Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 02:13:21 UTC No. 16144635

>>16144602
Because philosophers have answered it instead (or theologians if that's your thing)

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 02:19:15 UTC No. 16144643

>>16144602
In English, you would phrase that as "why are scientists... Don't worry buddy, your English will get better if you keep at it

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 02:47:57 UTC No. 16144677

>why
Implying...

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 02:59:56 UTC No. 16144692

>>16144602
because the answer is obvious once one takes the multiverse (everettian many-worlds) concept seriously. down that rabbit hole what you will find is that existence is darwinian and that the universe can only exist if an anthropological principle holds. i.e. the universe only has a nonnegligible probability of manifesting if it hosts sentient observers to decohere it from the undifferentiated universal wavefunction.

however quantum mechanics does leave room for some sort of “God” which solves a lot of the multiverse issues in a much more elegant scheme

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:40:56 UTC No. 16144904

>>16144602
Why questions fall into the Munchausen trilemma trap and none of those answers are ultimately satisfying.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:43:32 UTC No. 16144906

>>16144692
No adding gods just makes it even more convoluted and adds extra step to each world ultimately kicking the can still being unable to answer why god exists.