1038:"Some argue that the question may be inherently illogical; if the universe had no beginning point then its non-existence might never have been an option. One study has suggested a model that eliminates the initial singularity and predicts that the Universe had no beginning but existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before 'collapsing' into the Big Bang's hot dense state. In other research a possible consequence of ârainbow gravityâ might be that the universe had no beginning with time stretching back infinitely without an initial singularity and Big Bang. Similarly physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang, but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed."
445:
1261:
its own)? Howbeit, from this dream argument, it can be argued that ânothing existsâ is a possibility and therefore the first question should not be âWhy is there something rather than nothing?â It may be something deeper and original which does not invoke any assumptive axiom. Before arriving at this question it seems that we have to confront some other questions like âIs there something rather than nothing?â Or maybe âIs something different than nothing?â Or âIs something the same as nothing?â Or even âWhat is nothing? What is something?â These questions disturb the sediment of
Cartesian certainty of our existence or of the existence of the universe in the first place.
386:
435:
414:
546:
519:
1725:
because one function of existence is observation. Likewise, if anything exists in these spaces and canât observe us, weâre equally nonexistent. Following Hobbesâ Critique of
Descartesâ Meditations: âDoes Reality Admit of More or Less?â If not, then anything not entirely real doesnât exist at all. Thus, while this question remains unanswered (and always will), the Jury is Out on whether or not Anything Exists.
230:
201:
618:
556:
288:
261:
1547:
why implies whom) cause, which of course is the deity or other personified ignorance of the questioner. This is the real import of the question, to beg the existence of God, or other rebellion against reason, in actual use in the real world although this not always made clear, it is usually self evident in the context of natural discourse.
298:
1596:. Susskind is noted in the now beleaguered string theory. My personal naive model identifies the cosmic singularity with a one time event, the interaction of the primordial branes, a collision is how it would be portrayed in Peanuts style. So i guess bringing this new thing in, our universe is a holographic image of that event.
791:"Origin of matter" leads towards thoughts on matter (atoms, etc), and towards mechanisms of Big Bang etc.. As above the scientists and thinkers referenced are pursuing the much more general question of how come anything at all exists. Also some thinkers believe our existence may be virtual, i.e. matter does not exist.
941:
I am removing this reference. As mentioned, the incompleteness theorems are abused in all type of ways. Currently the mention is vague and doesn't properly explain how it relates to the topic. "System" and "superset" have specific meanings in the context of Godel's theorems and I don't think they can
729:
Following the 'deletion?' discussion, I agree with suggestions to (1) rename the page to "Origin of existence", and (2) redirect of "Ultimate question" and "Why is there anything at all" to that renamed page. Please could some wizard with sublime wiki skill action that? JCJC777 (talk) 20.07, 25 April
1586:
I wish I could say that was in general the case
Hyperbolick, unfortunately it's not. In the shitshow of contemporary physics, in addition to main one you mention, there's plenty of singularity from nothing, precipitation in ekpyriotic cycles and the like. It's not wall-wall though there's people who
1081:^this. North of the north pole is a classic analogy in physics often used to address the question of âbefore the big bangâ. It was clearly misunderstood or misused, either by whoever wrote this article or by the guy being cited. As youâve pointed out, this whole page is full of irrelevant nonsense.
1689:
The
Leibniz quote is used twice, in both the Mathematical Necessity section and the God section, both times without much explanatation. Suggest removing from at least one section, citing "the above leibniz quote" in the other as needed, and provide some additional context as to the meaning, because
1546:
In modern contexts, particularly in the cultural milleu of science and the
Analytic philosophical tradition, this is not considered a meaningful question and is considered a model case of the meaninglessness of traditional metaphysics generally. The question begs the answer of a first (personal, as
1260:
Muneeb Faiq, one dream implodes and the other explodes into existence and the consciousness in one world implodes/collapses to explode into the other realm. This be happening in reciprocal dream analogy where the observer is just a point (much like an imaginary intersection without any existence of
1049:
For the record, I agree the question seems illogical, but only because the logic of its answer (and there must be one) is beyond the ability of the human intellect to comprehend, not unlike a computer trying to interpret commands written in a computer language it is not programmed to comprehend.
780:
Ref. what I am trying to document; it is the completely general question of how come anything at all exists (as set out by
Liebniz et al refs in the page). i.e. atoms, laws, maths, pink guineau pigs, the universe(s), consciousness. I have added a sentence to the page intro to try to help on this.
1720:
Its just begging the question. If an observer was âobviouslyâ implied by observation then the question wouldnât be possible to ask, nor would there âexistâ non-self based ideologies like
Buddhism. A conscious observer working with only sense-perceptions can absolutely be delusional about its own
1639:
Now to the
Nothing, I don't fear; for the books do say the dead do sleep; And in the memory of God, where nothing lives, I think I would not weep. But bring me out of such a slumber, built on dreams of more and a new wish. To take me out of memory thats nothing and to eternity I would be a dish.
662:
This whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch. In a strict language of formal logic and observations (of patterns) that doesnât allow nonsense like opinions, beliefs, delusions, ignorance, stupidity, miscommunication, social standards and wishful thinking to derail it again and again and
1724:
In terms of experiments, Iâd say start with either âImagine the Space
Between Atomsâ or âSpace Between Universes.â Both different degrees of nothing. If anything does exist in these âspacesâ, its completely inaccessible. Functionally nonexistent. Anything functionally nonexistent is nonexistent
1045:
has always existed ("quantum potential," ârainbow gravityâ) that gave rise to the universe, or else the universe itself has always existed, without explaining how such could have existed or exist without an antecedent cause. Accepting such inadequate criticisms that the question itself is
1627:
Because this world does stand in shadows of His light and others shown, Light that teaches truth, the wisdom, and knowledge of things now known. A soul does crave the light; wants to know the truth and peace because. For in darkness we become the dark and let our souls embrace more flaws.
1643:
Pour forth forever after; for our bodies only take from something given; The grace of God; forgiveness and the ability to join now the; enliven. For I've been good, I'd cry, and given too, and always tried to learn; Of the very much that came from nothing and the darkness I did spurn.
1635:
Of the dark we speak of nothings but some things do haunt the land, Fallen angels and unspeakables that twist and grope, and shake the hands. I would rather turn to nothing; be in the memory of such a God so great. So to return to everlasting, and to the judgement I would make a date.
1619:
For I yeild to a God of
Nothing, more than one of something grand; For more things have come from nothing and return, I do understand. What with Big Bangs bold as bullets, shooting out from none at all; I would give my last breathe, breathing from which angels stood to fall.
900:
I don't want to contribute directly to the article as I'm involved in the afd discussion, but I would caution the mention. Godel's incompleteness theorem is abused a lot in a pseudoscientific way, and without a credible source for its application, this probably falls foul of
1623:
For there is a place called nothing, and a place called shadow too, And as the fallen know they stand, in such a place that knew but few. And as God must be, such light that causes shadows, here, to grow; I am but to Him nothing so to this nothing, I must seem first to go.
1647:
Of the shadows that we live in of the Light and God and other men; I know I still live in shadow of the light of God and so other then, To be in light I crave and when, I ask and try and move to thee; In life do I have to eat the fruit of good and evil and their tree.
1105:
I agree and removed several of those passages, as they clearly presume something existing (e.g. quantum mechanics) to start their speculations or misunderstand the question as "why is there a beginning?". I've also tried to generally clean up and focus the article. -
1004:
Cyclical universe is not necessarily paradox. Could just be a series of repeating iterations. Same with "The Last Question." The computer creates a universe, but we don't know, could be a brand new one. Paradox is raised by a situation like time travel: traveler from
1550:
More precisely, why as opposed to how (the something we see arose from what was before) implies agency. Also this article could have more on scientific theories about what precipitated this universe and how that's different (when it is) from something from nothing.
734:
The move can be done easily - go to the article page, click on the "more" tab, and you'll see a sub-menu item "move". Click that, it brings you to a page that asks for a new title. Make sure the "move talk page" item is clicked (it is by default, just make
1144:
I heard this quote in a YouTube video of Rebecca Goldstein. She was quoting someone else. I haven't been able to track it down. It's a joking response, but belongs under the "nothing isn't possible" heading. If you can find who said it, please put it
1591:
gave the Oppenheimer Lecture on ER = EPR, equating General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Essentially he suggests gravity is a holographic projection of the bulk. In the lecture, unfortunately, none of the follow up questions noted the connect to
1213:
Spotted this in a discussion forum, donât know its provenance: âIsnât it odd that anything exists? Itâs most peculiar. It requires effort, it requires energy, and it would have been so much easier for there to have been nothing at all.â
1518:
Moved back. The name of this article was discussed previously, both in the first section above and in the AFD earlier. For what it's worth, renaming an article without discussing it in the talk page is a bad idea. I would suggest
164:
878:
in a way that applies it to the article? E.g. our universe/something is the system, and to answer why there is something and not nothing, can not be answered from inside our system, as it applies to our system and its superset.
1240:
I have moved this section here for discussion. As far as I can tell, the sited source is all about a gut doctor, not a neuroscientist, and has nothing to do with metaphysics. Further, I can't make sense of what's being said.
980:" of the "In popular culture" section. I don't think it would answer the question or that there's much use for or similarity to any potential answer to the question. Instead it's just close to those theories that suggest a
1631:
Darkness is of nothing; can decrease your joy and touch; darkly dying, In a spiral, of a life devoid of such; that is light and truth and joy, Given by a God above; for joy comes of now a knowing; more of what we touch.
788:"Origin of existence"; use of 'existence' alone I feel leads thoughts to 'what does existence mean?' and towards thinking about being aware, and consciousness. (Existence is defined as 'the fact or state of living').
1721:
existence. âSomethingâ is only implied by a scientific, disembodied, non-conscious observation (something impossible for humans to accomplish). As soon as consciousness is projected onto it, it becomes uncertain.
1464:
I did not know that, but "Why there is anything at all" is in my opinion, grammatically incorrect. The title is a much better fit because the article is about a question, which makes it easier to search for.
880:
1741:
1726:
1088:
211:
1671:
158:
55:
1814:
627:
529:
1799:
1740:
The fact that the question âIs this really happening right now?â has self-evident colloquial meaning is proof in-itself that the Universe canât necessarily be said to exist.
608:
1067:
The question is most decidedly not analogous to asking: âWhat is north of the North Pole?â Rather, the question is analogous to asking: âWhy is there a North Pole?â
884:
319:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
738:
However, I think some discussion on the title of the page should take place, first. Would a better title be "origin of matter"? That as it happens, re-directs to
660:
At most, the last paragraph of the first section currently mentions two of the tree possibilities, but doesnât even mention the causal cycle as the third option.
501:
1779:
1570:, don't the scentific theories themselves presuppose a "something" preexisting everything else? A quantum state or a vacuum potential dynamic, or some such?
393:
271:
1769:
356:
346:
1809:
598:
90:
1439:. Either way, having an article title phrased as a question is a bad idea. Knowledge is about documenting what is known, not about asking questions.
1794:
1784:
491:
1341:
It is stupid to say "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining" because if there were nothing then there wouldn't be you there to complain
1298:
942:
apply to something as general as "the universe". If somebody can find a source that clarifies this connection then it would be more appropriate.
444:
179:
1774:
321:
96:
146:
1764:
1819:
1804:
1342:
927:
1745:
1730:
1373:
The argument is correct; rationalist German Idealism (Mike Hockney) solved it 2012: nothing is somethings that balance like '1-1=0', '
1092:
467:
1675:
961:
There's the true paradox, where you build your time machine, go back to the exact moment the universe began, and begin the universe.
1789:
672:
875:
742:. I'm still unsure of what you are trying to document, which is why I don't know if the title you are suggesting is appropriate.
311:
266:
140:
569:
524:
110:
41:
708:
1390:
115:
35:
31:
136:
841:
458:
419:
85:
1705:
951:
935:
914:
888:
241:
186:
76:
1323:
1191:
709:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_is_there_anything_at_all#Why_is_there_anything_at_all
207:
1523:
adding a talk page section to discuss a move, and wait several days for any response before doing the rename.
1346:
920:
I think this mention should be removed, as it has no supporting sources, and doesn't explain its rationale.
152:
1198:
1072:
1055:
931:
655:
120:
784:
Assuming wiki does not allow questions as page names, then I agree we need better ideas for a page title.
676:
1412:
Was there any discussion about renaming this article? I think the name picked is a tremendously bad idea.
1246:
1150:
947:
837:
1154:
1656:
1575:
1362:
1273:
1225:
1194:
1179:
1165:
1125:
1111:
1068:
1051:
1018:
966:
857:
829:
692:
247:
1693:
1670:
Perhaps the Universe is answering the First and Final Question; Is Something Better Than Nothing ? !
1084:
1046:
inadequate without noting the criticismsâ limitations exhibits bias against the creator hypothesis.
923:
849:
845:
684:
668:
229:
200:
1652:
172:
66:
466:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1697:
1601:
1556:
1497:
1472:
1386:
995:
910:
81:
17:
795:
Also 'origin' is defined as 'the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.'
1378:
1749:
1734:
1709:
1679:
1660:
1605:
1579:
1560:
1536:
1530:
1503:
1478:
1452:
1446:
1425:
1419:
1394:
1366:
1350:
1277:
1250:
1242:
1229:
1202:
1183:
1169:
1146:
1129:
1115:
1096:
1076:
1059:
1022:
999:
977:
970:
943:
861:
815:
771:
765:
751:
720:
716:
696:
303:
62:
650:
I find it very strange, that this is such a lengthy (badly-structured) article, yet there is
1701:
1588:
1571:
1374:
1358:
1269:
1221:
1175:
1161:
1121:
1107:
1014:
962:
853:
688:
561:
1593:
833:
1041:
But how do any of these conjectures address the subject question? They all suppose that
1257:
1050:(More on that later if anyone is interested: My default (Sherlock Holmes) explanation.)
450:
385:
1758:
1597:
1567:
1552:
1513:
1492:
1467:
1407:
1382:
1120:
Perhaps split materials relevant to a different article into that different article?
985:
906:
1524:
1485:
1459:
1440:
1413:
981:
902:
894:
819:
811:
757:
743:
739:
723:
712:
893:
Thanks. I have included this in the 'question is illogical' explanations section.
434:
413:
1357:
If so, take it up with Morgenbesser. Think perhaps you'd still be complaining.
1192:
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/10/morgenbesserisms/195834/
1215:
551:
440:
316:
293:
1160:
Joke made in a YouTube? Doubt that belongs in a serious philosophical topic.
574:
545:
518:
828:
Tradition in philosophy is to refer to questions like this as "problems" -
1035:
Under the section: Criticism of the Questionâs Adequacy, it is written:
463:
315:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
617:
1432:
1299:"Kashmiri Scientist Puts 500-Year-Old Story About Human Body To Rest"
1256:
According to the reciprocating dreams dream analogy proposed by the
287:
260:
223:
195:
26:
1236:
Argument that "Something" and "Nothing" may be the same thing
616:
384:
808:
Explanations why there is something rather than nothing.'
685:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has something on this
806:" Another option might be to base on Liebniz' words; "
800:
Explanations for why there is anything at all existing.
1140:
Even if there was nothing, you still wouldn't be happy
171:
1174:
Adding to that, proper source would still be needed.
1324:"Why is there Something Rather Than Nothing? (2019)"
462:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1009:universe travels back in time, specifically starts
367:
1031:Implicit and inherent bias under Criticism section
1268:Agree, not at all clear what the claim is here.
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1254:
658:that is the pivotal problem of the whole thing!
1437:The final character should not be punctuation
185:
8:
1815:C-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
1381:' (equation in middle models all reality)--
573:, which collaborates on articles related to
1800:C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
1082:
921:
666:
513:
408:
364:
255:
1290:
881:2A02:1812:172C:F900:E8AC:8969:8232:4EDD
869:
515:
410:
257:
227:
1742:2001:56A:FCFE:E200:E8B0:804E:A9A8:6F28
1727:2001:56A:FCFE:E200:EC45:782C:E50E:1E12
1436:
1089:2A02:587:A431:E200:FD75:3E63:2998:DCFE
325:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
1672:2601:646:9A80:EA0:447E:DDEB:56AB:4DD1
1542:The essential idiocy of the question.
1490:Addendum, feel free to move it back.
804:Explanations for why anything exists.
7:
1587:will stand up for stuff. This month
567:This article is within the scope of
456:This article is within the scope of
309:This article is within the scope of
1780:Mid-importance metaphysics articles
246:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
1770:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
25:
1810:Low-importance Astronomy articles
976:That's close to the short story "
687:. Something, and so not nothing.
665:â 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
18:Talk:Why is there anything at all
554:
544:
517:
443:
433:
412:
331:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
296:
286:
259:
228:
210:on 24 April 2017. The result of
199:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
1795:Mid-importance physics articles
1785:Metaphysics task force articles
870:godel's incompleteness theorem?
603:This article has been rated as
583:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy
496:This article has been rated as
351:This article has been rated as
334:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
206:This article was nominated for
1616:The God of All and Nothing...
876:godel's incompleteness theorem
810:" Can anyone improve? Thanks
802:" A shorter version could be "
586:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
1612:The God of All and Nothing...
1537:20:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1504:08:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1479:08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1453:02:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1426:01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1367:16:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
1351:12:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
1184:14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
842:Problem of future contingents
756:) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
711:for initial page discussion.
625:This article is supported by
476:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
470:and see a list of open tasks.
53:Put new text under old text.
36:Why is there anything at all?
1775:C-Class metaphysics articles
1666:The First And Final Question
1561:06:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
1203:16:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
936:09:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
818:) 11.00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
479:Template:WikiProject Physics
1765:C-Class Philosophy articles
1690:it is a bit opaque to me.
1395:17:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
61:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1836:
1820:C-Class Cosmology articles
1805:C-Class Astronomy articles
1680:02:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
1661:00:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
1580:08:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
1130:04:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
1116:22:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
1077:19:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
1060:18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
952:19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
889:23:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
772:02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
721:13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
646:MĂźnchhausen trilemma NIH??
609:project's importance scale
502:project's importance scale
357:project's importance scale
1710:17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
1278:19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1251:19:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1230:14:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
1097:10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
697:20:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
624:
602:
539:
495:
428:
392:
363:
350:
281:
254:
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
1790:C-Class physics articles
1606:03:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
1170:21:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
1155:16:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
1139:
1750:12:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
1735:09:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
1023:12:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
1000:19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
971:19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
915:11:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
862:18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
798:My best suggestion is "
368:Associated task forces:
1263:
838:Problem of other minds
621:
389:
312:WikiProject Philosophy
236:This article is rated
86:avoid personal attacks
830:Problem of universals
620:
570:WikiProject Astronomy
388:
111:Neutral point of view
1716:âThere is Somethingâ
1651:DRB More to come...
850:Problem of free will
846:Problem of induction
656:MĂźnchhausen trilemma
652:not a single mention
628:Cosmology task force
116:No original research
1401:Article name change
459:WikiProject Physics
337:Philosophy articles
730:2017 (UTC)JCJC777
622:
589:Astronomy articles
390:
322:general discussion
242:content assessment
97:dispute resolution
58:
1696:comment added by
1375:eâąËŁ=cos x+i sin x
1099:
1087:comment added by
978:The Last Question
938:
926:comment added by
874:Can we interpret
680:
671:comment added by
643:
642:
639:
638:
635:
634:
512:
511:
508:
507:
407:
406:
403:
402:
399:
398:
304:Philosophy portal
222:
221:
194:
193:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
1827:
1712:
1589:Leonard Susskind
1533:
1517:
1502:
1500:
1495:
1489:
1477:
1475:
1470:
1463:
1449:
1422:
1411:
1334:
1333:
1331:
1330:
1320:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1303:Kashmir Observer
1295:
1209:Alan Watts quote
768:
762:
754:
748:
591:
590:
587:
584:
581:
564:
562:Astronomy portal
559:
558:
557:
548:
541:
540:
535:
532:
521:
514:
484:
483:
482:physics articles
480:
477:
474:
453:
448:
447:
437:
430:
429:
424:
416:
409:
375:
365:
339:
338:
335:
332:
329:
306:
301:
300:
299:
290:
283:
282:
277:
274:
263:
256:
239:
233:
232:
224:
203:
196:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
1835:
1834:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1755:
1754:
1718:
1691:
1687:
1668:
1614:
1544:
1531:
1511:
1498:
1493:
1491:
1483:
1473:
1468:
1466:
1457:
1447:
1420:
1405:
1403:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1308:
1306:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1238:
1211:
1142:
1033:
982:cyclic universe
959:
872:
834:Problem of evil
766:
758:
752:
744:
705:
648:
588:
585:
582:
579:
578:
560:
555:
553:
533:
527:
481:
478:
475:
472:
471:
449:
442:
422:
373:
336:
333:
330:
327:
326:
302:
297:
295:
275:
269:
240:on Knowledge's
237:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1833:
1831:
1823:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1757:
1756:
1753:
1752:
1717:
1714:
1686:
1683:
1667:
1664:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1594:Bell's Theorem
1583:
1582:
1543:
1540:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1481:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1370:
1369:
1336:
1335:
1315:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1258:neuroscientist
1237:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
958:
955:
918:
917:
871:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
793:
792:
789:
775:
774:
736:
704:
701:
700:
699:
664:
661:
659:
647:
644:
641:
640:
637:
636:
633:
632:
623:
613:
612:
605:Low-importance
601:
595:
594:
592:
566:
565:
549:
537:
536:
534:Lowâimportance
522:
510:
509:
506:
505:
498:Mid-importance
494:
488:
487:
485:
468:the discussion
455:
454:
451:Physics portal
438:
426:
425:
423:Midâimportance
417:
405:
404:
401:
400:
397:
396:
391:
381:
380:
378:
376:
370:
369:
361:
360:
353:Mid-importance
349:
343:
342:
340:
308:
307:
291:
279:
278:
276:Midâimportance
264:
252:
251:
245:
234:
220:
219:
212:the discussion
204:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1832:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1771:
1768:
1766:
1763:
1762:
1760:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1722:
1715:
1713:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1685:Leibniz Quote
1684:
1682:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1665:
1663:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1590:
1585:
1584:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1548:
1541:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1528:
1527:
1522:
1515:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1487:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1431:Specifically
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1417:
1416:
1409:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:114.72.41.187
1325:
1319:
1316:
1304:
1300:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:Lebricoleur64
1193:
1190:Found that :
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1069:HistoryBuff14
1066:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:HistoryBuff14
1047:
1044:
1039:
1036:
1030:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
1002:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
988:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
956:
954:
953:
949:
945:
939:
937:
933:
929:
928:84.203.229.51
925:
916:
912:
908:
904:
899:
898:
897:
896:
891:
890:
886:
882:
877:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
796:
790:
787:
786:
785:
782:
778:
773:
769:
763:
761:
755:
749:
747:
741:
737:
733:
732:
731:
727:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
670:
657:
653:
645:
630:
629:
619:
615:
614:
610:
606:
600:
597:
596:
593:
577:on Knowledge.
576:
572:
571:
563:
552:
550:
547:
543:
542:
538:
531:
526:
523:
520:
516:
503:
499:
493:
490:
489:
486:
469:
465:
461:
460:
452:
446:
441:
439:
436:
432:
431:
427:
421:
418:
415:
411:
395:
387:
383:
382:
379:
377:
372:
371:
366:
362:
358:
354:
348:
345:
344:
341:
324:
323:
318:
314:
313:
305:
294:
292:
289:
285:
284:
280:
273:
268:
265:
262:
258:
253:
249:
243:
235:
231:
226:
225:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
198:
197:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1723:
1719:
1692:â Preceding
1688:
1669:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1549:
1545:
1525:
1520:
1510:
1441:
1414:
1404:
1340:
1327:. Retrieved
1318:
1307:. Retrieved
1305:. 2017-11-08
1302:
1293:
1285:
1255:
1243:DolyaIskrina
1239:
1212:
1147:DolyaIskrina
1143:
1083:â Preceding
1080:
1064:
1063:
1048:
1042:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1010:
1006:
990:
986:
960:
957:True paradox
944:Fireballs619
940:
922:â Preceding
919:
895:User:JCJC777
892:
873:
807:
803:
799:
797:
794:
783:
779:
776:
759:
745:
740:Baryogenesis
728:
706:
667:â Preceding
651:
649:
626:
604:
568:
497:
457:
352:
320:
310:
248:WikiProjects
215:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
1572:Hyperbolick
1359:Hyperbolick
1270:Hyperbolick
1222:Hyperbolick
1176:Hyperbolick
1162:Hyperbolick
1122:Hyperbolick
1108:GretLomborg
1015:Hyperbolick
963:Hyperbolick
854:Hyperbolick
689:Hyperbolick
673:89.0.47.158
663:again and âŚ
394:Metaphysics
272:Metaphysics
159:free images
42:not a forum
1759:Categories
1329:2019-07-16
1309:2019-07-16
1286:References
1216:Alan Watts
1013:universe.
703:Discussion
328:Philosophy
317:philosophy
267:Philosophy
1385:âď¸đŚđđ(
1043:something
777:Thanks.
580:Astronomy
575:Astronomy
530:Cosmology
525:Astronomy
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
1706:contribs
1694:unsigned
1653:Engendao
1598:Lycurgus
1568:Lycurgus
1553:Lycurgus
1514:Seemplez
1408:Seemplez
1383:dchmelik
1085:unsigned
1065:Addendum
924:unsigned
907:Porphyro
669:unsigned
208:deletion
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
1532:discuss
1526:Tarl N.
1486:Tarl N.
1460:Tarl N.
1448:discuss
1442:Tarl N.
1421:discuss
1415:Tarl N.
1391:contrib
820:JCJC777
812:JCJC777
767:discuss
760:Tarl N.
753:discuss
746:Tarl N.
724:JCJC777
713:JCJC777
654:of the
607:on the
500:on the
473:Physics
464:Physics
420:Physics
355:on the
238:C-class
165:WPÂ refs
153:scholar
1698:Tmb720
1521:always
1433:MOS:AT
1379:eâą+1=0
735:sure).
244:scale.
137:Google
991:uture
903:WP:OR
707:(see
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
1746:talk
1731:talk
1702:talk
1676:talk
1657:talk
1602:talk
1576:talk
1566:But
1557:talk
1499:plez
1494:Seem
1474:plez
1469:Seem
1387:talk
1363:talk
1347:talk
1274:talk
1247:talk
1226:talk
1199:talk
1180:talk
1166:talk
1151:talk
1126:talk
1112:talk
1093:talk
1073:talk
1056:talk
1019:talk
1011:this
1007:this
996:talk
984:. --
967:talk
948:talk
932:talk
911:talk
885:talk
858:talk
816:talk
717:talk
693:talk
677:talk
216:keep
214:was
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
1145:in.
599:Low
492:Mid
347:Mid
187:TWL
1761::
1748:)
1733:)
1708:)
1704:â˘
1678:)
1659:)
1604:)
1578:)
1559:)
1535:)
1451:)
1435:,
1424:)
1393:)
1377:.
1365:)
1353:.
1349:)
1301:.
1276:)
1249:)
1228:)
1201:)
1182:)
1168:)
1153:)
1128:)
1114:)
1095:)
1075:)
1058:)
1021:)
998:)
989:ix
969:)
950:)
934:)
913:)
905:.
887:)
860:)
852:.
848:,
844:,
840:,
836:,
832:,
822:)
770:)
726:)
719:)
695:)
679:)
528::
374:/
270::
167:)
65:;
1744:(
1729:(
1700:(
1674:(
1655:(
1600:(
1574:(
1555:(
1529:(
1516::
1512:@
1488::
1484:@
1462::
1458:@
1445:(
1418:(
1410::
1406:@
1389:|
1361:(
1345:(
1332:.
1312:.
1272:(
1245:(
1224:(
1214:~
1197:(
1178:(
1164:(
1149:(
1124:(
1110:(
1091:(
1071:(
1054:(
1017:(
994:(
987:F
965:(
946:(
930:(
909:(
883:(
856:(
814:(
764:(
750:(
715:(
691:(
675:(
631:.
611:.
504:.
359:.
250::
218:.
183:¡
177:¡
169:¡
162:¡
156:¡
150:¡
144:¡
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
