀̇͋̾̆̀̐̏͊͆͋̇̑̀̄̒̂̽̈́̊́̈̒͐̑̅̾̂̂̽̎̀̎̊̎̂̀͌̿͒̎͑̊͆̍̃̀͗̎̃̑̈̄̀̓͋͑̓̍̐̈͐̽̓̓͆̀̊̓͒̂͋̿̓̈́͆̏͐̌̌̾͌̎́͑́̕̕̕̚̕͘̕̕̚͘͜͜͜͜͝͠͠͠͝͝͝͝͠ͅĄ̴̢̢̢̡̨̧̧̨̧̡̧̧̨̡̨͓̰̳͍̩̻̠͚̦̞̟̞͙̘͉̭̩̘̙̝̯̼̱̩̙͍̳͓͔̩̯̼͕̩̲̞͕̲̥͙͙̖̦̝̯̘̟̙͇͕͕̜̻̘̣̟̩̥̳̳̫̯͍͔̠͔̫̝͈̜̺͈̹̟̠̖̿́̈́̈́͌͊̇̒̈́̑̒́̈͑̔͛̒͂̈́̒̒̕͜͜͜A̷̡̡̢̛̛̯̳̼̫̟̜̤̟̥͙̞͖͍̖̖̜͙̠͉͉̮͇̻̝̩̬͈̯̩̼̻͕̒̓̎͐́̆̈̅̄̈́͋̓̑́̊̏̓̅͛̏̔̆̆͛̋̌̀̈̊̃̈́̋̈́̈̉͂̋́̑̓̄̀̓͆̾̌̽̄̎̆̽̀̈́͒͆͊̂́͒̓̊̓̆̑̐͐̈́͒̈̄̕̚̕̚͘͜͝͠͠͝Å̵̧̢̧̡̢̡̨̢̛̛̻̼͖͍̹̙̪͕͈̦̳̟͕̤̬̣͎̣̝̪͚̰͚͈̜̗͓̬̰̻̭͕͚̩̮̭͈̹̟̻̜͕͚̖̠̩̈́̓͋̌̈́̓̏͗͊͊͑͂̐̂̐̾̉̋͑͋̋̇̅͌̊̅̇̑̀͑̈̏͆̈́͌̎̚̕͘̕̕̚͜͜͠͝͝͝͝ͅẢ̸̡̨̧̢̡̨̧̛̛̠̬̥̺͓͎̦̥͎͖̼̼̖̝̦̰͔̮̜̭͍͙̝̪̤̺̜̻̞͕̜͓̥͙̭̰͔̗̱͖̥̲̺̖̻̦̘̖͇͎͉̖̖̬̻̜̰͓̤̤̗̝̝̮̪̱͍͎͖͎̖̹͕̖̥͓̝̼̥͍̓̒͐̀̽̄̈́̄̿̾͗̀̉̀̈͒̌͐̎͒͐͋̃͗̾̓͌̅̑̍̿̉̇̉̎̓̌̿̈́͑̅͑̽͊̇̈̌̽̆́̍̋͂̔̋̽̀͐̈̈̅̿̀̐̓̑̑̓̎̂̀̉̅̆́̈̇̿̒͋̕̚̕̕͝͝͠͝͠͝͝͝ͅͅͅÀ̴̢̧̡̡̧̛̛̛̛̛̼̮̝̦̦̳̲͉̗̻͇̗̜̖̝̗̥̦̫̞͚̞̳̤̘͓̦͈̤͈̣͔̜͕̤̖̝̘̰̳͙̹̤̦̈̄̈́̌̾̑̀̏̄̃̓̓̐̾̎̂́̅̎́͑͊̑́̀͆͋̈́́͂̈́̾̽̄̽̀̅́͛͊͊̂̅͛̉̀̿͌̈́̋́̅̿́̓̊̓͋̔̿͌̀̿̀̾́̋̆̅̏̑̆̍̂̋̅́̍̓͋̄̌̂̈́̂̾́̿́͂̚̕͘̕̚͘͜͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝A̵̡̡̡̨̨̡̢̧̡̡̡̢̨̨̛̛̛̱͉̻͎͖̜̲̥͉̺͍̪̠͈̱̺̳͖̫̦̗̝̳͍͖̫̣̬͓̤͈̙͎̫̺̯̬̹͚̺͕̼̥̞̜͚̝̮̘̩̗̫͙̪̟̙̗̰̝̻͕̱̟̞͚̺̩͎̪̜͈̬̪͈̦̟̥̱̥̖̲̯̤̠̹͙̤͚̪̣̮͓͈̳̮͍̼͔̺͚̹̹̘̜̤̟͍̝̠̫͙̥̬͙̭̜̳̼͇̳͉̋̾̉̒̈̏̆͛̿̉̑́̀̀͂̆̅̊͐̈́͆̊͆̉̽̍̐̍̈́̉̋̋̏̅̐̅̉͆̍͋̈́́̒̐̈̎̈́͛̔̽̍̊̾́̆̾̂̓̂͐̊̾̓̓̒̃̊̆̄̐̆̅͊̂̔͑̽͋̿̈͛͑͊͊̋́̾͗͛͊͘̕͘͘̕̕̚͜͜͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅÀ̸̧̧̧̧̧̡̨̧̛͙̲͙̟̟̝͚̘̪̹͖̟̫̰̱͈̲͈͕̦͖͎͇̭̘̫̼̘͙͕̰̹̳͓̫͎̮͓̯͓̠̬͍̯̤͙͓͚̗̟̙̬̗̳̦͖̞͔̳̥͓̯̻̗̻̱̘͕̭̱͈̻̲̜̥͙̆̆͂̈͂́̌̓̒̈́̈́́͒̇̃̅̀͊͆͌̓͑͒̽̅̄̋̅͑̉͑̓̇͐̏̔͊̿̿̐͘̚̚̕̕͘͜͜͝͝͝ͅÀ̵̧̢̢̡̡̡̛̛̛͉̥͈̗͍͔̳͚̹͓͖͇̘͕͕͎̹̦͓̪̲͖̙̤̤̣̫̙͈̠͓̖͙̦̣̝̹̥̗̯̰̣͖̫̥͖̳͙̱͍̫͕͕̩̜̺̝̭̗̦̘̦̞̦̻̝̬͈̤͔͍͈̖̖͓̱̮̙̖̽̋͑̈́͗̓͐̓̇͑̈́̈͋̇͛͗́̓̐̄͐͊͋͒̆͗̈̍̐̈́͌͌̋̍̔̓̈́̄̉̾̾̇̊̽̾͋͆͆̓͋̃̓̉̌͐̓̉͂̅̔͌̆͛̋̂̓̇́́̓̔̃̎̍̈́́͂͌̒̓̄̋̃̾̈́̄̎̂̑͒̈͐͒̅̍̀̉͒̊̚̚͘͘̕̕͜͜͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅĄ̸̧̧̧̛̛̺̼̫̰͇̜̱͉͔̙͔̳̦̠͕͕̯̱̩̖̹̤̳̯̯͇̉͛̒͋̆̆̀͐͋̋͗̊̎̍̈́̓͊͋͛̾͑̍̔͆͋͋̂̿̓̉̀̂̇̎̿̌̈́̍̈́͋̐̇̿̇́̾́̿̐͊͆͌̾͆͘̚͘̚̚͘̕͜͠͝͝ͅͅA̸̧̛̛̛̤̖͉͎̠͂̅͛̀̈́͋͌̀̋̈̿̅̌̍̒̊̽̽͑͒̈́̐̿̈͌̿͆̅͌̈́̐̃͋̂́͂̇̍̃̿̑̐͊͑̅͋̃́̈̽̋̐̏̇̽̄̾͒́͋̀͌̿̏͂̂̐͊͐̓̓̇̇̏́̎͛͛̓̿̑͒̂͗̍̌͊̈́͌͑̇̍̂͒̆̅̈́̒͆͆̾̃̿͌̋͘̕͘̚͘̕̕̕̕͘͠͠͝͠͝͠͝͝͝Ḁ̵̢̡̡̛̛͇̙͈̳̻̹̝̦̰̟̙͔͓̳͇̣̱̼̖̯̪̺̠̰̮͕̈́̇͗͌̈́͐̒͐̒͋̐͂̀̐̅́̍̿̈́͑̍̌̓̍̐͛̄̿̒̆̉̍̇͒͌̉̍̾̑͘̚͘͠͝͠͝ͅA̴̧̧̡̨̡̧̢̢̢̛̛̛̹̜͙̥̰̼̤̤̺̹̞̣͍͔̰̫͖̜̼̮͓̘̪̠͖̼̠̰̠̬̱̪̣͔̻̠̫͎̩̝͚̙̮̜̫̤̭̥̥͔͇̦̗̳̰̠̗̰̥͙̭̘̪̟̻̺̗̯͎̳͈̖͙̥̣̘͎̖̰̣̮̼̗͖̮̫̲͎̱̫̻̯͍̲̻̩̠̳̯͓͈͈̘̱͍̳̗̹͗͛͛͌̆͒́̒̐̒̅́͊̈́̈́̾̈̄̓̈́̀̏̆̐̔̆́̈́͒̑̐̊̉̃̆̂̐͒̀͐̓̈̉̊͗͊̆͐͐̃͆́̈́̊̏̉͐͋̀̔̉̂͋͆̌̽̇͐̍̀̐͋͐́̃́̿́̇͒̎͂̇̇̋̊̾̐̈͑͗̂͑̒̇̓̎͑͗̆́̐̀̓͒̿̋̏̆̐͛́̆̄̔̀̓̀͒̂̅̍̈́͛͂̀͘͘̚̚̚͜͝͠͝͝͝͠͝ͅͅͅĄ̴̧̡̛̛̛̙̪̭͔̹̮̘̘̪͓̯̙̪̣͙̤͎̗̣͍͓̱̲͔̺̣͍̠͙̘͕͈̖̞̖̳̊͐̔̔̉̔̍̌͗̀͋̌̔̿͋͑̄̎̇̾͛́̇̂͆̓̅́̑̑̈́̂͛́͋̈́̌̆̇͋͌̽͊̏̔̿̓͌̈̀̊̇̈́̅͑̈̇̊͋̉̑̀̿̽̉͐̑̌̒̎͂̀͐́̀̊̋̔͋͊̎̋̊̽̂͌͗̊̃̽̆͌́̊͗̽̂͊͗̊͊̋̔̇̐́̎͐͂̃̾̑͆̈́͒̈́͒͒̅͑͋͑̔͑̋̈́̚͘̚̚̚͘̕̚̕͘͝͝͝͝͝͠͝͠͠͠ͅͅA̸̰̼̟̻̽̈́̊́̀͒͗̈́͑́̔̏͒͛͐̉̊͋̑̒̃͂͛͂̋̉̑́̐̉͊̎̂̄͂͗͒̂̾͂̅̓̅̌͆̀́́̆͑̓̽̌̇̑̒̈́̋̽̈́̈̈́͑̽̓̒̿̇͌͊̀̈́̒͊͌̈́̒́̈̓̊̐̔̂̈́̿̀̀̂̋̂̔͋̑͐͊̊̀͌̏̈͆̒̔̅̋̉̓̽̈́̕͘͘̚͘̕̚̕͘͠͝͝͠͝͠͠Â̶̢̨̨̡̡̢̡̢̡̨̛̛͉͓̘̜͈͎͓̙̤̗͎͎̹̟͔̰̯̱̭̤̘̗̣͙̖̫̝̬͍͇̻̺͙̺̞̟̼̗͓͇͉̝̲̠̤̯̫̮̻̬͓̥͚͔̹͎̯̺̞͔̝̞̠̺͍̻̼̻̥̤̮͓̞̟̥̲͇̗̜͚̰̌̅̃̏͆͊̇͑̿̓̈́̈́͌͂̏̇̈͛̋̊͂̔̑͛̽͗̃̒̓͗̽̒̈̏͊͑̇́̈̈́̅̈́̈́͑̌͌̓͂͒̇̀͂̈́̇̇̈̿́̀̉̊̋̉̃̿̎͐̿̋̆́̉͆̈́̔́͆͐̔̈́̌͒̃̒̈̽̐͐̈͌̇͛̓̊͗͑̈́̈̊́̋̔̓̌̓͛̔̔̅͑̓͂̔̀̊̃̎̽͌͆̄́̃̈́̇̉̒̂̔͋̓̂͒͘͘̕͘̕̚̕̚͘̚̚͜͜͜͜͝͝͠͝ͅͅͅͅA̴̛̛̛̛̛̛̪̤̤̳̻͐̿͗̑̃̓̏̊̂͂̋̎͆̒̎̿̿̾̎̉͊̓̈́̿̔̈́͒̓͌̽͋̓̍̈̿̇̽͑̽͌̋̂͑̌͆̍̎̃͊̀͑̊͊̄̇̌͛̈́̋͆́̐̄̎̾̇̊̌̊͗̀̿̽͂̋̔̅̆̎̆̄̇́̐̑̓͌̋͒͛̆͌͂̃̅͗͌͒͆̊͛̍͗́̎͆͐̿̆͋̌̏̀̑̈̌̌͐͑́̃̈́̾̈́͋̾̓͐̄͆̊͒͊̿̆̒̒̒́̕̚͘̚̚̚̕̕̕̕̚̕̕̕͜͝͠͠͝A̵̧̡̨̡̡̧̢̛̬͈̪͔̟͇̰͈͍̝̫͎̘̘̦͔̩̪͓̼͓̩̗̦͎͍̳̘͎͇̲̝̝̩͇͉͇̦̞̺̬͓̻̙̯͎̘̤̦̲̰̳̣͖̳̟̝̹̼̹̙̠͉͇̜̞̝͎̜͕̩͓̠̗̘͍̝̹̭̦̰͉̪͎̭̯̯̻̜̪̣͓̳̫̣̮͉̮̞͙̞̖̪̟͉̗̤̿̽̀̑̄͗͛̂͋͑̀̃̃̀̊͂̍̿̈́͐̂́̒̾̓̾̾̓̆́̽́͆̌̀̎̉̎̽̍̈́͊̃͊͋̅̉̑͑̑̅͗̀́̐̔̆͐̓̎͛̓̍̓́̀̈́̅͘̚͘͘͘̕̕͜͝͝͠͝͠͝͠ͅͅȂ̵̧̨̡̧̛̛̛̛̮͉̱͇͎͚̳͎̹͎̤̯̝͇͕͖̦̭̏͛́̈́̅̌̔̉̐͌̉̌̓̌̔̽̅̀̊́̈̆̀̑̎̅͒̓̌͌̈̈́̽͗͗́͗̽̿̆̑̽̏̈́͆̀̑̓̆͌̿̑͑̾̎͋̿̇̆͑̐̅̉́̇̈́̎́̋́̈́̾͆̋̌̆̍̔̀̇̌͆̚̚̕͘͘͝͝͝͠͝͝ͅ
This is deep man no chapters.
I tried to decipher the nothingness here is my attempt,
Is there any a priori support for ‘There is nothing’? One might respond with a methodological principle that propels the empty world to the top of the agenda. For instance, many feel that whoever asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof. If an astronomer says there is water at the south pole of the Moon, then it is up to him to provide data in support of the lunar water. If we were not required to have evidence to back our existential claims, then a theorist who fully explained the phenomena with one set of things could gratuitously add an extra entity, say, a pebble outside our light cone. We recoil from such add-ons. To prevent the intrusion of superfluous entities, one might demand that metaphysicians start with the empty world and admit only those entities that have credentials. This is the entry requirement imposed by René Descartes. He clears everything out and then only lets back in what can be proved to exist.
St. Augustine had more conservative counsel: we should not start at the beginning, nor at the end, but where we are, in the middle. We reach a verdict about the existence of controversial things by assessing how well these entities would harmonize with the existence of better established things. If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward. Conservatives, coherentists and scientific gradualists all cast a suspicious eye on ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’.
Most contemporary philosophers feel entitled to postulate whatever entities are indispensable to their best explanations of well accepted phenomena. They feel the presumption of non-existence is only plausible for particular existence claims. Since the presumption only applies on a case by case basis, there is no grand methodological preference for an empty world. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof when everybody concedes the proposition under discussion. Even a solipsist agrees there is at least one thing!
A more popular way to build a presumption in favor of nothingness is to associate nothingness with simplicity and simplicity with likelihood. The first part of this justification is plausible. ‘Nothing exists’ is simple in the sense of being an easy to remember generalization. Consider a test whose questions have the form ‘Does x exist?’. The rule ‘Always answer no!’ is unsurpassably short and comprehensive.
In Les Misérables, Victor Hugo contrasts universal negation with universal affirmation:
All roads are blocked to a philosophy which reduces everything to the word ‘no.’ To ‘no’ there is only one answer and that is ‘yes.’ Nihilism has no substance. There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing. Man lives more by affirmation than by bread. (1862, pt. 2, bk. 7, ch. 6).
As far as simplicity is concerned, there is a tie between the nihilistic rule ‘Always answer no!’ and the inflationary rule ‘Always answer yes!’. Neither rule makes for serious metaphysics.
Even if ‘Nothing exists’ were the uniquely simplest possibility (as measured by memorability), why should we expect that possibility to be actual? In a fair lottery, we assign the same probability of winning to the ticket unmemorably designated 4,169,681 as to the ticket memorably labeled 1,111,111.
Indeed, the analogy with a lottery seems to dramatically reverse the presumption of non-existence. If there is only one empty world and many populated worlds, then a random selection would lead us to expect a populated world.
Peter van Inwagen (1996) has nurtured this statistical argument. In an infinite lottery, the chance that a given ticket is the winner is 0. Van Inwagen reasons that since there are infinitely many populated worlds, the probability of a populated world is equal to 1. Although the empty world is not impossible, it is as improbable as anything can be!
For the sake of balanced reporting, van Inwagen should acknowledge that, by his reasoning, the actual world is also as improbable as anything can be. What really counts here is the probability of ‘There is something’ as opposed to ‘There is nothing’.
Is this statistical explanation scientific? Scientists stereotypically offer causal explanations. These are not feasible given the comprehensive reading of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’. However, Elliott Sober (1983) argues that scientists also accept “equilibrium explanations”. These explain the actual situation as the outcome of most or all of the possible initial states. There is no attempt to trace the path by which the actual initial state developed into the present situation. It suffices that the result is invariant. Why do I have enough oxygen to breathe even though all the oxygen molecules could have congregated in one corner of my room? The physicist explains that while this specific arrangement is just as likely as any other, the overwhelming majority of arrangements do not segregate oxygen.
I tried to decipher the nothingness here is my attempt,
Is there any a priori support for ‘There is nothing’? One might respond with a methodological principle that propels the empty world to the top of the agenda. For instance, many feel that whoever asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof. If an astronomer says there is water at the south pole of the Moon, then it is up to him to provide data in support of the lunar water. If we were not required to have evidence to back our existential claims, then a theorist who fully explained the phenomena with one set of things could gratuitously add an extra entity, say, a pebble outside our light cone. We recoil from such add-ons. To prevent the intrusion of superfluous entities, one might demand that metaphysicians start with the empty world and admit only those entities that have credentials. This is the entry requirement imposed by René Descartes. He clears everything out and then only lets back in what can be proved to exist.
St. Augustine had more conservative counsel: we should not start at the beginning, nor at the end, but where we are, in the middle. We reach a verdict about the existence of controversial things by assessing how well these entities would harmonize with the existence of better established things. If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward. Conservatives, coherentists and scientific gradualists all cast a suspicious eye on ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’.
Most contemporary philosophers feel entitled to postulate whatever entities are indispensable to their best explanations of well accepted phenomena. They feel the presumption of non-existence is only plausible for particular existence claims. Since the presumption only applies on a case by case basis, there is no grand methodological preference for an empty world. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof when everybody concedes the proposition under discussion. Even a solipsist agrees there is at least one thing!
A more popular way to build a presumption in favor of nothingness is to associate nothingness with simplicity and simplicity with likelihood. The first part of this justification is plausible. ‘Nothing exists’ is simple in the sense of being an easy to remember generalization. Consider a test whose questions have the form ‘Does x exist?’. The rule ‘Always answer no!’ is unsurpassably short and comprehensive.
In Les Misérables, Victor Hugo contrasts universal negation with universal affirmation:
All roads are blocked to a philosophy which reduces everything to the word ‘no.’ To ‘no’ there is only one answer and that is ‘yes.’ Nihilism has no substance. There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing. Man lives more by affirmation than by bread. (1862, pt. 2, bk. 7, ch. 6).
As far as simplicity is concerned, there is a tie between the nihilistic rule ‘Always answer no!’ and the inflationary rule ‘Always answer yes!’. Neither rule makes for serious metaphysics.
Even if ‘Nothing exists’ were the uniquely simplest possibility (as measured by memorability), why should we expect that possibility to be actual? In a fair lottery, we assign the same probability of winning to the ticket unmemorably designated 4,169,681 as to the ticket memorably labeled 1,111,111.
Indeed, the analogy with a lottery seems to dramatically reverse the presumption of non-existence. If there is only one empty world and many populated worlds, then a random selection would lead us to expect a populated world.
Peter van Inwagen (1996) has nurtured this statistical argument. In an infinite lottery, the chance that a given ticket is the winner is 0. Van Inwagen reasons that since there are infinitely many populated worlds, the probability of a populated world is equal to 1. Although the empty world is not impossible, it is as improbable as anything can be!
For the sake of balanced reporting, van Inwagen should acknowledge that, by his reasoning, the actual world is also as improbable as anything can be. What really counts here is the probability of ‘There is something’ as opposed to ‘There is nothing’.
Is this statistical explanation scientific? Scientists stereotypically offer causal explanations. These are not feasible given the comprehensive reading of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’. However, Elliott Sober (1983) argues that scientists also accept “equilibrium explanations”. These explain the actual situation as the outcome of most or all of the possible initial states. There is no attempt to trace the path by which the actual initial state developed into the present situation. It suffices that the result is invariant. Why do I have enough oxygen to breathe even though all the oxygen molecules could have congregated in one corner of my room? The physicist explains that while this specific arrangement is just as likely as any other, the overwhelming majority of arrangements do not segregate oxygen.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
- Messages
- 25
ight u see what happened was
