'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?’ - ‘No Reason’
My argument is:
1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must of existed permanently
3. There is no reason for something existing permanently - to exist permanently, it must be beyond causation - have no cause - no reason for it’s existence
4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’
1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must of existed permanently
3. There is no reason for something existing permanently - to exist permanently, it must be beyond causation - have no cause - no reason for it’s existence
4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’
Comments (92)
The thing that existed permanently must be timeless so beyond causation - there can be no prior - so no reason.
You mean cause.
- is there a reason something existed
- is there a cause of something
Is asking the same question.
Exactly, that was my analysis. Now address the problem I raised.
Well you didn't. I understand what you're doing. You just affirmed my analysis. The problem is that what you mean isn't always or necessarily what other people mean, so what you're doing here is actually trivial.
The reason something existed must preexist the something. If preexistence is not possible, there can be no reason. So why is there something rather than nothing? No reason.
All that really says is: "So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’, so long as you abide by my very narrow interpretation of what the question is asking".
:clap:
The 'why' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' implies a state of existence prior to the 'something' but there is no such state so no other answer will ever be forthcoming.
Well that's dumb, because there is if you go by a different interpretation.
It can be interpreted in a number of ways. I just gave you a plausible alternative interpretation where "reason" means "explanation".
[i]1. a statement or account that makes something clear.
2. a reason or justification given for an action or belief.[/i]
In the case of [2], the reason or justification must temporally precede the action or belief - so my argument holds.
In the case of [1], I see your point, but I think my argument is somewhat explanatory in nature - can't be a reason because there was nothing before that is an explanation of sorts?
It's not right to say that there can't be an explanation for why things are as they are, in the sense that there's something rather than nothing, just because they've always been this way. I can still ask why that is so, which is to seek an explanation.
I don't think there is necessarily an explanation which we know of, or which works as a proper explanation, but I still disagree with your argument.
How do you know that there can be no explanation, given that your answer only works if we abide by your narrow interpretation, which we needn't do? That there is no cause is not necessarily that there is no explanation, so your argument fails. Your book isn't the only book. You still don't seem to understand that what you're doing is trivial in the bigger picture. You should actually listen to how other people interpret the question and take that into consideration. Otherwise, who do you think you're arguing against?
You can't have an explanation for a phenomena which fails to account for its cause.
Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
If you're having obsession problems I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems but a Devans ain't one.
Also, consider a character in a play; the author might have imagined its destiny, and written its past accordingly to a path into that destiny. So the cause of something might be its destiny.
Of course, the destiny of all things is death. Perhaps this is the difference between death and nothingness: those who die have existed.
:snicker:
Are they not really asking "why is this something the way it is"? Are they not really ranting about arbitrariness?
But the First Cause can have no explanation; there is no cause of the first cause; no reason for it. The first cause has to be timeless and thus beyond causation (else we end up in an infinite regress).
No they're not.
Quoting Devans99
You aren't justified in suggesting that there's a first cause. That's an act of faith.
Please say why are they not equivalent.
Quoting S
There are different ways to show there is a first cause:
1. The argument in the op: can't get something from nothing so something (IE the first cause) must have existed always.
2. If you think about time stretching back; it forms an infinite regress. Maybe if we had another time, say time2 and that created time? Then we'd need a time3. So time always results in an infinite regress. The only way out of this infinite regress is something timeless. IE a timeless first cause.
3. I believe time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1) so that also requires a timeless first cause
In the book "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings he illustrates a story about how a women told a professor that the universe is sitting on top of a stack of infinite turtles. Most people would say this is ridicoulous but Stephen Hawkings correctly says that the very nature of existence requires something to exist forever even if its just a set of laws or dare i say it energies. I believe it goes without saying that either you have an effect without a cause or that something existed forever. Some say that this is not the first universe but universes come in and out of existence over long periods of time. A great video to watch it "10 dimensions explained" on youtube.
I have an argument that rules out the 2nd:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
So I think therefore there must be an effect without a cause; something beyond causality, IE beyond time that is the first cause of everything.
Because they mean different things. If I were to say that, "I'm going home", and, "I'm going fishing", are equivalent, then I'd be talking rubbish.
Quoting Devans99
No, that's not "i.e. the first cause". That's completely unreasonable.
If the 'something' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is the first cause then we have the question:
'why is there a first cause rather than nothing?'
There is nothing logically prior to the first cause. So the answer to 'why is there something rather than nothing?' in 'no reason'.
If there is nothing logically prior to the first cause; there is no possibility of any explanation except that given above.
Quoting S
If there ever was a state of nothingness in the past; there would be nothing now (because you can't get something from nothing).
So something must have always existed. IE A first cause.
Don't assume that it is.
And stop repeating yourself.
Quoting Devans99
You must not know what that means, or you're being illogical by saying something akin to that a dog is a cat, up is down, yes is no...
Well the 'something' must logically contain the first cause. The first cause is the explanation for everything else so my substitution is valid.
Quoting S
I know precisely what that means.
An uncaused, timeless, first cause.
I have given 3 valid arguments for this position.
No, you haven't reasonably justified the entirely [i]assumed[/I] necessity of a first cause. Even if you show that something always existed, that doesn't show that there's a first cause.
Quoting Devans99
I've shown your argument presented here to be faulty and you haven't resolved the fault.
And it doesn't [I]mean[/I] the timeless part. That's just a conclusion reached about a first cause. That it is timeless.
And if you know what it means, then why are you conflating it? It's not logical to say that saying that an animal exists is, in other words, saying that a fluffy cat exists. You're just being illogical.
Quoting S
If there was no first cause, there would be an infinite regress in time. That is impossible; an infinite regress has no start; the start defines the first event, the first event defines the 2nd, and so on - so we can conclude that none of the events in a infinite regress is defined; an infinite regress is impossible.
Plus I have argued that there is a start of time and that clearly requires a timeless first cause.
Also, something has existed always; the only way to exist always is outside of time; to have no cause and thus be the first cause.
Quoting S
I do not agree that you have shown a fault with any of the three arguments.
I assure you I would not repeat an argument if it had a known fault in it.
And if it is not, I can argue that infinite time and quantum fluctuations lead to infinite matter density - impossible - so the existence of quantum fluctuations that create matter requires a start of time.
What is key to my argument is the existence of a timeless first cause and a start of time implies that.
Without a timeless first cause, we have an infinite regress of time which is impossible.
How so?
Quoting tim wood
My argument works whether matter is created or not.
Quoting tim wood
Its a very simple argument:
1. There must be a first cause (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/273119)
2. There is nothing logically prior to the first cause
3. So the only possible answer to 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is 'No reason'.
What are you objecting to?
I agree with Devin99 on this. Some things no matter how seemingly illogical will always exist. As long as matter exists there will be measurement (assuming there is a being that can make measurements such as a bacterial organism or a human). Bacteria have sensors and thus make judgements and pseudo measurements on their surroundings.
In your previous discussions. You're welcome to review your own past discussions and locate my criticism, but I'm not willing to do that for you, nor am I willing to start over from scratch with you. Why should I? It's your responsibility to develop and address criticisms, and not to merely repeat old criticised arguments as though they're fresh and untouched.
Quoting christian2017
Then you're wrong as well.
Quoting christian2017
That has nothing to do with my criticism of what he has said.
Ok. I was talking to him about something else i guess. I could read through thousands of posts which have pages and pages of information (sometimes bad information) or i could pick and choose who i talk to. I'll go back through this particular topic and see what you said.
The only "reason" this question arises is because the human intellect is an ontological and epistemological prisoner of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and, therefore, is always necessarily compelled to presuppose its unrestricted validity and applicability to all things and circumstances -- which, for all we know, may simply not be the case.
I think it's because we can't affirm 'nothing' and we can't negate 'something'. Therefore logic dictates the presence of something instead of nothing.
The only problem is that you don't know there is one. You stubbornly cling to arguments previously shown to be faulty, and you want to act like an amnesiac in this respect.
Remove our false time concept and only what is now Is!
It is not in the past, or indeed in the future!
What exists is right now, and only now.
To fathom what once was is futile.
You always say my arguments have been proved false elsewhere but won't give a link to where.
There must be a first cause: time stretching back forever is an impossible infinite regress. Even if we introduce 'time2' and have that create 'time' we still end up in an infinite regress (time3, time4...). Everything in time is subject to causation, the only way out of this is to have a timeless first cause.
Plus my argument in the OP for a first cause. Plus the start of time implies a timeless first cause. None of these arguments have you addressed here or elsewhere.
What if we abandon our common sense notions of time?
Don't you agree that it's immoral to sit back and let someone else do that work, when it is your responsibility?
Quoting Devans99
Don't you think that it's immoral to lie or to make easily avoided mistakes through laziness, unwillingness, or sheer incompetence? The last one might be a tad more forgivable, but I find it hard to believe. I think you're probably just being lazy or otherwise unwilling. You haven't properly checked, and you don't want to. You want to try your hand at manipulating me into doing so.
It's worse, because I'm the type of person who is actually having to put effort into withholding a repetition of my criticism of said-argument here, in the hope of teaching you a lesson about morality. Don't exploit my good will. Do what's right. Learn a valuable lesson. If I end up repeating it here, then we both lose.
What you got?
What about the notion that time has a start point but it can never be reached ... sort of asymptotic singularity style?
No, you don't have to assume that. That's being lazy and immoral. The alternative would be to do what's right and check properly, and it would be a bonus if you did so and then learnt a valuable lesson from it.
Again, it is your responsibility to put the effort into listening to criticism, and taking it into account with respect to your argument. It is irresponsible to do what you're doing.
Although this adds an extra element to the equation, the conclusion would still be the same:
1. A First Cause existed
2. The First Cause either always existed or emerged from nothing.
3. Either way, there was "No Reason or Purpose" for the First Cause or First Thing to exist.
This has a profound effect on the notion of the purpose of the universe as a whole. The result is that no absolute purpose can exist, and purposes imagined by thinking beings now are legitimate.
1. "Explaining existence itself is just a matter of explaining how there can be a start point. So, if there's no start point, there's no problem".
2. "If we hypothesize that there is no reason / explanation for existence, that's conclusive of something".
However, explaining existence itself is not merely talking about a start point in time.
It is more like an explanatory gap. We have no model that accounts for how stuff can exist, and from which we can make useful predictions and inferences from. Maybe such a model is fundamentally impossible -- after all, a "model" implies some prior actors and actions.
However "no explanation is possible" of course implicitly admits we have no explanation.
And more specifically on time; time is also a "thing". As counter-intuitive as it is for us, we've known for over a century that time (as part of space time) has a geometry, and is even malleable. So, throwing away a start point in time, and supposing that time is eternal, actually adds to the "things" we need to explain, at least from a physics point of view. It certainly doesn't solve anything.
An unscientific creation myth of a scientific concept. Guaranteed to contain as little science as possible and be a more philosophical view of existence. A metaphoric for an unscientific understanding of a scientific concept, for those of us who learn science from watching the SYFY channel.
How can something come from nothing? Everyone has heard this question.
To understand how something comes from nothing you must first understand what
you mean by 'nothing'.
If you ask most people, "What is nothing?", you basically get a reply that nothing is nothing, just nothing at all.
They cannot describe any qualities of Nothing because what they are trying to describe is an abstract philosophical concept. Abstract philosophical concepts exist only as imaginary qualities and you cannot imagine the quality of no-qualities.
To understand Nothing you have to reject the abstract philosophical concept and look at Nothing 'in the wild' where it has actually existence. Those who do this have found some interesting things.
Nothing, 'in the wild', is a state existing without energy or mass.
This state has the quality of being unstable. In fact all states have the quality of being unstable.
This quality of being unstable has the effect of collapsing into different unstable states some of these states achieve temporary qualities of equilibrium.
An effect of some of these collapses is zero-point-energy and virtual-particles. When enough of this occurs in proximity it generates, an effect of mass, causing a force of mutual attraction a kind of pseudo-gravity. This mutual attraction holds and attracts more to it. A new state of equilibrium grows, causing heat and a new unstable state that grows until there is a sudden violent, hot collapse causing another new equilibrium.
Nothing hasn't disappeared in this new state it has merely separated into localized points of positive and negative. Points of localized mass, matter and anti-matter and positive and negative energy. If you subtract the - from the + the result is 0; everything is made of Nothing.
Any question of some existing dichotomy between Something and Nothing falls with the concept that something is nothing, nothing separated into positive and negative parts. No creation of energy or mass has occurred there is just a state of separated nothing. There is no 'Why' here only the effects of unstable states.
Objects are effects of this new state. Objects have mass and mass causes gravity. Three dimensions exist, dimensions being directions of movement for objects. Objects moving in 3-D is what time is.
We are lucky in that this particular state has the qualities that support the existence of organic life forms and the kind of unstable environment that allows evolution. We can only imagine the billions or trillions collapses that may have come and gone before us.
Look at it this way: Right now, I can imagine a time without consciousness or matter, a time when only time existed. The time before the existence of other things, I call negative integer time. The time after creation, is called positive time. However, before a consciousness existed that imagined negative time, said negative time did not actually exist. For non material things, consciousness is required for their existence.
The fact is, physicists understand a lot about time. GPS systems have to correct for the effect of earth's gravity on time. It's fundamentally linked to the geometry of our universe. So, yes, from a scientific point of view, time being finite and having a discrete start is easier to explain than eternal time.
That's not to say there is not still an explanatory gap; my last post was at pains to emphasize this.
On your point about time being a phenomenon of consciousness, I think you may be getting confused with the arrow of time. Time itself can be defined in a number of objective ways. However, a progression of events, forwards, could be an illusion of consciousness. e.g. The universe could be a bunch of static snapshots, but at each snapshot the conscious agents there feel as though time flowed up to that moment. Could be.
Are you sure about that? My limited understanding of quantum physics suggest that something is being created out of nothing all the time, but that it rapidly decays back into nothing most of the time that we don’t notice. But just occasionally, you get something that hangs around a little bit longer.
Either something exists or nothing exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist as reflected by reality. The reason something exists is because nothing does not exist.
Or "No one knows yet."
Can you get -1 +1 (something) from zero (nothing)?
Does the equation balance ?
Or you can think of it this way: either “nothing cannot exist” (because it is nothing) therefore something must exist - it’s a double negative, or “nothing can exist” therefore again something exists.
Or the question itself is meaningless (a pseudo-question).
One problem of many philosophical questions is that they are often admited as legitimate questions, when very often they are not.
Just because something has the form of an interrogative sentence, that does not mean it is a question (or at least it doesn't mean that it is a meaningful question). I think Chomsky made that point once.
There is no reason to assume that all “questions” we pose must have an answer.
2. So something must of existed permanently
3. There is no reason for something existing permanently - to exist permanently, it must be beyond causation - have no cause - no reason for it’s existence
4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’
I agree with your points 1 and 2, but disagree with 3 and 4. I also agree with "S", that based on these 4 points "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is still an open question. My thinking is that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question, we have to face up to the possibility that there once could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". Based on this, the question is similar to saying that you start with 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with 1 (e.g., "something"). Because, as you say, there's no way to turn a 0 into a 1, the only way to start with 0 and end up with 1 is if that 0 was not actually a 0 but a 1 in disguise. To me, I don't think there's a way around that. That is, the situation we usually visualize as "nothing" can also, if thought about differently, be visualized as a "something". So, I agree with your point 2 because either "nothing" or "something" would be here forever.
How can "nothing" be a "something"? First, I define "nothing" as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic/Platonic realms, abstract concepts, possibilities/potentialities, and the lack of all minds to consider the supposed lack of all). Next, I suggest that the reason a thing exists is that it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together to create a new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing. In the case of a book, the grouping together of all the individual atoms and the bonds individual atoms creates a new and unique existent entity called a “book”, which is a different existent entity than the atoms and bonds inside considered individually. This grouping provides the surface that we see and can touch and that we call the "book". Try to imagine a book that has no surface defining what is contained within. Even if you remove the cover, the collection of pages that’s left still has a surface. How do you even touch or see something without a surface? You can’t because it wouldn’t exist. As a different example, consider the concept of an automobile. This is a mental construct in the head that groups together individual concepts/constructs labeled “tire”, “engine”, “car body”, etc. into a new and unique entity labeled as the concept “automobile”. Here, the grouping is not seen as a physical surface but as the mental label “automobile” for the collection of subconcepts. But, this construct still exists because it’s a grouping defining what is contained within. One last example is that of a set. Does a set exist before the rule defining what elements are contained within is present? No. So, overall, a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within is an existent entity.
Next, apply this definition of why a thing exist to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Now, try to visualize absolute "nothing". It's hard to do because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn't exist. All we can do is to try and visualize it and extrapolate from what we visualize to absolute "nothing". But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute lack-of-all", would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or "the all" is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. The entirety/whole amount/"the all" grouping is itself the surface, or boundary, of this existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, "absolute nothing"/"the all" defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities.
What this means is that we can give a reason for why "something" exists". "Nothing" would be the entirety. So, it'd be a grouping, and would therefore exist, and we usually see it as "something". This reasoning also gives an answer to the question of "what came before something?". That is, if there were "nothing" and then there was "something", how can this be because time wouldn't exist in "nothing", so there could be no "before"? The answer is that "nothing" didn't come before "something". Instead, these are just two different words that describe the same situation (the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract thoughts, minds, etc.). So, the human mind views the switching between these two different words/perspectives as a temporal change even though all it is is the mind switching between two different ways of describing the same situation.
Another objection that often comes up is that by talking about "nothing", I'm reifying, or giving existence, to it, and this is what makes "nothing" seem like "something". But, this is incorrect because it conflates "nothing" itself with the mind's conception of "nothing". These are two different things. In "nothing" itself, our minds and our talking about "nothing" would not be present. This means that the mind's conception of "nothing" and, therefore, our talking about "nothing" have no effect on "nothing" itself. That is, our talking about "nothing" will not reify "nothing" itself. Said another way, whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of our talking about it.
Thanks.
The reason something exists is because of the information we have about it.
Nothing, on the other hand, is a hypothetical , that provides no information, can not provide any information, and in this way can not exist..
Things exist as a function of the information we have about them. There may be many "Nothings" that we have no information about, and should they someday reveal some information to us, then they will become somethings. They will become the things that the information conveys.
In my humble opinion, the above two statements can go towards formulating a good argument for why there's something rather than nothing?
1. Nothing comes from nothing
2. There's something
3. Something has to be/is eternal (from 1 and 2)
4. If something is eternal, nothing isn't possible
5. Nothing isn't possible (from 3, 4 MP)
6. If nothing isn't possible, there has to be something rather than nothing
7. There has to be something rather than nothing (5, 6 MP)
QED
To sum up, there's something and since nothing comes from nothing, this something must be eternal. If this something is eternal, nothing is impossible. If nothing is impossible, there has to be something rather than nothing.
There is a reason why there's something rather than nothing.
Time and space are immaterial in us as ideal and outside us as that which is necessary for the world to be
. Nothing ... is the greatest blessing of existence ...
. Everything is born out of nothingness ... and everything ... dies in nothingness ... Life is a cycle.
The beginning is the end ... and ... The end is a beginning of a new Birth ... of a new Being ... of a new Life ...
. Nothingness is where Truth is ...
. Somethingness is where Lie is ... Somethingness is a disease ...
. Life requires no effort ...
. Accomplish do-nothing. Enjoy not doing anything. Simple - but it looks difficult because of you, otherwise it is simple. Your ego is the problem ... your ego is subtlest poison ever existed ... and this poison kills the very source of Love. Find time to do nothing ... Whenever you can find some time just close your eyes and do nothing. Soon you will have the taste of: the flavorless. Soon ... you'll enter a different kind of existence, where Jesus lives, Krishna lives, Lao Tzu lives ...
. Only nothingness can be infinite; somethingness is bound to be finite. Only out of nothingness is an infinite expanse of life, existence, possible - not out of somethingness ...
If the AI were to ask this question, why is there something rather than nothing, they would come to the same conclusions as previously posted here. They lack the capability to observe outside their universe, where the truth lies. They were created.
We also lack the capability to observe our universe, from the outside. Perhaps we are all just 1s and 0s on an HDD.
If it's true, something can not come from nothing, then the simplest and most logical answer, is that we were created.
I don't think all possibilities will happen. Will you become king of France and go to the gullotine?
If we're dealing only with a single reality, or a cluster of them so alike they can hardly be distinguished from one another, then no. But, in an infinite (or near-infinite) multiverse, if we go far enough out on the right branch of realities, where the requisite differences have already made it conceivably possible, then it is assured.
So I guess the question is really, how many realities are there, and how much could they possibly differ? If, in fact, this is a simulation of some sort, it stands to reason that there are multiple versions being run concurrently, to what end I wouldn't bother to speculate though.
Yes.
I also came to the conclusion that sheer possibility of the existence may be the spawning point of reality that doesn't need further cause. That would mean that everything possible exists. If we interpret possible as non-contradictory, then a library of non-contradictory mathematical structures could populate reality, with our universe embedded in some. Later I found out that my thinking is in line with Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe. Consider checking it out, it's 30 pages.
. Existence ... as such ... is born ... out of nothingness ...
. There is no death in existence ... Death exists not ... Existence does not know death ... Existence knows transformation ... and this transformation ... is too ... out of ... nothingness ...
. Somethingness is a disease created by Man ... so he can ... unnecessarily ... set off limits to his possibility of being ... in the Here-Now ... to his possibility of being aware ... of this cosmic consciousness.
You have not considered the traditional view by which is that there is no such thing as 'something'.or 'nothing'. For Middle Way Buddhism, advaita etc.nothing really exists or ever really happens, so the 'something from nothing' problem never arises.
.
As I understand Buddhism, the world is real but we hold it in existence by our desires. Transcending to Nirvana finds the true world behind the appearance
if you;re speaking of Middle Way Buddhism then nothing would really exist or ever really happen. That is to say, everything is reducible to mind and then to consciousness. This would be why Buddhists don't have to explain why something comes from nothing. It's the same for the mystics everywhere. For example, Meister Eckhart characterizes extended phenomena as 'literally nothing'. Even samsara and nirvana would be reducible. . . .
The moment w assume there is 'something' we have to assume the possibility of 'nothing', and this leads to various paradoxes, antinomies and undecidable questions. This is the price of realism.
Too big a topic to delve into here, but worth noting as a solution for the something-nothing problem. As you say. desire would be what drives the whole thing. . . . . .