Why is there something rather than nothing

[happyukatheist]

Last night I was listening to the lastest episode of one of my favorite podcasts (the SETI institute podcast), titled:  Life, the universe and everything.

The presenters, seth and molly were having a fun chat with a Professor of theoretical physics from stanford university, called Leonard Susskind, when at the end of the chat molly asked a question which made the professor laugh a bit, Molly asked him why he laughed (you could hear the amusement in her voice too.) and then he proceded to reply to the question, which made me laugh, which is rare for me when listening to science stuff.

I thought it would be interesting to put them on here to see what other people think.

Molly: "Why is there something rather than nothing in the universe?"

Professor Susskind:  "That is exactly the kind of question you really want to be able to ask, its really what physicsts want to know.  But, on the other hand , its a kind of question we not only dont know the answer to, but we couldnt imagine an answer to.  What would the world be like if there was nothing, ..........well how can I answer that, if there was nothing I wouldnt be here.  There are somethings which are just unimaginable, and i mean you cant imagine answers to those questions.  But still its a awfully good question, Why is there something rather than nothing, ............ well, the answer is .... it beats me."

Just a bit of fun, i found it amusing and wanted to share it.  

"Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life." - Marcus Aurelius

[Jac3510]

Because nothing can't exist, by definition. The word "is" implies existence (that is what the word means). To ask, "Why is there not nothing?" is meaningless, because nothing can't "is."

[Asmodean]

Because nothing can't exist, by definition. The word "is" implies existence (that is what the word means). To ask, "Why is there not nothing?" is meaningless, because nothing can't "is."

Linguistically, what you just said is, I'm sorry to say, bullshit.

EDIT: Not the part about nothing existing, that is - that would be just technically incorrect, the part about is.

[hackenslash]

'Nothing' would constitute a zero field, whose value (position) and rate of change (velocity) could, in principle, be predicted with certainty. This is a violation of the uncertainty principle. Remember that HUP applies to fields in precisely the same way it applies to particles.

Note that, unlike the navel-gazer's treatment above, this is rooted in rigorous empirical science, and one of our two most accurate and successful physical theories.

[Martin TK]

'Nothing' would constitute a zero field, whose value (position) and rate of change (velocity) could, in principle, be predicted with certainty. This is a violation of the uncertainty principle. Remember that HUP applies to fields in precisely the same way it applies to particles.

Note that, unlike the navel-gazer's treatment above, this is rooted in rigorous empirical science, and one of our two most accurate and successful physical theories.

Huh??? :bananacolor:

Edit:  Sorry, Physics and I don't always understand each other.. Ok, it understands me, I just don't grasp it...  so usually I just run around naked and leave the heavy physics lifting to those much more intelligent than I am....  

[Jac3510]

Because nothing can't exist, by definition. The word "is" implies existence (that is what the word means). To ask, "Why is there not nothing?" is meaningless, because nothing can't "is."

Linguistically, what you just said is, I'm sorry to say, bullshit.

EDIT: Not the part about nothing existing, that is - that would be just technically incorrect, the part about is.

You lost me a bit - about it implying existence or that nothing can "is." The former is just a reference to being, since "is" is the state of being verb. The latter is in quotation marks precisely because it's bad grammar. So I'm not sure where your disagreement is?

[hackenslash]

Huh??? :bananacolor:

Edit:  Sorry, Physics and I don't always understand each other.. Ok, it understands me, I just don't grasp it...  so usually I just run around naked and leave the heavy physics lifting to those much more intelligent than I am....  

Hehe. That happens a fair bit. This stuff is pretty counter-intuitive, but it is well established. Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot know both the position and the velocity of a particle simultaneously. This applies equally to fields. In this context, it tells us that a field can fluctuate around the zero value (with certain well-defined exceptions, such as absolute zero, which is actually impossible to attain, and can only be asymptotically approached) but can never actually remain zero (it can even have negative values, if you want really counter-intuitive).

In fact, as far as we can tell, a particle (or a field) doesn't actually possess a position or velocity until such time as it is observed. What constitutes an observer is another area that generates much confusion, because even another particle can constitute an observer. Indeed, in the majority of hard experiments dealing with this, the observer in question has been a photon. Some have suggested that it is actually the interaction of the photon that determines the position/velocity of the particles in any given experiment, and that the uncertainty inherent in the observation is related to the wavelength of the photon doiong to observing.

This is tricky stuff. Not for nothing is the most famous quote about QM Feynman's famous 'if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory'. These principles I'm talking about here, though, are very well-established, and in fact form the core principles upon which most of modern technology is dependent, in the form of quantum tunnelling, which is the principle upon which microchips operate. In other words, if this weren't true, your computer wouldn't work!

Edit: Oh, and navel-gazing is what is engaged in by people who think that more can be learnt about reality by staring at one's belly button than simply the colour of the lint found there, a.k.a. philosophers of the stripe of Jac here (who isn't actually a philosopher, but a theological apologist, much in the vein of Kalamity Craig and other such morons). I don't know whether you can tell, but I have little time or patience for such nonsense.

[Asmodean]

You lost me a bit - about it implying existence or that nothing can "is."

Is does not necessarilly imply conventional, material existence. For instance, "Nothing is certain" attributes a property t nothing by using is. Thus, in this expression, nothing "is" something (certain). You have to see the word is in the context of the question to apply the correct meaning to it.

The former is just a reference to being, since "is" is the state of being verb. The latter is in quotation marks precisely because it's bad grammar. So I'm not sure where your disagreement is?

I didn't bother to argue the point, just the wording and the understanding of the question at hand. Since nothing can be defined, if not successfully imagined, one can, with the law of words in hand, say that nothing is or is not

[Jac3510]

Ah, I see. I'm not referring to material existence. I would only add that it is obviously self-contradictory to say that "nothing" can materially exist. Even when you conceive of nothing, the nothing, in virtue of the fact that it is a concept in your mind, is something, if nothing more than an empty concept. It's a label at least. Nothing cannot properly be thought of, because the moment you call it nothing, it ceases to be nothing. The entire notion is self-contradictory the moment we try to think about it or make it an object of cognition.

All this is why I find the entire question so silly. It is extremely evident (at least to me) that it is meaningless to talk about "nothing," which is why the question in the OP is (in my view) meaningless. If "nothing" is impossible, and if that which is impossible can't really exist, then it goes without saying that "nothing" can't exist (which should be evident in the statement itself). So there is something because that is what it means to be, and it couldn't be any other way.

[i_am_i]

Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

[Jac3510]

Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

That's not nothing existing. Don't confuse colloquial language with precise language. "There is nothing in here," taken precisely, is false. There is air in there. And if no air, there is space. "There is nothing in here" is a colloquial way to say, "What I am looking for is not found in this place."

So no, "nothing" doesn't "exist." It's both silly and self-contradictory to assert that it does.

[i_am_i]

Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

That's not nothing existing. Don't confuse colloquial language with precise language. "There is nothing in here," taken precisely, is false. There is air in there. And if no air, there is space. "There is nothing in here" is a colloquial way to say, "What I am looking for is not found in this place."

So no, "nothing" doesn't "exist." It's both silly and self-contradictory to assert that it does.

Actually I was going for a laugh there but obviously nobody was home.

Is everything always so drearily serious, so "precise," with you?

[GAYtheist]

Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

That's not nothing existing. Don't confuse colloquial language with precise language. "There is nothing in here," taken precisely, is false. There is air in there. And if no air, there is space. "There is nothing in here" is a colloquial way to say, "What I am looking for is not found in this place."

So no, "nothing" doesn't "exist." It's both silly and self-contradictory to assert that it does.

Actually I was going for a laugh there but obviously nobody was home.

Is everything always so drearily serious, so "precise," with you?

I love this explanation. That "nothing" actually exists, to me, makes a lot more sense. If we can imagine something it is possible, and we cannot imagine nothing. Try it...it'll make your head hurt.

[PoopShoot]

If we can imagine something it is possible

Not necessarily.

[i_am_i]

If we can imagine something it is possible

Not necessarily.

The suspense is maddening.