Why is there something rather than nothing?
The old-age metaphysical question: Why is there anything at all?
We first need to know how to approach such a question. Here is a list of possibilities:
Once you've decided on the best approach to tackle such a question, perhaps you might want to provide your insights into this discussion.
We first need to know how to approach such a question. Here is a list of possibilities:
- Humor: Why is there something rather than nothing? *shrug if off with a joke*
- Pragmatic: Why is there something rather than nothing? Does it matter?
- Philosophical: Why is there something rather than nothing? [Insert a philosophical viewpoint here]
- Scientific: Why is there something rather than nothing? [Instert a scientific theory here]
- Bewilderment: Why is there something rather than nothing? No idea.
Once you've decided on the best approach to tackle such a question, perhaps you might want to provide your insights into this discussion.
Comments (149)
(because)
• Stupid questions like this can't be asked unless there are fools to ask or answer them. (o___0)
• There is nothing to stop "anything at all" from coming-to-be, etc. ~Atomism (metaphysics)
• "Nothing is unstable." ~F. Wilczek, et al (physics)
by analogy:
a boy asks his mother: why is the sky blue?
mother gives long discourse on the properties of light, cones, optic nerve, frequency of electro-magnetic blah blah blah.
the boy says: but that only explains how the sky is blue, it doesn't say why the sky is blue.
does the form of the question, "why x" imply that the answer has to be a logical or rational reason, and if so what would count as logic or rational in this context, which type of logic would need to be satisfied, is rational just a fancy word for "the answer I prefer"? I refer to these as exposed questions, and they are generally of more interest to me than the question that exposed them.
Kaarlo Tuomi
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because if there were nothing at all you wouldn't be able to ask the question.
Why is it a stupid question? I see no contradiction. Perhaps it's impossible to answer but that doesn't seem to make it stupid for one needs a reason to pronounce the question as unanswerable. Just curious.
(Ie: What convinces you that you have started at the right end of the question?)
Then you think the question is significant? How might we answer this question?
Quoting 180 Proof
KT!
Very nice. You are one of the few who grasp the basic understanding of existential and metaphysical questioning (another good example is your follow-up posts in the 'unanswerable question' thread).
Much like the PAP theory in physics, it is what you ask that leads to revelation. Or in pop culture, it's all how you google it LOL.
Anyway, I would agree, either bewilderment or none of the above, seems more appropriate than not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be another irony there. If the question is stupid, why are you replying to it?
Not to be terse, but the only ignorant thing about the question is the denial that it's a metaphysical one. It's central to the question. Or better yet, just ask physicist Paul Davies LOL.
Actually, your "there is nothing to stop anything at all" is a metaphysical proposition, is it not? And so I'm confused as to why you would cross out metaphysical questioning, and suggesting that there are only fools who ask and answer same.
It's a pseudo-question, in effect, posing as - impersonating so to speak - a metaphysical question. Categorical "why"-questions presuppose intentional-agency, which begs the question 'Why there is something rather than nothing?' in so far as 'something' also includes this presupposed intentional-agency. Reformulated, however, as 'Why is there anything at all?', dropping the literally vacuous term "nothing", allows us to translate this categorical "why" into a hypothetical (though fundamental) "how"-question which presupposes physical causation instead.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
So, 3017amen, do you have any questions that haven't been asked of me by TheMadFool and already answered?
Sure, try some of these (they certainly relate to something/nothing viz self-aware conscious Beings ):
What method best explains my will to live or die?
What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?
What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?
What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)
What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?
Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival?
180, why do we have those something's? Couldn't there be other possible world's without human consciousness/self-awareness?
Cognitive Neuroscience.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
Cultural Anthropology. Ethnolinguistics. Sociology of Religion. Embodied Cognition.
Scientific materialism.
By definition, all effects "must have a cause"; but "all events" are not effects. With respect to how things are, what we know (i.e. have 'testable good explanations' for) matters regardless of whatever "we believe".
Cultural Anthropology. Ethnolinguistics. Sociology of Religion. Embodied Cognition.
'Hierarchical syntactic generalizability' (algorithms) as a spandral - an accidental, emergent, by-product (cultural acquistion e.g. education, etc) - of a very large forebrain adapted to making better predictions of (heuristics for) dynamic environments usually without sufficient information or time.
Blame or thank the 'evolutionary history of our species'.
Well, up until about two hundred fifty millennia ago this roughly 13.8 billion year old universe was a "possible world without human consciousness", so yeah, of course, and it will be so again for many hundreds of billions of years more after we go extinct. The pre-human past and the extinct-human future are "other possible worlds" just like the epochs before and epoches after your "self-awareness", 3017amen, or mine have come and gone. "Human consciousness", in the vast cosmic scheme of things, is - there are no significant, intelligible, grounds (thus far) to doubt - a vanishingly brief anomaly.
As far as I can see, we derive a concept of "nothing" in three ways. First, as a limit of reduction: keep taking away half of something and eventually we call what remains nothing. But this is a sort of Zeno's paradox where we could go on doing it forever, so it doesn't show that "nothing" is an actual thing, just a helpful concept we invent. Second, by logical exclusion or math: anything logically impossible is nothing, 2-2 is nothing... again, just useful placeholder concepts that act as scaffolding for our thoughts, and not things we actually encounter. Third, to mean the lack of a particular object or objects: "nothing in the fridge" doesn't really mean every particle and even the quantum foam disappears in there.
In summary, we have something rather than nothing because nothing doesn't exist. (Could've figured that out by the definition, I suppose.)
Let's parse each one carefully. This is a philosophy site last I checked. Therefore, what is it about the Will that is not metaphysical?
A good place to start is with a deeper question: Is there something instead of nothing?
You can't have one without the other.
Unless... there is nothing when there is no point of view. How many non-points of view are there between blinks?
Show me something that I cannot call nothing and believe it as such.
For that matter, show me nothing that I cannot call something.
A non-reply could be a shunning and carry greater message then many replies could.
Who said it isn't?
(Besides, only statements (or concepts) are or are not "metaphysical" so the question doesn't make (much) sense.)
Hey 180, I thought you were an atheist who was an-in-the closet materilist!!?? LOL
Seriously, can you not answer the question? What is it about the Will are you having issues with as to avoid answering the question?
The point is, saying that one's own will and volitional existence allows for you to actually live and not die, supercedes the human instinct to live (& survive), no? In other words, what is it about your self-awareness that allows you to survive when you can easily choose to kill yourself?
That's an important metaphysical question about existence, yes? The Will.
Is it not relevant because you said so? Hogwash. The Will, is something, not nothing. Please explain why it's not germane to the OP?
In the alternative, consider the relevancy associated with cosmology. Why must all events have a cause?
You asked me "what about the Will is not metaphysical" and I replied I've never claimed or implied anything about "the Will", so why did you ask in the first place and keep on asking? If you have anything intelligent to say that's not a non sequitur vis-à-vis anything I've said, then now's the time to say it, 3017. Otherwise, move along; I've done you the courtesy of posting clear answers to a list of arbitrary questions, so make your tendentious point - apparently you don't agree with something I wrote in this post - or go diddle yourself somewhere - with someone - else.
The question: Why is there something, rather than nothing? presupposes, uncritically, that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, according to which my intellect operates, must also necessarily be applicable, without exception, to everything that exists, including myself.
In other words, my intellect is compelled to assume that there must be a reason that explains why anything, including myself, exists.
Which may not be so. The Why may simply be an expression of the ultimate in anthropocentrism.
Also, one could argue that there IS nothing; that the question presupposes what is not the case, and that experiences which involve nothing (negatites) are quite common occurrences, as Sartre has shown.
Along these lines, Sartre states: "... the total disappearance of being would not be the advent of the reign of non-being, but on the contrary the concomitant disappearance of nothingness."
Why not?
Also... was that a Paul sighting?! Good to see him still active, on some PhilosophyForum or other! :party:
They are metaphysical questions for which you seemed unable to answer. It is very clear from your one line answers. You are using the classic political pivoting strategy.
And so that leads to the obvious conclusion that you do not understand your own conscious existence (how your Will works/why you choose to live rather than die) .
Perhaps there is something because it is possible for there to be something. Much the same argument as above...
Indeed. Nothingness is logically inconsistent. It can also be put in this way: if there was nothing there would be the fact that there is nothing, but a fact is something.
Others have suggested that the seeming insolubility of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is based on a flawed assumption. I agree and think the flawed assumption is that the situation we often visualize as being "absolute nothing" or the lack of all existent entities (e.g., the lack of all matter; energy; space/volume; time; abstract concepts; laws of physics, math and logic; possibilities; and minds and consciousness to consider this supposed "nothing") is really the lack of all existent entities. Instead, I think this situation is itself an existent entity, or a "something". If so, this means that "something" is necessary, or non-contingent because even what we used to think of as "absolute nothing" is a something. How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think that two possible solutions to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" are:
A. “Something” has always been here.
B. “Something” has not always been here.
Choice A is possible but doesn’t explain anything; although, more will be said about it later. Also, in order to ever answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and not just constantly ask it into the future, I think we're going to have to address choice B. Therefore, if we go with choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. In other words, there was "nothing" and now there is "something".
While the words "was" and "now " imply a temporal change, time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation, and that the human mind, in thinking about tis situation, can view the switching between the two different words/perspectives as a temporal change.
Now, if this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, though, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing”. There must have been some existent entity, or “something”, present that could either have been the “something” we see now or that would have contained the mechanism needed to cause that “something” to appear. Because we got rid of all the existent entities we could think of, the only thing that could be an existent entity would be the supposed “nothing” itself. That is, it must in fact be a “something”. This is logically required if we go with choice B, and I don’t think there’s a way around that. Another way to say this is that if you start with 0 and end up with 1, you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. Overall, this idea leads to the result that “something” is necessary because even what we used to think of as the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, is a “something”. Ironically, going
with choice B leads to choice A. If what we used to think of as "absolute nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something", this would always have been true, which means that this "something" would always have been here.
Instead of insisting that "nothing" can't be a "something" and refusing to continue, it's more useful to follow the logic described above and try to figure out how "nothing" can be a "something". So, how can this be? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties things together , defines what is contained within and groups what is contained within into a single unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within is equivalent to 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, in conclusion, 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?" To start, "absolute nothing", or "non-existence", is first defined to mean: no energy, matter, space/volume, time, abstract thoughts/concepts, laws of physics/math/logic, possibilities/possible worlds, etc.; and no minds to think about this "absolute lack-of-all". Now, try to visualize this. Of course, we can't visualize it directly but we can try to do the best we can. When we get rid of all existent entities including matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, we think what is left is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing". I don't mean our mind's conception of this supposed "absolute nothing", I mean the supposed "absolute nothing" itself, in which all minds would be gone. This situation is very hard to visualize because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn't exist. 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 "something" is necessary, or non-contingent, because even what we previously, and incorrectly, visualized as the lack of all existent entities, or "nothing", is a "something. While this is not a new idea, I don't think a mechanism for how it could be has been presented.
One 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 objection is incorrect because "nothing" itself and the mind's conception of "nothing" are two different things. They are not the same thing. 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. Also, to even discuss the topic, we have to talk about "nothing" as if it's a thing. It's okay to do this; as just mentioned, our talking about it won't affect whether or not "nothing" itself, and not our mind's conception of "nothing", exists.
Like all proposed solutions to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", I can't prove my views because I can't step outside the universe to see why it came into being. All we can do is provide evidence for our arguments. That leads me to this next point. All of us can argue forever about whether this view or that one on the title question is correct. But, without evidence, all of these are just good arguments. The only way to make progress is to take our metaphysical ideas for why there are existent entities and use them to build a model of the physical universe, which is composed of physical entities. If this model is consistent with physical observations and can make testable predictions, this is science. I think this metaphysics-to-physics approach is the best way to make progress and gain wider acceptance for one's views, whether they be theistic, non-theistic or whatever.
If anyone's still reading at this point, thanks!, and there's more detail at my website at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
(click on first link)
My guess is, in the beginning of time, a symmetrical query is prevalent: 'why nothing rather than something?' This is because, if nothing existed, so did innumerable possibilities of something; and there was progression towards existence from some sort of interested party(ies).
Why must we begin from nothing? There's no evidence to suggest that at the beginning wasn't a filler of some sort.
Nothing is lack of existence; our best imagination of this is emptiness; what image(s), if any, can we imagine if we're pondering the beginning of time as nothing? I quickly imagine emptiness which is alike a void, but I can't quite pinpoint what this state is.
(Whatever it was, it must have been beautiful/ugly.)
I can almost agree with everything you wrote, but there are some things I would say differently. Like the concept of nothing. It's an interesting concept, and like any other negation it pressuposes the thing that it negates, and that means that nothing, by negating something actually affirmes something - something is metaphisically prior to nothing. Nothing cannot "be" without something.
So, there you go. It's simple as that. That is why something has an advantage over nothing.
But yes, as someone already mentioned above, nothing, thought as opposite of something, doesn't exist, and that is why IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The kind of nothing (or should I say nothingness?) that "was" metaphisically prior to nothing-something dualism is actually the One, that which is beyond every conception and every dualism.
So, the One was first, then it split in two: being and non-being. And why that "happend" is another story. I'm not even sure if I was clear enough on what I wanted to say here, but... Oh, well.
Over 12,000 words. Much ado about nutn' it would seem.
Nothing (Wikipedia)
Just under 2,000 words.
An Essay on Nothing (Sophia Gottfried, Philosophy Now)
Just over 1,000 words. You'd think there wasn't much to talk about, but I guess there is.
So we are all lucky to be here.
I think nothing itself (not our concept of nothing) might be the same as what you call the One, and what I think some refer to as the Absolute. If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, then I'd agree that the "absolute nothing"/"The One"/"The Absolute" would be the most fundamental of all. This "absolute nothing" would also be the all, it would be everything there is or isn't. All and everything are groupings, and so this "absolute nothing" would be an existent entity. So, I would say something similar to what you say "then it split in two: being and non-being." except I'd say that it doesn't really split into two, but it instead can be thought of, after the fact, as either "nothing"/non-being or, when thought of in terms of its being a grouping, as "something"/being. And, it's this switching back and forth between ways of thinking of it that we might mistakenly call before and after, or a change in time.
Anyways, I think this kind of mechanistic thinking is what will let us finally make progress on this question and then use the answer to discover and invent new things.
[hide="Reveal"]The above is of course both a cogent explanation and a pile of meaningless words. But mainly the latter, because that is what the question is. Thought has reasons why, and being does not. Lifetimes have been wasted that could more profitably been spent drinking beer.[/hide]
And the splitting of this first Apsolute does happen when the mind (or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it) comes to be. The mind is the one that differentiates and that "creates" everything that is. With no mind to seperate being from non-being out of apsolute oneness, there is no our phisical world. There is just chaos of possibilities, everythig mixed and undistinguishable.
And I'm not really sure if I understand what you think by "switching back and forth between ways of thinking"? Could you try to explain it a bit more?
What I meant by "switching back and forth between ways of thinking" is that when we think of "absolute nothing" in the traditional way, it just seems like "nothing". But, when we think about it in the way I'm suggesting as being a grouping and therefore an existent entity, or a "something", changing from the first way of thinking ("nothing") to the new way ("something") can seem to us almost like a temporal change. The reason I bring this up is that a common objection is that there would be no time in "absolute nothing", so how can it ever change or transform into "something", when transformations would seem to take time? It's just a way of answering that objection. I don't think "nothing" actually changes into "something" but that "nothing" and "something" are just two different ways of thinking about the same thing. It sounds almost the same as what unenlightened said with "there is only the being and not-being happening that give rise to time as the relation of one to the other."
But, it sounds like what you said in the first reply that maybe we're thinking along similar lines with maybe a few wording preference differences.
So, nothing and something (non-being and being) are one and the same. Being is a part we can think and non-being is a part we can't think, and that is the difference we see between them, right?
But if that is the case, then there is no switching between ways of thinking because nothing is impossible to think. There is just one way of thinking, and that is being. We can touch nothingness but never grasp it with our reason. We would have to transcend ourselves to do that.
But I think I do see what you are trying to say.
And that's the only question, isn't it? Why does something exist? There is no "nothing" which is an alternative to something and would exist if there wasn't something.
Think of it like running a program on your computer. If you don't have a fast write speed, it will take a long time to download a file. But it gets faster and faster as more computing power is put into it, if that makes sense.
Now, why do we exude something rather than nothing? And what changed our density to be so? Honestly I feel this is a toss up of information. Could be a simulation, could be a delusion. Could be a place in which God created. Could be just because. Or it could be something entirely different than any of those reasons.
I've honestly been waiting to tell my hypothesis about there being a lack of energy to be the reason that everything doesn't all just happen at once. (This is, of course, taking the hard determinsm perspective.)
0 contains all paired positive and negative integers to infinity on both sides which cancel eachother out to zero. This is the idea behind potential energy of space or "vacuum energy" in the sense that it is possible to get a spontaneous positive and negative particle of energy out of a field which sums to zero. This borrowed energy exists as a phenomenon (something) coming from nothing (unless you want to call the inherent qualities of a void as something too) in which case the question is nonsensical because there has always been something so there is no instead.
But if we assume that cancelling energies can be extracted from a field of zero energy then cycles can occur and cycles within cycles generate dynamics and dynamics at different rates and a dilation of time required to perform them, which would lead to a sort of evolution of processes within a ever expanding fractal of possibility so why is there something istead of nothing? Well because theres also nothing. You cannot have something without nothing.
Seems like the original post inevitably arrives at the question: why are we conscious? Couldn't our thoughts just as easily take place "in the dark", with nobody there to experience it? I also think there is a reasonable answer to that question.
Firstly, most of our mind does take place "in the dark", where nothing is being experienced. In other words, most of the human brain hosts unconscious processes. But when we use the pronoun "I" we are not referring to our entire brain, we are referring to the conscious part of our brain.
The conscious part of our brain is tasked with executive function. It casts judgment on the rest of the brain, proliferating or inhibiting the competing urges generated by the unconscious areas of the brain. Once you reflect on that, it doesn't seem so surprising that consciousness arises. If the cluttered chatter of the unconscious mind can be improved by organization and judgment, then the thing that serves as the judge/organizer likely has a bird's-eye view of the sum of all those sensory inputs. The process of that bird's-eye view itself would be human consciousness. We have awareness for the purpose of decision-making. Decision-making would be more difficult without awareness, so that's why consciousness ("something") takes place.
Regardless of what the First Thing was, the First Thing either:
1. always existed or
2. spontaneously emerged.
If we are asking what caused the First Thing to either spontaneously emerge or always exist, the answer must be: nothing – Something appears spontaneously if nothing caused it to appear; and something always existed, if it was not created or caused.
Either way, there could not have been any pre-existing cause for the emergence of either God or things absent a god. Since nothing could have existed before the First Thing, a purpose could not have existed before the First Thing.
Since no thing existed before the First Thing, the answer to the question: WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AND NOT NOTHING? is “No Reason.” There was No Reason or Purpose or any other thing existing before the First Thing in the Universe. This conclusion does not mean that there is no purpose to the Universe now. The absence of an original purpose for existence results in thinking beings being able to define their own purpose.
Although a cause or purpose for starting existence could not have existed, I, as the evolution of existence can perceive doing things with purpose, and thus purpose exists now.
The posts so far in this thread have mostly treated this as a philosophical question. To me, the question is more interesting as a scientific one and I tend to think it was originally asked with a scientific answer in mind.
I think what it is asking is ‘Why are there electrons and protons, quantum fields, space-time and so on – physical things that make up our universe?’ People have suggested that there can’t be nothing because even ‘nothing’ is a mental construct and therefore ‘something’. I tend not to take the Platonic view that all possible mental constructs exist, even in the absence of any mind to construct them. So, to me, the absence of space-time and the fields that we understand to make up the universe would leave ‘nothing’. Nothing is what there would be if the big bang hadn’t happened. And this nothing is, I think, the nothing that the original poser of the question had in mind.
So I will treat it as a scientific question. As such, however, I really don’t think we have an answer to the question and it might well be that, being unable to see outside our universe, we will never have the information we need to get an answer.
As an analogy, consider a meson produced in a particle collision. It begins its life in the collision, lasts a small fraction of a second, then decays into something else and no longer exists. We don’t really know what a meson is apart from a few observable properties like its mass, velocity, charge, spin etc. Beyond knowing that it is made from two quarks, we can’t tell if it has more detail inside it than that. But suppose, hypothetically, that the meson was a self-contained universe a bit like ours, which evolved thinking beings (admittedly on very compressed space and time scales). Their universe would have a beginning and an end. They might wonder about why is existed (‘why is there something rather than nothing?’) and what caused it to exist. We know that is was caused to exist by the collision of two other particles. But the minds in the meson universe could never know that because they can’t see anything outside their universe (beside it, before it or after it). However much they observed and analysed their universe and however much their philosophers pondered it, they could never know that it existed because some human did an experiment with a particle accelerator.
Just like the meson people, we are quite possibly in a universe which is part of something bigger, but which we can never know anything about. It would then seem to be impossible to answer the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’
If we’re not part of something bigger, thinking about why the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago is too mind-boggling for me. If we are part of something bigger, there might be a reason why the universe exists. But then there is still the question of why the bigger universe exists. And so on ad infinitum.
Of course, the above could all be wrong. It could be that, through scientific investigation, we are starting to get an inkling of why there is something. Particle – anti-particle pairs come into existence from nothing and for no apparent reason throughout space all the time (quantum fluctuations). They have a certain energy/mass and, by the uncertainty principle, can only exist for a very short time before annihilating each other back to nothing again. The more energy such particles have, the shorter the time they can exist. If they have no energy, however, they can exist for ever. It has been argued that the positive particle/field energy of the universe exactly cancels the negative gravitational energy, so the universe might have exactly zero energy and thus could be a quantum fluctuation that lasts for ever. Maybe such quantum fluctuations just have to happen, even when there is nothing for them to happen in. Who knows? We can’t perform an experiment to test the idea unless we have a bit of ‘nothing’ to test it in. And we can’t get away from the fields that make up the fabric even of ‘empty’ space.
However, this discussion is not that easily answered, because nothing exists mathematically: (x-x= nothing). Nothing can exist as empty space, a true vacuum where there isn't a single particle, energy or any other matter. According to both the Big Bang theory, and the Stories of Creation, large areas of nothing existed. "Nothing" is anything that is outside that which exists, and "nothing" has no other describable qualities.
I like to try to imagine the beginning of all Creation. Not just what was created after the Big Bang or what was created by a Creator, but what could have existed before that even. It seems to me that there must have been a "First Thing" wherein nothing was the only thing that existed before this "First Thing."
Is a plausible answer to Why is there something rather than nothing,: "No Reason can be stated, because No Thing, including a reason, could have existed before the First Thing?
The question isn't "why is there something rather than nothing?" but "why is this something rather than another?", which is a question for science. There always is something.
I've just checked and there's nothing in my pocket. Now, I have nothing to say, nothing to show, nothing to think about, nothing to do. Good thing it's a holiday here.
(Dao) is totally at rest.
There is something: when there Mind (Dao) is busy creating.
Sleep/Awake
Life/Death
It's cyclical as is everything in Life.
Why does the Mind/Dao exist? In our plane of existence, we can only know it, not see see it as a whole. Maybe some can see more.
There is nothing mysterious, but that people feel that the question is pointless, does lady bare the laziness of some Minds.
I define "nothing" as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic/Platonic realms, abstract concepts, possibilities/potenialities, and the lack of all minds to consider the supposed lack of all").
How can "nothing" be a "something"? I first define a thing that exists as a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together to create a new unit whole. This grouping or new unit whole can be thought of as a surface or boundary denoting what is grouped together from what is not. Then, if you apply this to "nothing", if there were "nothing", that would be it. That nothingness would be the entirety of all that is present. It would be the all. Entireties and all are groupings, which means that "nothing" can be seen from this different perspective as being a "something".
There's no known way to start with 1 either, so the whole "nothing is still something" point, doesn't close the explanatory gap at all.
You seem to be thinking of the hypothetical pre-universe as something that we can reason about, as if the logic of our world can be applied to what might be completely alien to us.
Quoting Darkneos
Ditto. Like discussing an afterlife.
It doesn’t have properties. It doesn’t have any constraint. But then I see it as the same as infinite possibility, which cannot be described either. It is nothing, but it can become everything.
And then why something rather than nothing ... because there was nothing to prevent nothing from becoming something.
“But nothing cannot become” ... well in the absence of rule it can.
As the universe expanded, Order spawned children, smaller orders, from which sprang the elements of all being, matter in all its diversity, from which everything is ultimately derived, and in turn was derived from this matter all the things we know by our eyes and fingers, all the visible and tangible, both the animate and inanimate, and it became clear that the animate somehow mirrored the essence of that first divine spark that came out of nowhere...
Finally, Man came to be, and he soon realized he had a soul with which he could perceive order, and after he had perceived enough of the original order he concluded that he was the final recipient of that initial divine spark, because, as he perceived, he “is the particular being that can know the universal, the the temporal being that is aware of eternity, the part that can survey the whole, the effect that seeks the cause,” the final link b/w the macrocosm and the microcosm.
Thusly, my friends, it appears that cosmology is the story of a wedding, a desire in the instinct of that first outburst, that first ineffable spark to produce a lover of himself.
I know this is a myth...
...but it’s not JUST a myth.
Very pleasing and Zen-like. A koan? :up:
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I like this. I’ve been discussing this with a friend who just takes me around in circles. My feeling is that “nothing” only exists as a construct in binary terms. Something cannot come from nothing, and nothing cannot come from something.
However, if there is no “nothing” and only “something” does that mean something has always been something?
Nothing = The empty set = { }
[D n E = The intersections of sets D and E..........D u E = The union of sets D and E]
In this world, let set A = {X} and set B = {Y} and nothing would be neither X nor Y or both not X and not Y.
The set Not A or A' = {Y, { }} because nothing is not X.
Similarly, the set Not B or B' = {X, { }}
Nothing is Not A and Not B (neither X nor Y) = A' n B' = {X, { }} n {Y, { }} = {{ }}, Also note that according to set theory the empty set [{ }] is a subset of every set i.e. it can be said to be an element of all sets.
But A' n B' = (A u B)' by DeMorgan's law and A u B = {X, { }} u {Y, { }} = (X, Y, { }}. Again, the empty set [{ }] is a subset of every set and so can be considered an element of all sets. So A' n B' = (A u B)' = {X, Y, { }}'
That means Nothing = A' n B' = {{ }} = (A u B)' = {X, Y, { }}'. This is a contradiction! A complement of a set [(A u B)'] can't contain an element that's in that set [{ }].
How did we arrive at this contradiction?
We ended up with this contradiction because we assumed that the nothing can be put in a negated category such as Not A, Not B, or, in our world, in categories such as Not red, Not solid, Not good, etc and this is in agreement with my intuition regarding the issue viz. we can't assert that nothing doesn't possess a property over and above the fact that we can't claim that nothing possesses a property. So, it's incorrect to say that nothing is not
If so, I present the following argument that nothing is an impossibility,
1. If nothing is possible then, nothing is neither a this nor a not this [this stands for a property/quality]
2. Impossible that neither a this nor a not this [It's a contradiction]
Ergo,
3. Nothing is impossible
4. If nothing is impossible then something must be
Ergo,
5. Something must be and is
This is why there's something rather than nothing.
:chin:
The empty set is not nothing. But it contains nothing. At least in naive set theory. :nerd:
Suppose the univeraal set U = A u B
Well, suppose A = {x, y} and B = {v, w}
Suppose N = Nothing. So, { } = {N}
{x} is a subset of A and x is an element of A
{ } is a subset of A, { } has N as an element. So A = {x, y, N}
Similarly,
{v} is a subset of B and v is an element of B
{ } is a subset of B, { } has N as an element. So B = {v, w, N}
Not A = A' = {v, w}
Not B = B' = {x, y}
Nothing = N = Not A and Not B = A' n B' = { }
A' n B' = (A u B)' = {x, y, v, w, N}' = { } = {N} ???
A complement of a set can't contain an element of that set. Contradiction!
Ergo,
1. { } can't be a subset of every set
and/or
2. We can't say that Nothing is not
For Nothing to be, Nothing must be neither something nor not-something but that's a contradiction. Ergo, Nothing is impossible. That's why there's something.
Since N is an element of A, it is something: an element of A. :worry:
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm so glad you have proven this to your satisfaction. It shows that something is nothing to worry about. Thank you. :up:
That's the mistake we make.
Quoting jgill
It all depends on how you interpret the meaning of not-x where x = anything (individuals to categories).
In fact, it looks like a set-theoretic paradox.
"Our nada, who art in nada, ..."
If you ask, how does gravity work, we can use science to find the answer. But if you ask, why does gravity work, then you find yourself in the same predicament. The same is true for any question at the core of science.
Let’s first define “thing”. To reformulate: why are there beings at so instead of nothing? Leibniz asked this question as well.
The best analysis I have found is Heidegger’s introduction to metaphysics.
“Whereon is every answer to the question of beings based? That is, wherein does the unconcealment of being originate?
To say it with an example: the Greek interpret being as “presence” of the present. “Presence” indicates time.”
Nothing craves everything.
Begs the question: Something? Nothing?
Nothing does exist. You are 99% nothing. Everything you've ever seen or touched is mostly nothing also. The atoms that make up all matter are mostly empty space, at any given moment.
There is no need, or reason for the Big Bang. To find the answer to the OP, you need to know, how did a ball of atoms manifest in an empty void.
Where did we personally reside for the past 13.7 billion years, since the time of the Big Bang, to suddenly find ourselves living on Earth? When the Sun dies, several billions of years into the future, the earth and all life on it will be consumed. Since no one gets out of life alive anyway, it doesn’t really matter how long we are here before we die. In the end, it will be like it was before we arrived and so another 13 billion years may go by without even noticing.
This is the central theme of Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics :"Why are there beings at all instead of nothing" (p. 215)
What he does is essentially recast and reconceptualize the understanding of the nature of Being in a way that encompasses the concept of nothing. One of his most interesting conclusions is:
The concept of being that has been accepted up to now does not suffice to name everything that "is". (p. 218)
I recommend this, it's a good read, extremely dense but fairly short. As the "successor to Being and Time" alone it is worth consideration.
Suppose there is nothing. It hasta change. The only thing nothing can change into is something. Hence, there is something rather than nothing. It's a cycle though and the something we experience now will become nothing at a future date and then that nothing will again become something, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Creatio ex nihilo.
Words have the power to do what a mind has no power to do.
So we continue to contrive formulations like the above. These words appear to present a question but in fact only express a wordless awe or astonishment.
There is no question here.
Yes. Or a cry of anguish. Morgenbesser's reply was "Ach, even if there were nothing, you would still be complaining."
And I believe that's the best possible answer to that question.
It's a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason.
Why should we expect there to be a reason?
Yes, why should we expect there to be a universe. There just is.
Leibniz asked why is there something, then argues because God.
1 probably always existed, there's probably proof of it(I'll have a sense of the matter).
If there was ever nothing, nothing logical could ever come from it.
If there was a young something, then progress is possible through maturing.
Imagine a blank space that suddenly deforms because of an addition. Thus may sound bizzare but blank space and addition is the most basic I can think of...
An analogous repetition: sperm(energy) meeting the egg(blank space).
Definitely not nothing though.
I imagine what comes first is, at least, 1D.
Things can cease to exist, the do regularly (death, destruction). Furthermore, as per science, in around a 10[sup]100[/sup] years, the last atom will decay. What would be left? Isn't that nothing?
It seems to me that it's easier to grasp specific nothing (2 apples - 2 apples = 0 apples) than general nothing (absence of anything and everything).
"Why is there anything at all?" Because nothing prevents anything from coming-to-be. :smirk: .
One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. But anyway, both something and nothing exist (e.g. 99.9% of each atom is empty space). :scream:
(General/Universal) Nothing negates anything and everything.
A gedanken experiment is in order. Imagine a man Y and a woman X who've been brought up since infancy in one room, with an attached bathroom cum toilet of course - all their basic needs are fulfilled. In short this room is their universe - everything they know is in the room.
One fine day the two are sitting on their bed and X says to Y "I'm thinking of something, can you guess what it is?" "I'll try" replies Y. He begins "is it this (pointing to an object in the room)?" X responds "no!" "Oh, ok, it's this then (again pointing at an item in the room)" goes Y. "Nope" says X. This goes on and on until Y realizes that he's checked everything in the room. He looks at X, puzzled, X smiles back and blows Y a kiss.
Quoting 180 Proof
The word "nothing" has two very intriguing meanings
1. Nothing as in Nothing
2. Nothing functions as linguistic shortcut e.g. I don't want anything = I want nothing.
Nice! The word "nothing" is multifaceted. It has been used in so many different areas in as many different ways.
What I find intriguing about [I]nothing[/i] is that it's essentially apophatic, to be understood via negativa. Ergo the question "what is nothing?" is, in a sense, meaningless; as you like to put it, it's a pseudo-question.
As I said, nothing is more easily grasped as a particular than as a universal.
Intriguingly and lamentably, there's been more work done on [math]\infty[/math] (Georg Cantor et al) than [math]0[/math] in mathematics that is. Philosophers have studied the topic but I don't recall encountering any good treatise analyzing nothing in a way that deserves the label progress.
Jan Westerhoff's The Non-Existence of the Real World, recently published, emphasizes this point from both Buddhist (Madhyamaka) and Western perspectives.
I now offer experimental proof of nothing:
After a few drinks nothing tastes good.
QED
Nada.
Which pile of words establishes no more than that there is a pile of words.
Thus to ask why there is something rather than nothing is clearly something rather than nothing; and that is why, whenever it is asked, there is something and not nothing. Try to imagine no one repetitively asking why there is nothing rather than something. It never happens.
However, as there is also the equation of God with nothing, it cannot be the JCI God, but has to be something, or nothing, utterly transcendental. Perhaps that is what those words do ey? they tell us that you are trying to speak of something one cannot speak, and as such, not describing but gesturing towards the mysical. Das Mystische zeigt sich, according to Wittgenstein. The function of purely metaphysical categories, metaphysical because they are solely abstract, 'non-physical', is to articulate our sense of wonder at the world.
When someone asks the question, "Why is there not nothing?" I respond by saying, "Because you asked the question."
The instance of a question being asked -- any question, including this one -- presupposes the existence of a something (sentient being or person, I suppose) asking the question.
In the instance of nothingness (including instance and nothingness), neither the question nor the issue could be raised. Speaking labyrinthically, existence/not existence is not an issue for nothingness.
If we assume an existing thing cannot exist outside its own existence -- this sounds to me like an absolute boundary -- then existence/not existence only has existence & meaning in the instance of existence.
All of this adds up to say, "No existing thing can explore (even the possibility) of non-existence.
Empty space ? nothing.
Quoting 180 Proof
If it's a false dichotomy, then nothing, being an existing thing, is something, not nothing. Therefore, empty space, likewise being an existing thing (whose existence you cite), by your own argument, is not nothing.
I distinguish "nothing" from "nothingness" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/707639
... the physical (or quotidian) from the metaphysical (or wholly conceptual).
So, nothing is existential whereas nothingness is categorical, and thus metaphysics is an empty but not meaningless category.
Wow! I got an information-bearing statement from 180 re: metaphysics.
I think maybe this statement contains a whiff of
Quoting 180 Proof
as regards nothing being paradoxically contained_not contained within the domain in which nothing is (somehow) embedded sans any of the attributes denoting said embedding.
I think maybe there's a paradox associated with the conception of nothing as being in possession of a specifiable boundary (of some sort) that allows it to be embedded within another boundary.
Mystical consciousness: { } = [math]\emptyset[/math]
The catch: What's the difference, if any, betwixt thinking about nothing and not thinking at all?