>>13457811Most likely we are a subset of some sort of ontological mechanism that ordains our existence. The rationale or nature of this mechanism is probably outside of our ability to know beyond the specifics of how it structures our own experience.
That sounds stupidly pretentious, so let me explain. Imagine the universe and its laws, order, etc. There are certain fundamental things about its structure that we can understand from the inside, for example, the speed of light, but we can never understand /why/. Our understanding is an abstraction from the interior of the object. We will likely never understand why the speed of light is what it is, or if we do, it will be in terms of another unexplainable fundamental property.
Because we are products of the structure we seek to understand, we can only probe so far. We cannot empirically observe that which exists outside of reality/the universe, because empirical observation is done within the bounds of this reality.
This creates something like Lovecraft's placid isle of ignorance. It seems impossible to probe beyond to see the origin of reality, if we assume that all materially meaningful knowledge must come from empirical observation.
The only gap in this idea that I can think of is the problems that come with subjective experience. The hard problem of consciousness may yet reveal some door to a transcendental nature of reality, and the fact that we can reason about this subjective experience points necessarily to some interplay between material biology and immaterial subjective experience, if the latter exists in a meaningful sense.
Good luck, anon. Read some philosophy, and try not to let the dread consume you.
