A Probabilistic Answer To The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics
[quote=Martin Heidegger]"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics[/quote]
There are 2 equiprobable possibilities:
1. Something = S
2. Nothing = N
P(A) = probability of A
P(S) = 1/2 = 50%
P(N) = 1/2 = 50%
That P(S) = P(N) = 50% is the mathematical version of The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics. One seems as likely as the other. So, why something rather than nothing?
Let's zoom in a little.
What's something? When we ask this question to ourselves, we immediately think of things, from atoms to galaxies, and that's precisely the point that needs to be taken into consideration to find the answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics - the word "something" makes us consider many things. What this implies is that something is a different animal compared to nothing - there are many kinds of something but only one kind of nothing. Make a note of this point.
Remember we're dealing in possibilities: Nothing is as possible as something so, why not nothing?
The universe can be conceived of as having emerged from the possibility space that has something and nothing, both being equally likely. Nothing - there's only one kind of it. Something is of many kinds and let's assume, for convenience but without affecting my argument, something consists of the following things: {A, 7} that can exist in any and all combinations possible. Mutatis mutandis this covers our universe and any other that has something
If so,
1. Something = A or 7 or (A,7) [3 possibilities]
2. Nothing = N [1 possibility]
Total possibilities: 4 = 3 + 1
Viewed this way,
The probability of something = P(S) = 3/4 = 75%
The probability of nothing = P(N) = 1/4 = 25%
P(S) > P(N)
In other words, the probability of something is greater than the probability of nothing, and that's why there's something rather than [I]nothing[/i].
There are 2 equiprobable possibilities:
1. Something = S
2. Nothing = N
P(A) = probability of A
P(S) = 1/2 = 50%
P(N) = 1/2 = 50%
That P(S) = P(N) = 50% is the mathematical version of The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics. One seems as likely as the other. So, why something rather than nothing?
Let's zoom in a little.
What's something? When we ask this question to ourselves, we immediately think of things, from atoms to galaxies, and that's precisely the point that needs to be taken into consideration to find the answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics - the word "something" makes us consider many things. What this implies is that something is a different animal compared to nothing - there are many kinds of something but only one kind of nothing. Make a note of this point.
Remember we're dealing in possibilities: Nothing is as possible as something so, why not nothing?
The universe can be conceived of as having emerged from the possibility space that has something and nothing, both being equally likely. Nothing - there's only one kind of it. Something is of many kinds and let's assume, for convenience but without affecting my argument, something consists of the following things: {A, 7} that can exist in any and all combinations possible. Mutatis mutandis this covers our universe and any other that has something
If so,
1. Something = A or 7 or (A,7) [3 possibilities]
2. Nothing = N [1 possibility]
Total possibilities: 4 = 3 + 1
Viewed this way,
The probability of something = P(S) = 3/4 = 75%
The probability of nothing = P(N) = 1/4 = 25%
P(S) > P(N)
In other words, the probability of something is greater than the probability of nothing, and that's why there's something rather than [I]nothing[/i].
Comments (114)
Where does the "possibility space" come from?
Possibilities exist in minds.
You won't need the later part, just the first 6 points or so. It explores the idea of a first cause, and what that would logically entail. If it is necessarily the case that the origin of our universe was a first cause (this does not require a God) then there is an interesting idea in comparing all possible first causes with the idea of there never having been a first cause, or nothing.
From that viewpoint, it would seem infinite to one that here would exist something, if you are looking at all possibilities as logically being just as likely to occur as another. I do not wish to derail your thread, so if you're curious, peek in there. If not, no harm, no foul.
That's an unfounded assumption. How did you come to the certain conclusion that something existing and nothing existing are equiprobable outcomes?
P = The universe exists.
My modal logic ain't that good but I think the following statement is true.
1. If P then ?P
What this means is that for the universe to exist it should've been possible for it to exist and possibility space is simply that condition.
:up: Will check that link (later).
Quoting Wayfarer
:lol:
Quoting Harry Hindu
As I said in my OP, the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" assumes that the probability of something P(S) = probability of nothing P(N)= 50% because if that weren't the case, we would either have the answer to the question or would be claiming knowledge we don't possess.
1.If P(S) > P(N) then we have the answer: The explanation for why there's something rather than nothing is something is more probable.
2. If P(S) < P(N) then we're claiming knowledge we don't possess. It would mean we know that nothing is more probable than something but we don't know that.
The only option left is P(S) = P(N) = 50%
You know, I think this is incorrect. Things exist. All kinds of them - big list. But 'the universe' is the background against which the notion of 'existence' is defined. It is tautologous to say that it exists, and preposterous to say it doesn't. And that means something.
What do you mean by "it is tautologous..."?
I don't agree with you completely on this. The fundamental question of metaphysics asks, "why does the universe exist?" and implicit in that question - you could label it a complex question - is that the universe exists. To assert "the universe exists" is just acknowledging that implicit and true assertion. Yes, it's as tautology but as you said, it would be "...preposterous to say it doesn't"
We do have the answer. Something exists. Therfore, this whole endeavor is unnecessary.
Buy why does something exist?
There's no formula in my post. Why is it "...a useless nonsensical question"?
1. Nothing can exist can be interpreted in two ways:
1a. It's impossible for things to exist
1b. Nothing, itself, can exist
The fundamental question of metaphysics is about interpretation 1a. it's impossible for things to exist, it's falsity specifically which is "it's possible for things to exist". Why?
2. How do you know that "something can come from nothing" is wrong?
Looks like both are saying the same thing.
Quoting TheMadFool
Not sure I'm really understanding your question. The absence of one thing doesn't mean nothing. It means something else. In other words, when you imagine something not existing, you don't imagine nothing existing, you imagine something else in its place (space and air, or maybe a bachelor if you were imagining a married man).
Quoting TheMadFool
Because its impossible. Its impossible to even think about how something could come from nothing, much less provide a coherent and useful explanation of how that would happen.
Equipossible =/= equiprobable.
E.g. there are countless ways for 'something' to be and yet only one way for 'everything' to never have been (i.e. not to be).
I know you get there through some speculative jugglery, Fool, but dispensing with this confused modal assumption ... gets there much faster.
Quoting TheMadFool
What is real? seems to me more fundamental in (and to) the history of speculative thought.
A fine observation on your part. However, you seem to have missed an important detail - that what's being asked isn't "why is there everything rather than nothing?" but "why is there something rather than nothing?" There's a difference between everything and something, right? Too, everything doesn't exist! Where are the unicorns? Where's the talking lion from Narnia? Where's the spaceship Enterprise from Star Trek? I could go on but I think you get the picture.
:up:
No, they're not saying the same thing.
1.. Nothing can exist can be interpreted in two ways:
1a. It's impossible for things to exist
1b. Nothing, itself, can exist
1a. is about the nonexistence of things and 1b. is about the existence of nothing. Entirely different issues.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is another aspect of this metaphysical puzzle. What is the opposite of nothing? Is it something or everything? If something exists then definitely not the case that nothing, no? If you disagree then you'd be saying that something AND nothing is possible and the burden of proof rests on your hairy Hindu shoulders I'm afraid :smile:
If everything exists and I remove one or more but not all things, it's no longer everything but something, right? Ergo, the opposite of everything isn't nothing but something. In other words, it's possible that not the case that everything AND still not the case that nothing i.e. not everything AND not nothing is possible. That means nothing isn't the opposite of everything.
Ergo, the opposite of nothing is something and not everything. Remember that something is defined as at least one thing and so the opposite of something isn't something else like you seem to be thinking ["The absence of one thing doesn't mean nothing. It means something else."] but nothing.
Just think of it. Something means that there should be at least ONE thing. Anything less than ONE thing is not something and anything less than ONE is ZERO and that's nothing.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Why is it impossible?
Not-nothing.
Everything entails something.
Quoting TheMadFool
The latter is a contradiction. Nothing is not something that exists. One might say that existence is the opposite of nothing.
The distinction is meaningless in regards to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. To say whether it is more or less likely that there is something rather than nothing requires you to know the likelihood of something, rather than nothing, being the case given a set of prior circumstances. Is the prior set of circumstances something or nothing? Is it something all the way down? If not, then how does something come from nothing? Is that possible or probable?
There's a difference between everything and something and this becomes clear when we realize that something doesn't entail everything.
Everything encompasses something.
Everything = All (some)things.
Yes, I get that but there's a difference between everything and something and that difference is important when we consider the relationship of these two concepts with nothing.
Not everything isn't nothing, it's something. However not something is nothing.
In usual quantum cosmologies, there exists at least a field (the inflaton field) which decayed from a higher energy state to a lower one probabilistically. This decay could effectively mark the start of the clock. (There are alternatives.) But that doesn't answer the question: why is there something to decay from rather than nothing? What would 'nothing' mean here? It could mean the ground state of the inflaton field: had the universe always been in this ground state, there would be no other state it could explore. No particles could be created, and no symmetry breaking into the fields we know about. It would be static and therefore timeless.
But even that ground state exists in an N-dimensional state space called Hilbert space. Even in the static ground state of the inflaton field, why does Hilbert space have N dimensions and not 0?
I think the soundest concept of 'nothing' we can have is precisely this 0-dimensional Hilbert space of the inflaton field: this is not a nothing in which 'no thing' happens to exist, but the nothing in which the very possibility of a thing cannot exist, since there are precisely zero allowed states, not even static, empty ground states.
Your answer seems the correct one in this case, but we have to treat probability in a quantum way, i.e. as superpositions of ANDs rather than as ORs. The multiverse might be a superposition of every possible state space, including the 0-dimensional one. We inevitably find ourselves in a not-nothing universe because we can't find ourselves in the nothing one (the anthropic principle) and because the hypervolume of the not existing universe must be zero (a 0-dimensional universe has a 0 volume, so no matter how high it's amplitude, its actual probability is zero). This makes a something rather than nothing inevitable, and without metaphysics (other than the trivial one, plus some interpretation of QM).
Quoting Kenosha Kid
You say it better than me!
Thanks for putting a mathematical spin to it.
I was wondering about what I initially thought was a problem for my answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics:
Assuming that the only possible configurations of something are: {A, 7, and (A, 7)} each of these being something, only one of these configurations could be conducive to life but then that means:
P(nothing) = 1/4 and P(something with life) = 1/4 which still leaves us with having to explain why something rather than nothing. It finally dawned on me that this isn't necessarily the case. Life could exist in configuration A or 7 or (A, 7) or all of them even if only in vastly different forms. Anyway, what I want to say is, the anthropic principle is relevant in this regard.
Do you have any idea about the physical constants of the universe as it relates to the anthropic principle? I remember downloading a book titled "Just Six Numbers" about how the universe wouldn't have evolved in the way it did to permit life if the values of one or more of six physical constants in the universe had been different. I haven't gotten round to reading it though. I will...someday.
By the way, assuming my argument to be true, can you mathematize it better?
I'll give you a rough sketch of how I approached the question of why there is something rather than nothing:
1. Possibilities: Nothing or Something
2. There's only 1 kind of nothing
But
3. There are many kinds of something. It makes sense if we look at it mathematically. 1 thing is something, 2 things are something,...n things are something,...ad infinitum. Each one of these somethings would need to be considered independently. Why? All I can do here is offer an analogy. If a bag contained 1 black ball and 3 white balls, a total of 4 balls, the probability of picking a white ball = 3/4. Each 1 of the 3 white balls is treated as probabilistically independent i.e. each white ball, by itself, matters. Too, lumping all of these possible somethings together would be everything and that's not what the fundamental question of metaphysics is asking. The question is not why is there everything and not nothing? but rather why is there something rather than nothing?
By the way, I propose another fundamental question of metaphysics viz. why is there something rather than everything?
4. Ergo, given that nothing is just 1 possibility, the probability of something if something consists of 1 thing or 2 things or 3 things...n things = n/(1+n). Remembering that something is at least ONE, n can extend to infinity. What happens to n/(1+n) as n approaches infinity? It approaches 1 or 100%. That means the probability of something existing rather than nothing is 100% and that's just another way of saying something is certain (100%) to exist. :chin:
I think it's worth pointing out that this is quite a modern question, first raised by Leibniz and again by Heidegger. Of course, Liebniz also provided an answer, which is the basis of his 'best of all possible worlds' argument. However, in the presumed absence of God, finding a compelling reason for anything to exist is problematical, because science generally rejects questions of teleology or purpose, and this is the teleological question par excellence. But, as mentioned, the cosmic anthropic principle seems to provide a hint of an answer, which is that the universe is such that complex matter and intelligent beings are bound to arise from it. (I just shelled out for a copy of Barrow & Tipler's Anthropic Cosmological Principle which goes into all these arguments in painstaking detail. Oh, and also Jim Holt's book, Why does the World Exist.)
Have you heard about the strife that ensued from David Albert's review of Krauss' 'Universe from Nothing'? Albert asked:
Krauss reacted furiously, calling Albert - a tenured philosophy professor with additional degrees in physics - a moron and a know-nothing. The story goes that Daniel Dennett stepped in and counselled Krauss over it. ('Come on, old chap....')
In my humble opinion, assuming god created the universe, there are two steps in the creation process viz.
1) Telos, what purpose does the universe serve (for god, for us)?
and
2) What methods were employed in the act of creation (how?)?
A scientific approach to the fundamental question of metaphysics has to do with step 2) What methods were employed in the act of creation (how?)? This, invariably, requires us to figure out the principles/laws of matter and energy that go into creation of a universe. God did something alright [he brought this universe into existence]. There must be a way faer did it.
It's clear that keeping the option of a god open, the fundamental question of metaphysics will need to be answered in two stages:
1. A teleological answer that involves god: There's something [the universe exists] because the universe has a purpose given it by god.
2. Mechanistic answer that may or may not involve god: There's something [the universe exists] because of
As you can see, whether or not god exists and whether or not fae had a hand in creating the universe, the mechanistic answer is a permanent fixture of any answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics.
You do realise that this is the one assumption that methdological naturalism cannot make?
Quoting TheMadFool
It might be a result of the failure to understand the nature of metaphysics, like an attempt to square the circle or make a perpetual motion engine, due to the influence of the idea of ‘mechanism’ on contemporary thought. (Yes, blame Descartes, again.)
Yeah but everything is also not something.
What exactly do we mean by "something"? Its logical definition is "at least ONE thing" but the question then is what's a "thing"? Do people, cats, pancakes, oil, air, fire, etc. - those to which the word "thing" is usually applied to -count as things in the metaphysical sense relevant to the fundamental question of metaphysics?
The answer is no. Objects that we encounter in everyday life like those I mentioned above aren't the something in the question, why is there something rather than nothing? The something in the question, if that something is claimed to be more than ONE in number, has to be made up of distinct individuals.
The everyday objects that I mentioned above do appear distinct from each other but it only takes a little digging to realize that they're all composed of particles (atoms). There's a sameness at the particle level that precludes treating objects we come across in our daily lives as distinct from each other and if that can't be done, there's only ONE kind of something - the particles themselves.
However, thankfully, particles come in many stripes - according to Google, there are 31 known fundamental particles and they're all distinct from each other in the sense they can't be reduced to another subparticle as a common denominator like everyday objects could be [to particles]. At this level - the level of the 31 particles - each particle is a something - distinct and independent
Suppose that the total number of configurations possible with these 31 particles is N [it's a very tedious process to calculate the exact number].
The P(Life given Something) = 1/N as only 1 of the configurations of the N possible support life, the configuration that has ALL 31 particles (this universe)
1. P(Nothing) = 1(N+1)
2. P(Something) = N/(N+1)
3. P(Something AND Life) = P(Something) * P(Life given Something) = N/(N+1) * 1/N = 1/(N+1)
4. P(Something) > P(Nothing) as N > 1.
This answers the fundamental question of metaphysics.
5. P(Something AND Life) = 1/(N+1) = P(Nothing)
This is where the anthropic principle enters the stage. The universe will appear to be such that it permits carbon-based life.
:up:
Something is at least ONE but not ALL
Not everything is not necessarily something. It could possibly be nothing as well.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Contradiction.
It is more accurate to say that there is always something. Even when thinking about the opposite of something, you are still thinking of something, even though that thought is about "nothing".
I just realized that my probabilisitic answer doesn't actually do the job of providing a mechanistic explanation for why there's something rather than nothing? It's, unfortunately, not a scientific theory like Lawrence Krauss' . However, it does prove that the probability of something existing is greater than the probability of nothing.
Not everything can't be nothing because not nothing isn't necessarily everything. Not nothing and not everything can both be in something.
Einstein used to say 'I can't accept that God plays dice with the Universe'. Bohr used to reply 'Don't try and tell God how to run the universe'. Maybe 'process' is just an anthropomorphic conception.
I got a mischevious idea from Terry Eagleton in his review of The God Delusion. 'The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.' Maybe the whole universe is, as Hindus say, a 'play' or 'sport' (lila). What impedes us, is our tendency to take it so seriously. 'Those in love know all in life is a game'.
NOT some thing isnt necessarily nothing either, but can be some other thing. Prove that nothing is anything other than a thought - which is something.
Something is at least ONE thing.
I don't see how this follows. How does the number of configurations of things make something more likely than nothing?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Exactly. What came before determines what comes after. How does nothing begat something?
And nothing is an idea, therefore nothing is something. Is a vacuum something or nothing?
Thereby hangs a tale :up: That's anthropomorphism. We really need to take a long, hard look at our assumptions.
Quoting Wayfarer
God as an artist in the grips of a creative impulse rather than as an engineer, methodically working with a carefully drawn up blueprint. I like that idea. It explains a lot or, more accurately, does away with the need to explain anything. :chin:
Probabilities are just ideas stemming from our ignorance. Reality just is a certain way. It's not more probable to be a certain way than another. It already is a certain way. How it is, is what we are ignorant of, therfore how it is is probabilistic in our eyes.
Your probabilistic answer doesn't provide anything that we didn't already know - that something exists.
:smile: I'm not in a position to comment.
The probabilistic answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics I provided doesn't have as its conclusion that "something exists". As you rightly pointed out, we already know that. What it does or what I want it to do is provide an explanation as to why "something exists".
Is not a bachelor a married man or nothing?
Seems like a silly question to me. I don't see how you could even set out answering such a question.
I recall you making this assertion before and I'm interested in putting it under the philosophical microscope for closer examination. Are you saying probability has more to do with us, specifically our ignorance rather than being a real feature of reality itself?
I remember reading a book that talks of subjective probability which loosely translated comes close to your claim that probability is about ignorance - probability is about us, our ignorance, rather than about reality. As per the book, there's objective probability too which, as far as I can tell, is an acknowledgement that certain phenomena in the natural world are themselves probabilistic. An example the book gives is radioactivity - there's no way of knowing, says the book, which particle will decay and when and that's just another way of saying chance is a feature of reality itself and not necessarily a matter of human ignorance as you seem to be suggesting. Then there's quantum physics which too, to my knowledge, exhibits probabilistic behavior and according to some sources this isn't because we're lacking the information that would make quantum physics non-probabilistic but because quantum physics is inherently probabilistic.
What say you?
Explain yourself. Why "silly"?
Not a bachelor is not nothing because a bachelor is something. So, yes, not a bachelor is a married man. And...?
What you said here is incorrect:
Quoting TheMadFool
Then not something isn't necessarily nothing.
Quoting TheMadFool
I did explain myself. I said, that I don't see how you could set out answering such a question. Why something as opposed to what - nothing? Didn't I already point out that "nothing" is just an idea, which is something, so "nothing" doesn't exist except as a thought in your mind.
Even if you were to somehow prove that nothing exists, you'd have to show how one is more likely than the other, which would require knowledge of what makes one more likely than the other, which can only be something, not nothing. It's a question whose concepts twist back upon itself, creating a paradox.
Yes. Probabilities are just concepts related to our ignorance of the causal relationships of which we are talking about.
Quoting TheMadFool
To say that there is no way of knowing indicates that we are definitely talking about ourselves and not some objective feature of reality. I guess the question is, how do we determine if probabilities are objective or subjective?
Probabilities are the chances some effect will occur given some pre-existing conditions (causes). So, you seem to be asking how likely something exists given some pre-existing conditions. What are those pre-existing conditions - something, or nothing?
That review is what got me into philosophy forums. If you only read one of the many links I post make it that one. (Although ‘in the grips’ can’t be right. I’m often ‘in the grips’ of things, including artistic endeavours, but God is never in the grips of anything. And incidentally it does address the OP.)
That’s right. There’s no way of knowing. Nothing to do with either subjectivity or objectivity. It’s not as if there’s an unknown cause, but that events on this level are truly unpredictable. That is the basis of Einstein’s objection about ‘God playing dice’. But unfortunately for Einstein, and Harry, in this context there’s no way in which ‘things truly are’.
Firstly, most of QM is irrelevant. We're not really talking QM, but rather chiefly one of its postulates: the superposition principle. To us, the superposition principle seems like an exotic thing because we're used to having things seem single-valued: the cup is on the desk, and therefore not on the window sill. Is the superposition principle a law that the universe must observe in order to exist? I'd say not: having a single value is a special case of having multiple values. So I think it's the other way around: a reality without a superposition principle is the one that needs explaining.
The rest of QM, including the Born rule which I implicitly referred to when stating that the probability of finding the 0-dimensional state space would be zero (which after I posted I realised was wrong), is not required. In fact, without observers, half of QM is pretty meaningless. If it is possible to have a universe that does not obey a wave equation (and I can't see why not), wang that into the mixing bowl as well. As for the Born rule itself or something similar, this is only meaningful if there's an observer outside of the multiverse. It doesn't really matter what the probability of a given universe is since they do not interact. (This might be different if our multiverse chanced upon another and we needed to explain why that multiverse appeared to have only one universe in it... the equivalent of always measuring live cat or dead cat.)
It's basic probability theory. Imagine 10 differently coloured balls in a bag, You select one at random. What is the probability it is the blue ball? 0.1. What is the probability it is a not-blue ball? 0.9. There is only one configuration of blue, but nine configurations of not-blue. Replace the concept of blue with the concept of nothing and the other nine colours with nine different somethings and repeat.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Read on and find out.
Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Nothing is not an idea. Nothing is not a thing, it can't be an idea because an idea is a thing. As I mentioned above, the concepts in question seem to be quantitative and so, nothing is the { }, the empty set, and numerically, nothing = n({ }) = 0 where n({ }) means the number of things in the empty set { }.
That out of the way, it needs to be pointed out that nothing in the metaphysical sense refers to the absence of physical stuff, the absence of particles, the 31 fundamental particles that, in various combinations, constitute all matter. The fundamental question of metaphysics seeks an explanation for the existence of matter and the nothing is meant here is the absence of matter, not necessarily the absence of space and time even thought both space and time are something in some sense.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Poor choice of words on my part. We know that some natural phenomena are probabilistic like radioactivity and quantum physics is what I should've said. My bad.
:ok:
How does one select one at random? If we knew all the pre-existing conditions, like the position of the balls vs. your hand. If you knew all the pre-existing conditions, you'd know which ball you'd pick. It only seems random because you're ignorant if all the pre-existing conditions.
This all assumes that nothing is a possible option and MadFool has yet to show evidence that it is anything other than an idea.
That is irrelevant to analogy.
I'm asking, how is something randomly chosen?
And I'm telling you: the mechanics of a thought experiment are irrelevant to the thought experiment. That's what makes it a thought experiment.
But you just showed that NOT one bachelor does not equal nothing, but one of something else. You're moving the goal posts.
Quoting TheMadFool
Does this mean that your imagination is nothing?
And I'm telling you that you are wrong.
That's odd, because you seem to be saying that the way things truly are is that Einstein and I are wrong.
Uh huh. Well if you want to demonstrate rather than insist on it, be my guest. But since it's not relevant, don't expect a rapt audience.
If you have five pigs in a pen and I steal all of your pigs, you don't have nothing. Air now fills the space where the pigs were. You have yet to show that not something necessarily means nothing. You have yet to show that nothing is anything more than an idea. What does the scribble, "nothing" refer to?
Its your thought experiment with words that already assume what your thought experiment is trying to prove.
The thought experiment sought to prove nothing. It was meant as an illustration. Ill-advisedly, perhaps, given that it is generally impossible to determine from your responses whether you've understood anything or not. Alternatively, I could just response: go and read some basic probability theory, but you'd probably question your text book's existence :D
By showing that the existence of something is more probable than the existence of nothing, you didn't answer the question. Even if the probability of something to exist was 0.0000001%, "something" could still win against nothing. And even if the probability was hugely in favor of something, the result could still had been that nothing exist. So this kind of analysis doesn't really provide a satiafying answer, and I doubt that even shows that "something" is more probable than nothing, since we are starting from the premise that every outcome is equiprobable. This premise it is not grounded in empirical observation, as ALL probability statements should be, but only on our complete ignorance about the subject.
Domain of discourse.
Quoting L'Unico
Why not?
Something is at least ONE. So, the possibility of 1 thing or the possibility of 2 things...or the possibility of n things are all something
Nothing is just 1 of the possibilities
The probability of something = n/(n+1). As n approaches infinity and it does, n/(n+1) = 100%. It's goes without saying that something must exist.
Discourse and ideas are still about something, even when talking and thinking about nothing. Zero is just another concept about the quantity of something. 0 what? 0 is meaningless unless you are talking about the number of something.
:up:
I just dont see whats so difficult in explaining your use of terms . Random is a term that assumes that your choices are probable, so you didnt really do much thinking in your thought experiment. Just saying.
I should also add that discourse in one domain should not contradict the discourse in another domain. All knowledge must be integrated.
Except when the mechanics of probability and randomness are what are being questioned.
But if our domain of discourse is pigs, it doesn't make sense to talk of sonar. Pigs, unlike bats, dolphins, whales and some birds, don't possess that ability. Category mistake?
I've just learned from experience how to spot a patented HH derailment and don't think this thread is an appropriate place to explain why thought experiments don't need exhaustive blueprints. If you're interested in learning about probability theory, go and do so.
exactly!
This is typical KK. Are you and Banno long lost twins?
Why don't you learn about epistemological probability. Probabilities are simply degrees of belief.
It's not just that. Nothing is an imaginary concept. Nothing is actually something - an idea.
What about zero probability (ie. impossibility)? Is impossibility something? Like nothing, impossibility is a concept, not something that exists ontologically, as what is impossible, by definition, cannot exist.
Why do we only assign probabilities to future events, and not past ones or present ones, if probabilities were objective?
We're discussing statistics, not epistemology. That is, we are discussing probabilities as they might still apply even in the absence of holders of beliefs, the sorts of probabilities applicable in discussing the early universe, for instance.
Then probabilities are tools for discussing the early universe? Are probabilities useful for discussing how the early universe actually was, or how we believe it was? How do you tell the difference?
Why are probabilties applicable for discussing things that we don't know, or can't observe, and not applicable to things that we know or do observe? Seems to me that this distinction shows that probabilities are epistimelogical. What is the probability that the sun rose this morning? What is the probability that it will rise tomorrow?
If you are able to eliminate all doubt, would you still have probabilities? It seems to me that doubt/ignorance and probabilities go hand in hand. If you eliminated your doubt and there still exist probabilities, then did you really eliminate all of your doubt? It seems to me that doubt/ignorance and probabilities are inherently linked, or even one and the same, as probabilities are degrees of doubt/belief. If the probability of something occurring is 99%, then the probability of it not occurring is 1%. The 99% represents your belief, and the 1% represents your doubt.
Using this example, there are far more configurations of god than of not-god, making the existence of god more likely over time.
It's not the possible number of configurations that exist that make something more likely than not. The possible configurations are all just manifestations of our ignorance of the actual configuration. It is pre-existing conditions that make something more likely than not, like the actual number of balls in a jar, which hand you used to choose a ball, how deep you push your hand into the jar, whether or not you had your eyes closed, etc.
Nothing is nothing, absolutely nothing.
Impossibility is not something existing, but the condition that some particular thing cannot be. If nothing at all existed then there would be neither possibility, impossibility nor probability; that is the point.
If there are indeed configurations of God possible. Note that I restricted myself to possible universes, whatever they might be.
//so the philosophical question is - what is the ontological status of ‘the potential’ or ‘the possibile’. It’s neither is (1) nor is not (0) - but somewhere in between. That’s what is interesting.
I didn't mean that concept itself isn't real. Concepts have causal power. Concepts are real and they are something - that I think we can agree. My point is that the concept doesn't correspond to anything real in the world. It's just a concept. We can imagine things that have no corresponding ontological reality to them. I challenge you to point to nothing in the world, like you can point to something. Are you talking about a vacuum?
Quoting Janus
It's the same point I made on page 2 of this thread - the concept of nothing is something. I'm still waiting on someone to show me that nothing is more than just something as a concept, but as something that exists ontologically as opposed to just epistemologically.
It is interesting that the web of actuality entails possibility, but then if there is to be any change, how could it be otherwise? I'm wary of referring to it as a "realm of possibility" because that makes it sound platonic. Possibilities are real because they just are the ways in which actuals can change. Possibilities are (for us temporal beings at least) not existent just because they are not actual. An interesting question is whether all real possibilities are actualized; on the presupposition of determinism real possibilities would necessarily be actualized.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'd say that a possibility or potential is not until it is; when it ceases to be a possibility or potential and becomes an actuality; which leaves the question of whether a present potential or possibility will or will not be fulfilled, and whether it could be a real possibility or potential if it never comes to be. We can of course imagine all kinds of possibilities; anything which is not logically incoherent; but there is a valid distinction between real and merely logical possibilities, I think.
Of course there could be no nothing in this world, because this world is everywhere something. Even if there could somehow be a totally empty space it would not be nothing, but would be an empty space.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't think anyone has argued that a nothing could "exist ontologically" (not sure what the 'ontologically' is doing here); to argue that would be absurd since anything that exists is something, not nothing. I think you might be attacking a strawman of your own devising.
There's a philosopher of physics, Ruth Kastner, who argues for the reality of Aristotelian 'potentia', based on an insight from Werner Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy and also ideas by an earlier physicist John G. Cramer. (Note this paper was co-authored with Stuart Kaufmann whom we have discussed recently).
Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities (bolds added.)
Seems interesting, thanks, I'll look at it.
As I've said above, I consider that there are real possibilities or potentials; I don't see how it could be otherwise. It might even coherently be said that they are actual; actual possibilities and potentials, insofar as they can act to produce change. I think it's fair to say they consist in the actual conditions of entities and environments, but they are not themselves actual entities or environments. So, it might be better to say, not that they exist as potentials and possibilities, but they subsist.
Since real entities and environments are constantly changing (according to their possibilities and potentialities) it is only the temporal thinking that favours the exclusive reality or existence of the present moment (which is problematic since the present moment itself is a kind of dimensionless plane conceptually inserted between past and future) the very separation between actuality and potentiality/possibility may be nothing more than a formal convenience. This would also be so on the eternalist view.
I think much of this is more about different possible ways of talking and usages of terms than anything else.
I think Heidegger ask that question with assumption that everything start from nothing. So a better question is "Why is something come out from nothing rather than it keep being nothing?"
I'm less taken with this 'quantumland' idea, but I'll need to read more into it. In the transactional interpretation, the wavefunction still evolves in normal spacetime as a retarded wave, it's just that it doesn't become real until a matching advanced wave is sent back from one of the potential final states, lifting it from potential to actual.
It is not the absence of spacetime that makes the pre-handshake state potential as opposed to real, but its complex (i.e. literally, mathematically not real) value. Kastner knows QM and the transactional interpretation very well, so I'm intrigued by how she got to this 'quantumland' idea. I already have her book on the subject, handily.
It's not simply 'a way of talking', it's a different conception of the nature of reality. If you admit 'possible existence' as real, then that has ontological ramifications - 'what is real' overflows the bounds of 'what exists'. Put another way, 'existence' is no longer a binary value - either 1 (exists) or 0 (doesn't exist) - but it's a scale of possibility; there are 'degrees of possibility' meaning 'more or less existent'. And all those possibilities also interact. I'm sure Kenosha here will understand the math a lot better than I would, but it seems a philosophically fecund idea to me.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I'm thinking it's one philosophy of science book I ought to read. I've also been impressed with Heisenberg's Philosophy and Physics, I think he has considerable philosophical depth.
Quoting hans solace
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on this idea, Universe from Nothing. It was discussed up-thread.
This is exactly what I've been grappling with for quite some time. We say that cars and elephants exist but that unicorns and god do not. Isn't that what you would say if the mental world were treated as if not part of this universe? But, the catch is, the mental world, even if only, on occasion, dealing with objects that aren't physically instantiated, is a subset of the universe. What I'm driving at is that just as a car or an elephant is said to exist in the universe, a unicorn or god too exists in the universe. True that one exists in the physical and the other in the mental but both worlds are, at the end of the day, part of the universe.
How do you know it wasn't an actuality all along and only appears to be a potentiality because we are simply ignorant of the actuality in the future. Isnt it strange that actuality only exist in past evenrs and potentiality exists in future events that corresponds to our knowledge of such events?
Then you haven't read the OP, or the back and forth between us?
Quoting TheMadFool
Seems to me that the MadFool is implying that nothing is as real as something, but is the opposite of something and that something can come from nothing.
Seems to me that if nothing is only a concept then nothing, as a concept, came from something as a concept. There is also the concept of opposite, combined with the concept something begats the concept of nothing.
And here you seem to be saying that there is nothing that exists as a concept (epistemological) and as something else (ontological) like a vacuum:
Quoting Janus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Why are we claiming that there is more than one something? We have one ocean. It has different names for different areas but it is all the same salty piece of water. Why should not the same apply to "something"? If everything is the same something, and simply the counterbalance to nothing, then everything would, in effect, be something and nothing at the same time.
Alternately we could all be part of nothing and dreaming of being something...
Different ways of talking about the nature of things are different conceptions of reality, though. If we want to think about ontology what else can we do but talk about it, whether to others or to ourselves? If we had never learned to talk, do you think we would be able to think about ontology?
I don't find the idea of "degrees of existence" to be intelligible; something either exists or it doesn't. There are different ways of existence, though. So possibility exists, but in a different way than sensible entities do. Possibility is inherent in sensible entities, but its existence is not visible, or available to any of the senses.
I read the review on the book.
Seems like quantum fluctuation is one of the key idea of how universe come into existence from nothing.
Though in my understanding quantum fluctuation is just something 'semi-real' in which particle and antiparticle come in and out of existence and only the effects can be observed. Still, this theory in a way support my argument because that means nothing have a tendency to keep being nothing. No something has really come out from that quantum fluctuation as the particle-antiparticle keep collapsing back to nothingness. If scientist found evidence of 'real' particle created (or observed) out of that nothing without immediately collapsing again, then my argument really fall apart. Something really can come out of nothing.
Anyway after thinking some more on your original thesis, I think there's some hidden assumption there. Your conclusion of P(S) > P(N) assume that the probability of each S is the same as the probability of N.
But, what if the probability of N is 0.99 and the probability of each S is just 0.00001? Maybe the universe is more like a weighted dice, in which the probability of one side of the dice 'face' (for example 3) is a lot higher because there's a weight put inside on the opposite side. For example 3 has 0.8 chance of being on top, and the other number only has 0.04 chance of being on top because of the weight.
Maybe the probability of nothing is a lot higher than the probability of something, even though that something numbered more than one. Or maybe the probability of 'nothing keep being nothing' is enormously high, likewise the probability of 'something keep being something' is also enormously high. Anyway that's quite a huge assumption to make about the nature of matter and until it's cleared I don't think the conclusion holds.
A conceptual is a something that points to nothing, except for the causal process that created the concept, like I already showed:
I agree. But some would separate the physical universe from its mental counterpart and suggest "universe" is only the physical universe. Same with "objects": physical and mental. In the quantum world things become fuzzier it seems.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I think you've broken new ground here. :roll:
They would need a good reason to do that. What would be the reason when we know that the physical and mental causally interact? Seems to me that the physical and mental are all part if the same causal universe.