Why is there something rather than nothing

[Wilson]

"Why is there anything" is the most profound question there is.  

Here's what it's asking.  You'd think that if you go far enough back in time, that there must have been a time at which there was nothing, and then something was created.  It's hard to imagine how there could have always been some mass or energy or something.  Surely in the way distant past there was a time when there was absolutely nothing around.  But if there was nothing, how could something have come about?  If something created it (God, anyone?), how did that force or entity or whaever come to exist?

Now in the current universe it's true that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and create particles that almost always cancel themselves out almost immediately.  Some people have postulated that the big bang was a massive quantum fluctuation out of nothing.  But even if that were true, it depends on there being a structure or framework or physical laws that allow quantum fluctuations to occur.  So even if wasn't matter or energy, there had to be some kind of a framework even before that big bang.

So it seems to me that it's impossible for us to be here.

But we are.  So bottom line, we are truly ignorant about the nature of reality.  My guess is that we'll never figure this one out.

[TheJackel]

"Why is there anything" is the most profound question there is.  

Here's what it's asking.  You'd think that if you go far enough back in time, that there must have been a time at which there was nothing, and then something was created.  It's hard to imagine how there could have always been some mass or energy or something.  Surely in the way distant past there was a time when there was absolutely nothing around.  But if there was nothing, how could something have come about?  If something created it (God, anyone?), how did that force or entity or whaever come to exist?

Now in the current universe it's true that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and create particles that almost always cancel themselves out almost immediately.  Some people have postulated that the big bang was a massive quantum fluctuation out of nothing.  But even if that were true, it depends on there being a structure or framework or physical laws that allow quantum fluctuations to occur.  So even if wasn't matter or energy, there had to be some kind of a framework even before that big bang.

So it seems to me that it's impossible for us to be here.

But we are.  So bottom line, we are truly ignorant about the nature of reality.  My guess is that we'll never figure this one out.

Wilson, Nothing for the last time can not be a person, place, or thing in the literal sense regardless of how far back in time you want to think back to. And a god would still be subjected to that very same argument, and that is especially true when you start asking questions like what a god would be made of, and how was that material created, or how was said place of its existence created so itself could have a place to exist. It gets rather ridiculous doesn't it. Creationism is impossible since entities can not create existence, reality, or concepts of when they are slave to need it as much as anything else is or would be. Gods are logical fallacies at best.

As far as framework is concerned, you don't seem willing to apply such things to magical entities.. Such as what is a god without the information it requires to know it's a god or even existent.. All conscious entities are observers and products of reality and not creators of for a very good reason. You can only manipulate what already exists at best, and at best it would be no more different than a bird building a nest, or humans building big cities. So either all things are GOD or GODS do not exist under the concept of creation.

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

You need to start thinking in literal definition when you talk about nothing or even non-existence.. They could never be forms, entities, things, objects, places, or existent since the strict and literal definition states they can't and don't exist. These words are also only common descriptive words used as a means to describe the absence of something you expect to be there.

[Wilson]

Wilson, Nothing for the last time can not be a person, place, or thing in the literal sense regardless of how far back in time you want to think back to. And a god would still be subjected to that very same argument, and that is especially true when you start asking questions like what a god would be made of, and how was that material created, or how was said place of its existence created so itself could have a place to exist. It gets rather ridiculous doesn't it. Creationism is impossible since entities can not create existence, reality, or concepts of when they are slave to need it as much as anything else is or would be. Gods are logical fallacies at best.

As far as framework is concerned, you don't seem willing to apply such things to magical entities.. Such as what is a god without the information it requires to know it's a god or even existent.. All conscious entities are observers and products of reality and not creators of for a very good reason. You can only manipulate what already exists at best, and at best it would be no more different than a bird building a nest, or humans building big cities. So either all things are GOD or GODS do not exist under the concept of creation.

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

You need to start thinking in literal definition when you talk about nothing or even non-existence.. They could never be forms, entities, things, objects, places, or existent since the strict and literal definition states they can't and don't exist. These words are also only common descriptive words used as a means to describe the absence of something you expect to be there.

Please note that I'm an atheist, myself.  My comments were not an argument for God, obviously, but an expression of the fact that it doesn't make any sense for us - or anything - to be here.  You say that "Nothing" could never exist.  Cool.  I agree.  So where did that "something" come from, originally?  My sense is that you don't know, I don't know, scientists don't know, and I suspect that in fact nobody will ever know.  A confession of ignorance on this subject is not an argument for the existence of God - it's simply telling the truth.

[TheJackel]

Wilson, Nothing for the last time can not be a person, place, or thing in the literal sense regardless of how far back in time you want to think back to. And a god would still be subjected to that very same argument, and that is especially true when you start asking questions like what a god would be made of, and how was that material created, or how was said place of its existence created so itself could have a place to exist. It gets rather ridiculous doesn't it. Creationism is impossible since entities can not create existence, reality, or concepts of when they are slave to need it as much as anything else is or would be. Gods are logical fallacies at best.

As far as framework is concerned, you don't seem willing to apply such things to magical entities.. Such as what is a god without the information it requires to know it's a god or even existent.. All conscious entities are observers and products of reality and not creators of for a very good reason. You can only manipulate what already exists at best, and at best it would be no more different than a bird building a nest, or humans building big cities. So either all things are GOD or GODS do not exist under the concept of creation.

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

You need to start thinking in literal definition when you talk about nothing or even non-existence.. They could never be forms, entities, things, objects, places, or existent since the strict and literal definition states they can't and don't exist. These words are also only common descriptive words used as a means to describe the absence of something you expect to be there.

Please note that I'm an atheist, myself.  My comments were not an argument for God, obviously, but an expression of the fact that it doesn't make any sense for us - or anything - to be here.  You say that "Nothing" could never exist.  Cool.  I agree.  So where did that "something" come from, originally?  My sense is that you don't know, I don't know, scientists don't know, and I suspect that in fact nobody will ever know.  A confession of ignorance on this subject is not an argument for the existence of God - it's simply telling the truth.

That's fine, I don't think I was addressing only you vs others who might also be reading this. The main point really is irrelevant in regard to whether or not you are an atheist or a theist. It's just stating the reality that nothing doesn't actually exist due to it being literally impossible  Yes I understand that everything we know to exist is hard or may even be impossible to fully understand as to how and why it does, but the simple answer is because it can. Yes there could be something out there that had created the observable universe, but it could never have created existence or reality itself. For all I know, my own farts could be creating fluctuations in the fabric of existence to which somehow creates a new dimensional universe beyond our own.

[penfold]

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

I've been thinking about this kind of question a lot lately. The more I puzzle over it the less happy I am with the kind of response you give. Funnily enough, as far as I can work out, the now dominant 'non existence of nothing' position stems from an early Christian maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing); which was used to justify a creator.

Please forgive me if what follows is somewhat shambolic, it is late and I am still struggling with the ideas myself.

So here is why I find the claim "nothing can't exist" troubling. It starts with a question I ask a lot, and have yet to get a fully satisfactory answer: "Where are my edges?" While we all seem to disagree as to exactly what constitutes 'us' we all seem to intuitively agree as to what is not-us. So I know I am not a tree in the distance, I also know that I am not you. Or that I am not my long since removed tonsils (though once they were a part of me). So what defines my edges?

Physical boundaries do not really help for two reasons: first they are impossibly vague (eg the oxygen and water cycles - when are particular molecules a part of me and when not?); second because they become all but redundant when dealing with temporal dimensions (eg the never ending cycle of cell death and birth).

Causal boundaries are even worse as the full casual system encompasses the whole cosmos (bounded by the distance light can travel in the life of the the cosmos). This line or argument would lead us to the conclusion that all is one. Pleasing perhaps, but then why are there edges and boundaries at all?

Objective mental boundaries are just dumb (sorry I have no time for idealism, we clearly have physical attributes), and even if we were to accept that the mind exists distinct from the body I still struggle to pin down what defines where I stop and other minds start.


This problem is in fact broader than one of personal identity, the question can be expanded, "What defines the edges of a thing?"

It seems to me that the only satisfactory answer is the concept of nothing (lit. no-thing). Nothing is the necessary context in which things become defined.

Bear in mind the existence of a thing as distinct from the gestalt of the cosmos is conceptual (ie they are boundaries we draw); so it is not mere word-play to place a concept as the limiting factor (ie using the concept of nothing to define the edges of things). So I think it is prima facie fair to claim that for a thing to exist so to must nothing.

Put another way, existence and nothing are two aspects of a larger whole. Nothing is necessarily a correlate of something's existence!


NB I think that I may have some precedent for this line of thinking in Eastern philosophy and the Taoist notion of Ying and Yang. Cf Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu...

peace

[TheJackel]

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

I've been thinking about this kind of question a lot lately. The more I puzzle over it the less happy I am with the kind of response you give. Funnily enough, as far as I can work out, the now dominant 'non existence of nothing' position stems from an early Christian maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing); which was used to justify a creator.

Please forgive me if what follows is somewhat shambolic, it is late and I am still struggling with the ideas myself.

So here is why I find the claim "nothing can't exist" troubling. It starts with a question I ask a lot, and have yet to get a fully satisfactory answer: "Where are my edges?" While we all seem to disagree as to exactly what constitutes 'us' we all seem to intuitively agree as to what is not-us. So I know I am not a tree in the distance, I also know that I am not you. Or that I am not my long since removed tonsils (though once they were a part of me). So what defines my edges?

That is pretty much irrelevant to the subject of non-existence or nothing. We are talking in terms of literal context.

Physical boundaries do not really help for two reasons: first they are impossibly vague (eg the oxygen and water cycles - when are particular molecules a part of me and when not?); second because they become all but redundant when dealing with temporal dimensions (eg the never ending cycle of cell death and birth).

There are no physical boundaries to existence in the sense of edges. Spatial capacity for example is an infinite volume because a negative spatial capacity is impossible to exist.. Cell death and birth are also irrelevant to the subject.

Causal boundaries are even worse as the full casual system encompasses the whole cosmos (bounded by the distance light can travel in the life of the the cosmos). This line or argument would lead us to the conclusion that all is one. Pleasing perhaps, but then why are there edges and boundaries at all?

Again, no possible boundaries to existence.

Objective mental boundaries are just dumb (sorry I have no time for idealism, we clearly have physical attributes), and even if we were to accept that the mind exists distinct from the body I still struggle to pin down what defines where I stop and other minds start.

Real simple.. Minds are not made of nothing for a literally good reason. They are material physical patterns. The mind and all it's thoughts and emotions are material even though they are incredibly complex. There is a reason why you have to physically feel love, hate, pain, anger ect and physically express them. It's no different as to why a robot or even rat brain cell robots can fly planes ect all on their own and learn from it, act on it, or do anything for that matter.

And to be clear, all things are made of energy, but they are simply in different states and complexities.  

This problem is in fact broader than one of personal identity, the question can be expanded, "What defines the edges of a thing?"

Again information is not made of nothing.. Personal identity is solely based on information you have access to that gives your identity structure and meaning. Information again is nothing more than material physical patterns. And anything can be considered an piece of information. Here energy is the sum total of everything, it is the substance of existence itself. And ground state or zero point energy is the base to all that exists. Again Edges of things are irrelevant.

It seems to me that the only satisfactory answer is the concept of nothing (lit. no-thing). Nothing is the necessary context in which things become defined.

Incorrect. Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing.. If it were, it wouldn't be nothing. If there is even information there to which you could process or apply meaning to, it wouldn't be nothing.. Again please remember we are talking in the most strictest form of literalism in regards to the terms nothing, or non-existence.



Anyways I think I know where you confuse yourself.. You keep refferring to something as a nothing. If you use the term "IT", or have an idea of something in your head, in both cases they are no longer nothing. And this is because they exist as ideas or objects in your head. Even a blank empty space is something more than nothing. So you can't think of nothing objects, persons, or places because it's impossible. So once you even think of something, it could never really in the literal sense be nothing, or even made of nothing.  

[hackenslash]

Funnily enough, as far as I can work out, the now dominant 'non existence of nothing' position stems from an early Christian maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing); which was used to justify a creator.

No. First of all, that particular phrase was attriibuted to Parmenides, who preceded christianity by at least 400 years, so we can dismiss the idea that it stemmed from christianity.

Secondly, the impossibility of nothing is rooted in the very real and demonstrable tenets of quantum mechanics.

If you don't like the answer, that's up to you, but it is the answer, and it is founded in precisely the same principles that the computer you are typing on rely upon for its operation, and are pretty much beyond refutation.

[Wilson]

Secondly, the impossibility of nothing is rooted in the very real and demonstrable tenets of quantum mechanics.

In order for a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a framework and physical laws that allow it.  Take away those, and there could indeed exist nothing.  

However, since we're here, it does seem impossible that there was literally nothing at any point in the past.  Otherwise, there would still be nothing.  

We're in no danger of figuring this one out, y'all.

[TheJackel]

Secondly, the impossibility of nothing is rooted in the very real and demonstrable tenets of quantum mechanics.

In order for a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a framework and physical laws that allow it.  Take away those, and there could indeed exist nothing.  

However, since we're here, it does seem impossible that there was literally nothing at any point in the past.  Otherwise, there would still be nothing.  

We're in no danger of figuring this one out, y'all.

Yep I can tell you those..

Positive
Negative
Neutral

These laws can not be written because everything requires them. That includes consciousness. And there is no such thing as non-physicality because something can not be made of nothing. Nothing can not be a person, place, substance, or thing. And you can't create that which yourself requires to exist or even function. The laws of existence can not be created, they can only at best be manipulated.

So according to Quantum Theory, fluctuations begin from zero point energy, or ground state. Hence the lowest possible level of power and complexity in regards to the laws of positive, negative and neutral. This is to where the emergence of complexity arises from its base state.