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.
Every word begins and ends with the empty word.
The empty word begins and ends with itself.
Carl,
But nothing can’t cause it either, I like to look for the causes of effects…
Garth
Garth, all
All this boils down to: We cannot use existence to explain existence, since we cannot accept circular logic. All we are left with is nothing to explain existence.
We are actually left with no other choice than accepting that what exists comes from nothing.
This is of course very counter-intuitive, but there is help for that:
For existence from nothing, we know that there are no rules or laws “in nothing” that can prevent something from starting to exist.
Carl
Alternatively we can just accept the existence of a ‘self-existing’ entity; either the universe, in some form or other, has always been there with no beginning and no end, or some traditional idea of a self-existing creator, which was the first cause of everything else (the ‘fire in the equations’).
I find this alternative no more or less a satisfying explanation than
.
Garth
Garth,
It does not work that way. You can’t choose an explanation based on what you find satisfying. And why do you choose to believe in the impossible? Something “always” existing is proven to be imposssible.
And you choose to believe in circular logic as well. This is even stranger than something “popping out” of nothing.
Carl
The point is, I do not believe you have proved the impossibility of something “always” existing.
Such a thing would not be ‘self-caused’, for it would require no cause at all, it would simply ‘be’.
In the days of the Steady State Theory it was naturally assumed by many that the universe did not have a beginning nor an end, it simply existed, without cause, for all time. This was a counter to the theistic claim that God was the cause of the Big Bang as per Abbe’ Lemaitre and Pope Pius XII. This latter approach of course could be seen to be an example of a ‘god-of the-gaps’ argument, in this case the ultimate ‘gap’.
When the Big Bang theory proved to be observationally superior there was a flurry of activity to find a natural cause of the BB, such as that which might be given by String Theory, Brane theory or Loop Quantum Gravity, otherwise, indeed, one could equally say “God did it”. Today it is generally thought that the BB was not the beginning but just a stage the universe has gone through. This of course cannot be substantiated observationally it has to be just taken on trust, or ‘faith’.
Equally your argument that the universe just ‘popped’ out of nothing, while avoiding the question of a first-cause, and the impossibility of self-cause seems to be something that has to be taken on trust, or faith, but I find it a less satisfying explanation, than either an eternal universe or an eternal Creator.
Garth
Garth,
Maybe we are getting somewhere now? Where is the error I’ve made?
Beside this, you realize you are taking a position that means an explanation for existence is impossible? If you only were able to prove that it is impossible to explain it..
This position is of course also the position that allows the eternal gods in through the back door.. I don’t like that..
If I made an error I”ll be the first to say sorry. I don’t want to believe in something wrong.
Carl
Carl,
I may have missed something important in this long thread, however I as understand it, you have shown the impossibility of something causing its own existence, with which I agree, but I cannot see how that then proves the ‘impossibility of eternal existence’.
Some thing, such as the universe, could simply exist; there would be no need of a first (self) cause because there would be no first moment, it would always be there. Each event caused by a preceding event and that preceding event caused by an even earlier one ad infinitum, the whole universe itself being uncaused.
We may indeed be left with either a universe ‘popping’ out of nothing, or an eternal uncaused universe or an eternal uncaused creator. Each possibility may appeal to different people
Garth
“By corollary, let’s take the fact that our observable region of the universe exists, and propose that perhaps it exists within something else which we can’t appropriately describe, but might as well call “nothing”. Whatever this “nothing” is that our universe exists within, it must necessarily be possible for such entities as universes to exist there. So might not there be quantum vacuum fluctuations that ensure existence, given that we know it’s possible? Granted, this is vague and may be nonsense, but I have a feeling that if this could be well-described, something like this might provide a possible answer to why there is something instead of nothing, because it would show that nothing existing is a logical contradiction.
Nope. You can’t do it. Any event that causes something is itself something. You can’t get something from nothing. Even space has qualities and structure, hence, it too is something.
If there were ever nothing, therefore, there would still be nothing. Since there isn’t nothing, now, it follows that there was always something, at least for as long as always was. It is and always will be a purely metaphysical question, unapproachable by Science and proof, if you are looking for it, that Science cannot answer every question, no matter how important and fundamental.
“New Atheist” Scientists strike me as angry people. No doubt this question is one of the reasons, alongside, at least for now, the key point in the Natural Selection sequence no Evolutionist ever wants to discuss, how it began.
Now that nothing is really something!
“I can’t do justice to Grünbaum’s takedown of this position,”
Well it isn’t that complicated really. Once you weed through all the hoo hawing you come to this:
Grünbaum simply states that because the Universe exists, it thereby exists naturally (since he assumes we all know there is no god and no other mechanism for instantiatiation). The PEQ it is therefore not a valid question. Essentially a 1200 word duck, to rousing applause.
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/4/561
Garth,
Regarding eternal existence, this is something that’s by definition has not started to exist.
Given the information that X has not started to exist, we can only logically deduce that X does not exist. We cannot say that this means that X exists and always have.
Given the fact that Santa has not started to exist, it is invalid to conclude that Santa has always existed.
We can only conclude that something that has not started to exist, does not exist. Otherwise the eternal existence of anything we substitute for X must be believed in.
This is why I said that eternal existence contradicts existence. And this is also why eternal existence can’t be logically explained.
So again, this leaves us only with “nothing” to explain existence. Existence must come from nothing.
Carl
This is where we disagree; the information we have is not that ‘Given that “X has not started to exist”‘ but that ‘Given that “X already exists”‘.
An example of this was the Steady State Universe, exponentially expanding with no beginning and no end and satisfying the Perfect Cosmological Principle in which it looks the same from any location in space and at any epoch in time. The one fact we started from was the belief that we, and the universe as a whole, already exists!
I say ‘belief’ because that was what our experience and instruments tell us, though of course it may, as in ‘The Matrix’, all prove to be a delusion!
Garth
Garth,
No, here you are equating “already exists” with “always existed”. “Already exists” equates “has already started to exist.”
Eternal existence is equivalent to existence that has not started. It has not been “established”.
It also strikes me that you are more ready to accept non-caused eternal existence than maybe “less” non-caused existence from nothing.
Carl
That relationship: “already exists” = “always existed” was what the Perfect Cosmological Principle was all about…..
Even though the SST has been superseded, present attempts to explore back before the Big Bang http://npg.nature.com/nphys/journal/…/nphys654.html either with Loop Quantum Gravity, String theory or Brane theory, expose the possibility that there was no real beginning in time for our universe.
It has not had a ‘start’, that is a first moment in time, but that is not equivalent to it not existing, for it has always existed.
There may of course be a first moment, i.e. a beginning of time itself in the Big Bang singularity, and that would depend on how you define and measure time, i.e. with what sort of clock do you measure it, but that does not negate the other possibility.
Garth
Garth,
—
That relationship: “already exists” = “always existed” was what the Perfect Cosmological Principle was all about…..
—
But this “principle” is not a principle, is only a guess actually..In a bit of trouble because of the Big Bang. We have no evidence there is anything before that.
There is no evidence for this principle. It is simply trying to explain existence with existence yet again, a logical impossibility .
Carl
I am not necessarily saying there was an eternally existing universe, just that it is a possibility, it is not a logical impossibility.
It is normal to explain existence of a state ‘now’ by the existence of a previous state at an earlier time. Far from being a “logical impossibility” this is absolutely logical.
The only question is whether there was always an ‘earlier time’, not matter how far back you go, especially at such a special event as the Big Bang. I am just pointing out that you cannot prove that the Big Bang was a singularity for under those conditions GR, which predicts such, may well break down.
If it is the case that you can go back before the BB, as many workers in the field believe, then you might well be able to go back forever. You could never prove it of course, but you couldn’t disprove it either.
Garth
Garth, the question here is “why something rather than nothing”. Going forever back (even before the BB) does not answer it. This is just trying to answer the question using existence to explain existence. That is circular logic, and this explanation is therefore a logical impossibility.
Logic itself forces us to accept that the ultimate explanation for existence is that what exists must come from nothing. Nothing else is compatible with logic.
To my way of thinking this statement is just an example of the logical reductio ad absurdum.
Therefore either we do not exist, or there is something wrong with your assumptions.
Garth
No, nothing is wrong. I have shown that creation “from” nothing is entirely consistent with logic. Remember, there are no rules or laws “in” nothing that could prevent that from happening.
This explanation for existence is the only one allowed by logic. I’ll give you it is not a “physical ” theory showing what happened in the moment of the BB when the universe was created from nothing. That is still to be worked out.
But this is all logic allows.
Carl
Understood, but do you not find this conclusion absurd?
Garth
If it is consistent with logic, how can it be absurd? It’s only your intuition or instincts (which you should not blindly trust) that tell you it is absurd.
We’re all used to that. Both QM and SR can appear quite contrary to “common sense” and human instincts.
Carl
As I said, as in “reductio ad absurdum”. The logic is impeccable, it is the conclusion that is absurd.
Obviously you do not find it absurd, but I do, no less so than an eternal universe that has not been “established”.
Garth.
Garth,
You choose to view the conclusion as absurd since you don’t like it, it seems. I don’t see a demonstration of its absurdity. No point in going on I guess. Everybody else seems to have left the tread anyway. That’ s a shame, there is more to tell. Somewhere else maybe.
Carl
CarlN, there is a fundamental difference between a causal loop and circular reasoning. Causal loops are strange, to be sure, as they overthrow our normal understanding of cause and effect. But they are not inconsistent, and therefore it is entirely possible (so far as we know) that the universe caused its own existence.
Circular reasoning is where one attempts to derive a conclusion by first assuming the conclusion. This is in no way related to cause and effect of a physical system.