The best talk I heard at the International Congress of Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science in Beijing was, somewhat to my surprise, the Presidential Address by Adolf Grünbaum. I wasn’t expecting much, as the genre of Presidential Addresses by Octogenarian Philosophers is not one noted for its moments of soaring rhetoric. I recognized Grünbaum’s name as a philosopher of science, but didn’t really know anything about his work. Had I known that he has recently been specializing in critiques of theism from a scientific viewpoint (with titles like “The Poverty of Theistic Cosmology“), I might have been more optimistic.
Grünbaum addressed a famous and simple question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” He called it the Primordial Existential Question, or PEQ for short. (Philosophers are up there with NASA officials when it comes to a weakness for acronyms.) Stated in that form, the question can be traced at least back to Leibniz in his 1697 essay “On the Ultimate Origin of Things,” although it’s been recently championed by Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne.
The correct answer to this question is stated right off the bat in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Well, why not?” But we have to dress it up to make it a bit more philosophical. First, we would only even consider this an interesting question if there were some reasonable argument in favor of nothingness over existence. As Grünbaum traces it out, Leibniz’s original claim was that nothingness was “spontaneous,” whereas an existing universe required a bit of work to achieve. Swinburne has sharpened this a bit, claiming that nothingness is uniquely “natural,” because it is necessarily simpler than any particular universe. Both of them use this sort of logic to undergird an argument for the existence of God: if nothingness is somehow more natural or likely than existence, and yet here we are, it must be because God willed it to be so.
I can’t do justice to Grünbaum’s takedown of this position, which was quite careful and well-informed. But the basic idea is straightforward enough. When we talk about things being “natural” or “spontaneous,” we do so on the basis of our experience in this world. This experience equips us with a certain notion of natural — theories are naturally if they are simple and not finely-tuned, configurations are natural if they aren’t inexplicably low-entropy.
But our experience with the world in which we actually live tells us nothing whatsoever about whether certain possible universes are “natural” or not. In particular, nothing in science, logic, or philosophy provides any evidence for the claim that simple universes are “preferred” (whatever that could possibly mean). We only have experience with one universe; there is no ensemble from which it is chosen, on which we could define a measure to quantify degrees of probability. Who is to say whether a universe described by the non-perturbative completion of superstring theory is likelier or less likely than, for example, a universe described by a Rule 110 cellular automaton?
It’s easy to get tricked into thinking that simplicity is somehow preferable. After all, Occam’s Razor exhorts us to stick to simple explanations. But that’s a way to compare different explanations that equivalently account for the same sets of facts; comparing different sets of possible underlying rules for the universe is a different kettle of fish entirely. And, to be honest, it’s true that most working physicists have a hope (or a prejudice) that the principles underlying our universe are in fact pretty simple. But that’s simply an expression of our selfish desire, not a philosophical precondition on the space of possible universes. When it comes to the actual universe, ultimately we’ll just have to take what we get.
Finally, we physicists sometimes muddy the waters by talking about “multiple universes” or “the multiverse.” These days, the vast majority of such mentions refer not to actual other universes, but to different parts of our universe, causally inaccessible from ours and perhaps governed by different low-energy laws of physics (but the same deep-down ones). In that case there may actually be an ensemble of local regions, and perhaps even some sensibly-defined measure on them. But they’re all part of one big happy universe. Comparing the single multiverse in which we live to a universe with completely different deep-down laws of physics, or with different values for such basic attributes as “existence,” is something on which string theory and cosmology are utterly silent.
Ultimately, the problem is that the question — “Why is there something rather than nothing?” — doesn’t make any sense. What kind of answer could possibly count as satisfying? What could a claim like “The most natural universe is one that doesn’t exist” possibly mean? As often happens, we are led astray by imagining that we can apply the kinds of language we use in talking about contingent pieces of the world around us to the universe as a whole. It makes sense to ask why this blog exists, rather than some other blog; but there is no external vantage point from which we can compare the relatively likelihood of different modes of existence for the universe.
So the universe exists, and we know of no good reason to be surprised by that fact. I will hereby admit that, when I was a kid (maybe about ten or twelve years old? don’t remember precisely) I actually used to worry about the Primordial Existential Question. That was when I had first started reading about physics and cosmology, and knew enough about the Big Bang to contemplate how amazing it was that we knew anything about the early universe. But then I would eventually hit upon the question of “What if they universe didn’t exist at all?”, and I would get legitimately frightened. (Some kids are scared by clowns, some by existential questions.) So in one sense, my entire career as a physical cosmologist has just been one giant defense mechanism.
Sorry CarlN, but your talk about nothing doesn’t make sense. Why do you speak of things coming from nothing, breaking away as you say? That implies a flow of time, which can only happen when there’s something already there to have changes in it. As for why I challenge the idea of existence: OK, you tell me, what does it mean to “exist,” in a non-circular way which doesn’t just reference what could be a model mathematical description? If there’s a multiverse, does that include cartoon and fictional worlds?
Bad: Just calling something a category error doesn’t make it so. And pre-emptively announcing that there couldn’t be a satisfying answer is presumptuous.
It’s because such questions are category errors: they apply concepts and terminology derived from a particular context TO that context.
No, people aren’t applying concepts and terminology derived from that particular context, they are using their powers of abstraction. We have only one example to literally handle, but we can “work with” more than that – like think about 2, 4, 6 dimensional universes etc., or even the abstraction of what it means for them to exist etc. It’s just a capability of the human mind.
And, whether I am surprised by this being here is not supposed to be a circular reinforcement of what is the case, but based on my ability to consider what could be the case, or not. I and some others did in fact explain in various ways why we should consider the fact of the universe “existing” (what does that mean, anyway?) and especially, it’s having these properties, to be surprising. (So, even if “existence” is not surprising, why is it like this? Can an astute thinker really tell me with a straight face, that you can imagine that this particular set of laws and content, and not others, just happen to match up to a fully abstract condition like “existing”? Why? If not, then what limits how much can and does exist?
I really tire of hearing that we can’t do this or that with our minds. If you think we can’t, then don’t, fine, but I am not limited thereby.
Well no: just calling a dog a dog doesn’t itself make it a dog… but it is still properly called a dog. And applying concepts derived from the context of the universe to the universe IS a category error, whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with trying to limit your wonderful imagination: in fact, the whole issue is that your imagination is insufficient outside that context because you’ve done away wit the only reference point you have to work with. Outside the context of the universe, you don’t have any legitimate reason to insist on those particular things over any others one might imagine.
But you don’t have any limits or grounds on such considerations. For all we know, our universe is extremely unlikely because of how UNordered and hostile to life and intelligence it is.
I didn’t say you couldn’t make up anything at all you want to imagine. The problem is outside the context of the universe any given thing you can imagine is as improbable or probable as any other.
Bad, you’re saying these things better than I said them in the original post. Maybe you should change your name to “Good”?
If Nothingness, in the strong sense ( lacking any, ie, quantum potentiality) were physically possible, wouldn’t it have been realized in nature? In other words, doesn’t existence deomonstrate that Nothingness is physically impossible?
For all we know, our universe is extremely unlikely because of how UNordered and hostile to life and intelligence it is.
Or it is extremely likely because bicentric preference over an extemely specific region of the universe implies that we might not be here by accident.
Bad, bob, all,
I see there is a need to explain existence. I will do it not in terms of anything existing (as you might get confused) but in terms of nothing, so the existence of the universe should not be an issue.
I know I will probably be requested to explain nothing after this, but what the h..
But first Bad:
—
CarlN: did you somehow miss all the points about why the question is meaningless? It’s because such questions are category errors: they apply concepts and terminology derived from a particular context TO that context. How can anyone possibly go about answering a question about what is likely for possible universes when they only have the one example to work with?
The universe exists, instead of not existing. If you think that reality is surprising, then YOU need to explain why it is.
—
I can easily imagine that this is the case. Existence or not? Why existence? Can it be answered within an existence? It is a legitimate question of course, especially if ones “grasp” on the concept of existence is not clear.
First we note the obvious: If is possible at all to answer the question, it can only be answered from within an existence. It cannot be answered from nothing.
Second, your take on it: You actually only point out that the question can be meaningless because of this. The proof is missing.
I don’t expect you to give a proof. So instead I’ll prove it is not meaningless.
Let’s do it in a roundabout and careful way (in my humble opinion of course):
Existence is a concept much easier to understand than for example energy or electric charge. What is energy really? What is electric charge really? Nobody knows of course, but that does not cause any concern for physicists. Well, it does but they are not stopped by it, and they are still working on it within this existence.
I could argue the same with existence but I won’t. Instead I’ll tell you what existence is.
Something that exists is just anything that is different from nothing.
Like the “fruit” concept “encapsulates” apples and oranges, existence encapsulate energy and charge and oranges. And everything that is not nothing.
Just like apples and oranges “produce” the concept of fruit, anything different from nothing “produce” the concept of existence.
Santa Claus does not exist. George Bush exists. Understanding the existence of George Bush, that is to say: George Bush is not nothing (despite what some might say!), is not different from understanding the existence of the universe: The universe is not nothing. If the universe were nothing it would not be possible to say “the universe is not nothing”.
The universe is not nothing. So it exists.
There are only two possibilities:
1. The universe is nothing
2. The universe is not nothing
The question now is:Why is the universe not nothing?
Why is the universe not like Santa?
Or we can generalize to include whatever, gods, other universes
The possibilities are
1. There is nothing
2. There is something
That’s all there is. In situation 2 there is of course also nothing (what’s left when disregarding all that is different from nothing).
The existence or non-existence of something is not different for things like gods, universes or bananas.
The simplicity of nothing (requires no explanation or causation) has on the other hand generated the question: Why something instead of nothing?
Something other than nothing requires an explanation. Saying that something does not require explaining or can’t be explained is to say that the presidency of George Bush cannot be explained (some left-wingers might say this question is more difficult!).
Things have turned out so that in situation 2 is is possible to discuss these possibilities. But the fact that it is possible to discuss this, does in no way complicate the issue.
Existence is just the common name for all “tings” (the universe, Bush, god if god exist etc) that is not nothing.
Existence is simple actually. Something is said to exist if it is not nothing. We don’t have to pretend it is difficult.
If you have difficulties thinking about the existence of the universe, think about the existence of any of its components, like Bush. The universe is simply the “sum” of the components. “Why the universe” is as meaningful as “why president Bush?”.
To me it seems that centuries of circular logic around this question has “forced” the conclusion that the question is meaningless. But the false conclusion is just a result of desperation.
And the way out of the circular thinking or out of the “meaningless-ness” is to realize that what exits has been created from nothing.
🙂
101. Neil B,
I realize I have done a poor job in my explanation. Sorry for that. I’ll try to do better:
When something suddenly appear “from” nothing: First, we see that there is no “gradual” transition from nothing to something. It’s not like:
0% existence
50% existence
100% existence
It’s 100% existence “suddenly”.
Now, nothing is the same “before” and “after” 100% existence. Because nothing is what is “left” excluding what exists. So “in nothing” nothing ever happened.
We can only see “what happend” from within that existence, like looking back at the Big Bang. Does this help?
Jeff (#1) might be right that perhaps “nothingness” is simply unstable.
And one more remark: perhaps, “to be” (in a form of physical existence,
and not just as a mathematical phantom) requires (ie, is not possible without)
at least “to be in (a?) general position” (Hawking’s / Sakharov’s “fire”).
(btw, Sean, one my NSU classmate (klimenko_at_phys.ufl.edu) was writing
(in ~1980, trying to avoid a philosophy exam)
an essay on Grunbaum’s geochronoconventionalism ! such a long -ism:)
I’m not a ((/so) perfect) philosopher so let me illustrate the point using
two `toy theories’ (no matter — only metric, symmetrical, naturally;
and Latin indices instead of Greek — for brevity).
Taken as a Lagrangian (density), (1) Ricci scalar, R=R_{mn}g^{mn},
and (2) R_{mn}G^{mn} (where G_{mn} is Einstein tensor) lead
to field eq-ns, resp.:
(1) G_{mn}=0,
(2) G_{mn}_{;p;q}g^{pq} + (quadratic terms)=0
One should add the Bianchi identity R_{ab[cd;e]}equiv0; its
prolongation (divergence) and contraction lead to the following
“evolution eq-n” for the Riemannian tensor:
(3) R_{abcd;m;n}g^{mn}equiv 2R_{c[a;b];d}-2R_{d[a;b];c} + (R^2) .
The trivial solution (R_{abcd}=0) is stable in the
first theory (“nothing is real”), but unstable in the
second theory: in linear approximation, the RHS in (3) is not
zero, and some components of Riemannian tensor (Weyl tensor)
grow up with time
e^{-iwt}(a + b t) ,
in general case (when the components of Ricci tensor do not vanish).
Of course, the second ‘theory’ (RG-gravity) is inappropriate —
we live in space-time with small curvature
(and both theories suffer from singularities in solutions).
However, interestingly, some intermediate situation is possible
(GR is not the only pebble .. as it was clear to Einstein who proposed
also absolute parallelism (AP) which combines symmetries of SR and GR)
in the most interesting and unique (no singularities,
hence topological (quasi)charges exist requiring some accounting system;
and there are no free parameters) variant of AP:
trivial solution is unstable, but curvature keeps small (stable) —
only components of least symmetrical portion of torsion grow up
(unstable). This portion does not contribute to energy-momentum
(unsensible, weightless waves; it sounds a bit strange but
let it be); the energy moves along usual
Riemannian geodesics paying little mind to torsion.
(Formally, in this variant of AP, covariantly conserved T_{munu}
can be related to a “weak Lagrangian” (the term coined by N.Ibragimov:
variation leads to prolonged equations), but this WL is trivial
(quadratic in field eq-ns) and gives no exact conservation laws
(no pseudotensor; only approximate, or conditional CLs exist —
say, when a symmetry with Killing vector is developed in a
solution).
Ok. And the last. In AP (and in absence of singularities)
one can note (making the Hegel’s thesis a bit more concrete
and less abstract):
being (existence, solution of general position), in any its point
(in very-very tiny piece, in zeroth jets),
is identical to nothingness (non-existence/ trivial solution).
That is, it is impossible to distinguish one point per se
(in zero jets) from another. Vacuum GR looks similar
(there are no invariants constructed from zeroth and
even first jets..) — but singular points..
(2) G_{mn;p;q}g^{pq} + (quadratic terms)=0 — of course, this is more correct
(Pardon me if this double posts, it seemed not to got thru the first time.)
CarlN: Sorry, it doesn’t help. Just try to appreciate what I was saying before. You’re treating “nothing” like a something, which is silly.
Bad (still Bad), Sean, et al:
I don’t know why you think that wondering about other universes is applying concepts from the context of the universe to the universe itself. There aren’t already other universes inside this one. Unless you are telling me I can’t abstract the sheer concept of “nonexistence” or “multiplicity” or “other” to the universe itself and possible partners, or that there could have been none of them, there is no reason why I shouldn’t be able to do it. Like it or not, you are trying to deny abstract thinking capabilities with facetious doubletalk about how we poor hicks are tied down inside our swampy little universe, so laden with the things we are familiar with, unable to form novel ideas and etc. I suppose we shouldn’t talk about infinity, since we never get to see infinite numbers of things, or perfect circles with literal pi as the ratio of their circumference to their diameter, etc., since they are outside the context of our everyday tomatoes and such.
BTW, are you telling all the other thinkers about multiple universes, including the ones who use physical theories to postulate their generation etc, that they can’t in principle make such speculations because they aren’t allowed to jump outside the context of the universe? The ones who postulate multiple universes in order to avoid appreciating that ours has the fine tuning for life (which is well-researched)? Or is it only thinkers who might produce an “undesirable” result, like a reason for this one existing and having the properties it has?
I didn’t say you couldn’t make up anything at all you want to imagine. The problem is outside the context of the universe any given thing you can imagine is as improbable or probable as any other.
Well, that lability of anything else is indeed the problem, as I mention. If the other things we can imagine are just as improbable or probable as any other, then ours shouldn’t be the only one, and we have the mess of modal realism – that’s basically what you describe. What you miss that is so ironic: If it is really so hard to get outside the context of our universe, then how come you are so confident of your metaphilosophical critiques of other’s perspectives on those issues? (Statements like the above etc.) Wouldn’t you really have to say, “Maybe, maybe not, who knows”? If something is really meaningless, unreachable, etc, you don’t even understand or know it well enough to disagree.
BTW, does anyone know if Google changed their search criteria sometime around July? Some of my searches started turning up different results around then compared to long-standing patterns.
Neil B.
Hm.. I have difficulties seeing I am treating nothing as something. Nothing is what’s left excluding all that exists. So nothing is simply “nothing”.
If we imagine the situation where no “things” exists (as I called situation 1 above) there is simply nothing. No time, no laws, no rules. There is only “time” in existences where there are “forces” causing change or motion to occur.
We could imagine a universe coming into existence with some objects in it (spanning its space), but where there is no relative motion between the objects. In this universe there is no time at all. Looking at it it is impossible to determine whether it was “created” 5 seconds ago or 5 billion years ago.
So time depends on continual change. And there can only be time “inside” something that exist. Not so in nothing. Nothing does not change when something start to exist. Nothing does not exist.
My wording might be confusing at times, and maybe this make it worse. One thing is the idea in one’s head. It can look different when it’s written down and read by someone else. Maybe we should all give each other some slack in this respect.
Also English is not my native language, and I know I’m clumsy at it.
And I realize also atheists can be nuts, not only religious people 🙂
Ivan, I only have an M.Sc. in physics. I think I have good knowledge of ordinary quantum mechanics, a little bit of “QED”, but hardly any GR, just the SR. So I can’t comment on what you’re saying here.
But I agree we should try to find a mathematical description on what “goes on” when something “comes from” nothing. (Careful with that wording).
We can only conclude from logic that there can be no rules,laws that stops something from being “created” from nothing.
For Neil B: I’m not meaning that nothing is doing any act of creation.
The no rules “in” nothing “condition” will in my opinion mean that there are infinitely many “ways” in which something can come “from” nothing. I guess the only restriction that can be placed is that something illogical, something that conflicts with itself cannot start to exist.
So there cannot exist anything that could prevent existence, for example. And “nothing” can’t do anything. Nothing can’t prevent anything.
Coming up next (maybe) on this blog:
The logical impossibility of eternal existence. Invalidating not only much of religion but also any cosmological model proposing that the universe has always existed in some form or another.
Sharpen your brains and prove me wrong! 🙂
Neil B – I think what Bad’s saying is that we’re limited by the terms of our existence within the universe we inhabit — the tools, our perceptual abilities, our language, our rules of physics, our capabilities of observation, etc. We can’t easily, or perhaps even sensibly, hope to address things that are beyond, beside, within, underneath… this existence. And that pretty much includes nothingness, because it does not fall within our existence.
I think that even if somehow we eventually develop to the point where we can see alternate existences, our understanding of them will likely be wildly biased by the same frameworks we currently find ourselves within, and will reflect little about the alternate “nature” (or lack thereof) that we’ve uncovered.
If multiplicity exists (as the terms of our universe might have it said) then we might possibly come to understand and perhaps even inhabit at least conceptually multiple universes. But even so, nothingness remains outside of that multiplicity.
I believe in this sense, Bad is not talking about nothingness as being akin to a numeric 0. In this sense, nothingness is the absence of everything, including reasoning, from any standpoint, of any universe. Including the absence of the concept of a numeric 0.
And as such, speaking reasonably about anything in comparison to nothingness is just ripe with error.
But, at least from my perspective, this isn’t really a terrible limitation upon reason, nor is it any suggestion that exploring cosmological origins is pointless. It’s just a bit of an outermost boundary where our sensibilities end.
The multiplicity of universes seems to be just fine, too.
Mark, I still think this limitation indulgence is an escape from the power of abstract thought. If we were really so limited, how can you imagine that things continue to exist even while not being observed? (Come on, logical positivists, what is the operational content etc. of that statement?) How could you conceive of your own death, if you only had being alive to work with, etc. We just can do it, and I think the reason is: we needed to be able to think about things like “It is still ‘there’ even if I can’t see it anymore” and imagine “thereness” in order to survive, when we moved past instinct and impulse and started modeling the world as ideas. I will concede one thing, and that is the subtleness of “exist” because we wonder if space-time is a fabric “thing” since it would still “be there” even if no objects were in it (a “vacuum” inviting comparison to other “vacua” with other properties – !) and the odd question of whether fields really exist or particles exist and the wave function etc. – as Clinton said, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”! BTW, what do you think of modal realism?
CarlN wrote “We could imagine a universe coming into existence with..”
Once again, “coming” means time, which means a universe or something at least, was already there – dude, please get the point! 😉
Why treat Nothingness as a physical idea? It is not the same as empty space. It can’t be filled. It has neither duration nor other dimension. Nor potentiality. There can be a whole lot of nothingness right under our noses and we wouldn’t know. Because nothing happens and nothing’s there. What experiment could we run to test the idea of Nothingness?
Maybe the qustion isn’t metaphysical at all but just a linguistic trap.
Or maybe it’s a “temporal” rather than “physical” question — today exists but yesterday is nothingness.
Well, Neil B., considering modal realism is interesting, but even more interesting to me is the linkage of empiricism to philosophy that physics so often, in general, does. I have no means to say anything definitively, or even authoritatively. Based on our current understanding, as I understand it, modal realism, in some sense, may well be an actuality. I think it is a highly speculative thing, but fun.
Which leads, in part, to the “limitation indulgence” that is “escaping from the power of abstract thought.” I can’t even say for certain that abstract thought is this almighty thing, unbounded by anything, even nothingness. There seems to be a certain hubris in believing such a thing, but I do not believe that hubris is always a bad thing.
It seems to me fine to consider nothingness. The problem arises when we attempt to connect it to the “something” we inhabit. There is no characteristic of “nothing” that we can tie ourselves to. As we approach it, the end leap just isn’t there. We’re caught within our own terms, linguistic, conceptual, or otherwise.
That’s not true for a multiverse, however.
I agree with you, from an aesthetic standpoint, that the discontinuity is not satisfying in the least. Perhaps it has something to do with that irritating arrow of time smacking us straight between the eyes. Perhaps nothingness never was. Perhaps we’re caught up in some crazy blooming belly button dream.
We’re certainly predisposed to having temporal origins in this nothingness, however.
Neil B,
—
CarlN wrote “We could imagine a universe coming into existence with..”
Once again, “coming” means time, which means a universe or something at least, was already there – dude, please get the point! 😉
—
Hmm , wording problems again I think..
No, “coming” means beginning of existence, the big bang. No time “before” that.
“Before” or “coming” does not imply time “in nothing” or “before” existence.
Time is limited to existence. This does not imply “..or something at least was already there.
Seen from “outside” our universe the big bang “never” happened. Time can only be perceived from within something that exist. And “the time” exists only in that existence.
“Nothing” is always separate from what exists. 99.999% existence is logically impossible. No matter what “happens” “nothing” is untouched by existence and time.
I think you should clarify for me (and maybe for yourself) how you view time.
If you can prove me wrong on something I’ll be glad. I don’t want to believe in something wrong.
🙂
Princeton Physics Professor John Archibald Wheeler said it best a very long time ago. How come the quantum? How come existence? His teaching inspired Nobel Prize winners like Richard Feynman (hope I got that right at age 83 with chancy memory)! MY new theory posted at my URL was written by 1993 while my recall was totally unconscious and instantaneous as far as I can now tell. It all still reads good to me because it always ALLOWS ME TO mind’s eye vividly see the ALWAYS MOVING DARK MATTER THAT FILLS ALL SPACE-TIME with absolutely no possiblity of “nothing”, AND allows the rythmic creation and death of visible matter. As visile matter, we only get to retina-see other visible matter. We need the mechanically false notion of nothing so we can feel separate and superior while COMPLETELY IMMERSED EVERY INSTANT EVERYWHERE ALLTHETIME, EVERYONE THE SAME– IN A HIGHLY INTIMATE and INTERACTIVE dark matter. As Leon Lederman, the best particle physicist who ever lived said (read his “The God Particle”), the notion of “nothng: makes us feel more comfortable. It gives all things lousy a great place to hide, including bad thinking. That is why the physics of “something” that needs no problematic math to hide it, is so long in catching on –but it must and will to prove one other thing Wheeler said–“How could we be so stupid for so long”. And the anser is –it lets the masses also be highly intelligent and inventive! You can still tell a real genius by there loneliness. Can you imagne our massive genius giving up and accepting the truth?
All, please prove me wrong on this:
The impossibility of eternal existence
When thinking about something that has always existed, we note that
no explanation can be given for its existence. That naturally raises questions about the validity of the concept. If something can’t be explained we must reject it (not just ignore the problem and believe in it).
For centuries one has tried to “solve” the problem by imagining that it might be
possible for something (like a god) to “necessarily exist” or be the cause of its own existence going back all eternity or “outside of time”.
S. Hawking also touched upon this: “Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator…? And who created him?”
The impossibility of causing its own existence is simply put: For causing its own existence, something needs to exist “first” for causing its own existence, and also it needs “causing” exist. There is no way out of this but to reject that no “things” can cause its own existence. After realizing this, the philosophers gradually gave up on the problem “why something rather than nothing”.
Since it seemed impossible to answer the question, the way out was to declare the question meaningless.
And they forgot to investigate whether something can “come from” nothing. “Nothing comes from nothing” seemed too obvious I guess.
I digress, back to God:
Now, when thinking about something eternal we realize that its existence has never been established. Something, whose existence has not been established, simply does not exist. The concept of eternal existence actually contradicts existence. Eternal existences (like gods) can only be imagined. In reality, a situation in which there exist something eternal has never been established of course.
So eternal existence is not only impossible to explain (as we have always known), it is also plainly impossible. It contradicts itself. No wonder it can’t be explained.
In turn, this implies that something that exists needs a beginning, like a big bang. This has obvious consequences for religious belief. A small cost is that it sacrifices some cosmological models that suppose that the universe has always existed in some form or another (even “before” the big bang).
Since everything needs a beginning it can only be concluded that existence ultimately “comes from” nothing. As I already have shown, the logical “avenues” are wide open for creation “from” nothing. There are no hinders, rules, laws (like conservation laws) “in” nothing, that can prevent creation “from” nothing.
The “no rules in nothing” has, other interesting consequences of course. Maybe more on this later.
OK people, please prove me wrong. I really would not like believing in something wrong.
May I ask why you say this?
Lots of things may exist whose existence has not been established; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Garth
Garth,
Read it again please, establish not in the meaning of “ascertain” but in the meaning of “construct” or “put in place” or whats the correct english?
Carl, thank you for that clarification, but does not this use of the word ‘establish’ also apply to the universe as a whole?
What is it in the “nothing” that ‘establishes’ the universe?
Does this not bring us back to Stephen Hawking’s question I quoted above, “”What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
Which, to my way of thinking, is just another way of asking the original question.
Garth
Garth, I’ve tried to understand what you mean..
—
Carl, thank you for that clarification, but does not this use of the word
‘establish’ also apply to the universe as a whole?
—
The universe is of course “established” (maybe a poor choice of word?) because of it’s beginning, the big bang. The big bang established its existence.
This is the opposite of anything eternal (eternal god or eternal universe or eternal equations) that has no beginning and thus don’t exit. Their existence has not been “established” so they don’t exist.
—
What is it in the “nothing” that ‘establishes’ the universe?
—
I think I have tried to explain. Nothing does not exist and can’t do anything. It does not establish anything. Nor can it prevent existence. It can’t prevent something from “popping out” into existence.
“Nothing” only provide an explanation for existence. since we can’t use circular logic and use existence (something that exists) to explain existence. That’s been tried for thousands of years.
We cannot even use eternal “equations” to explain existence. Not only because that would again involve circular logic, but because anything eternal is just impossible anyway.
I just used the Hawking quote to show that he also probably don’t believe that the “unified theory” can cause it’s own existence and then asks about creator(s).
As I showed it is impossible for something to cause it’s own existence. So the unified theory can’t cause its own existence.
All we are left with is nothing to explain existence. That’s not so bad actually,
since “nothing” can’t stop “something” from starting to exist. So it makes sense at last. This can also explain more actually, like the “fine tuning” of the universe..one need of course to following the conclusions “for a while”..it’s required to study some of the consequences of “no rules in nothing”.
Or can somebody prove that “only nothing can come from nothing”? I’ve tried for a long time to prove it, but it seems I can’t. If someone can do that, then I can forget all about this.
Carl
Agreed.
Popping out of what?
Okay, if that explanation satisfies you, but I find it does not satisfy me.
The Big Bang may not be an absolute beginning, for universe itself may be eternal in which our ‘Big Bang’ being just one of an infinite number of bottlenecks it has to go through. In this case the eternal universe would therefore just ‘exist’, but you find that nonsensical.
Garth
Garth,
—
Okay, if that explanation satisfies you, but I find it does not satisfy me.
The Big Bang may not be an absolute beginning, for universe itself may be eternal in which our ‘Big Bang’ being just one of an infinite number of bottlenecks it has to go through. In this case the eternal universe would therefore just ‘exist’, but you find that nonsensical.
—
I don’t find it “nonsensical”. I find it impossible. As I proved, I believe. So assuming the proof stands, the only explanation (as I can see) is “existence from nothing”.
I thought I’ve just shown the impossibility of something eternal. Maybe it was not clearly enough stated? If so, say it and I’ll try explaining it better. If not, disprove it.
“Popping out of nothing” That is just strange wording for a strange concept.
Popping out of what? Nothing. Since nothing can’t stop it.
Carl