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.
Jason,
No, it does not answer “why something rather than nothing”. We need to understand why not nothing.
A loop “A causing A” or maybe “A causing B causing A” is a loop that exist. Why this loop instead of nothing?
Such a loop is explaining existence using existence, so it is circular logic.
Carl
CarlN,
The answer to why there is something rather than nothing, if there is to be an answer, would be a physics answer, not a dynamics answer. That is to say, if there is an answer, it is an answer in terms of something akin to, “The fundamental laws of physics force total nothingness where there is the potential for the stuff that makes up a universe to exist to be a contradiction in terms.” The answer would not be, “X event caused the universe to appear,” as that just begs the question as to what caused X.
My point in stating that causal loops are valid logical constructs was as a rebuttal to your claim in 143.
Jason, an “ultimate” explanation for existence can only have as a starting point “something” that requires no explanation and hence no causation. Any other starting point will not do. The only starting point that satisfies this is nothing.
An explanation involving physical laws “that forces nothingness” (a contradiction in itself) does not satisfy this. This is circular logic again.
Existence has to come from nothing because of this. The explanation can only use logic as in the “starting point” physical laws does not exist.
All we now is that any conservation laws (or any conceivable rules or laws or conditions) does not exist “in” nothing. This means we are not getting into trouble with logic, by saying that existence starts “from” nothing.
This is the only logical explanation to “why something rather than nothing” that can be given. Anything else will fail.
Also take note that the explanation cannot involve any physics. Only logic.
Carl
It’s interesting that no one has really defined what “nothing” refers to, as if readers should intuit it by themselves.
Is it an absence of something? An absence of everything? An absence of anything? Is an absence of something itself a something? Are we counting thoughts as somethings? Are we counting ideas as somethings? Abstractions?
This is why these sorts of questions annoy me. We assign mnemonics to ideas we can’t even describe formally, and then ask questions about those mnemonics. This “why something rather nothing” question is almost like asking “Why algebra instead of not-algebra?”. Well, what is “not-algebra”? What other system could we have used besides algebra? We are a specific kind of organism with a specific history needing to answer specific questions. Algebra resulted from that. Can we devise a system which effectively performs algebraic-like tasks, but isn’t isomorphic (i.e. can’t be reduced) to algebra? It doesn’t seem possible, by definition.
So let’s ask the basic questions first. What is “nothing”? What is “something”? What are the differences?
Etymologically, “nothing” is a reference to a lack of a thing. Which references a thing in the first place. Which means the thing had to have existed, in some shape or form, prior to the demarcation of its nonexistence. A unicorn doesn’t exist as an organism, but it does exist in the physical neural firings that represent the idea in our brains. That we know a unicorn doesn’t exist as an organism depends on the existence of the idea of the unicorn. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know to say it doesn’t exist. It’s the tree falling in the woods scenario. If no one is around to see it fall, does it make a sound? That you’re there or not there to witness the tree falling is irrelevant, I feel. The tree may be a frictionless tree which causes no sound when it falls. Perhaps the tree is in orbit, and thus constantly falling without making any sounds. The entire scenario demands our implicit approval of the definitional bounds of what trees and woods and falling are. So, too, does this discussion of nothing vs. something.
To define “nothing”, in general, requires the existence of “things” first, in some respect. Even if those things are figments or artifacts of our brain chemistry. Defining a lack of a something reduces to first knowing about the something, which reduces to being able to know, which leads us to further ambiguities. What does it mean to know? Are there other ways of knowing? Would a sentient species of alien even think our dichotomy, “nothing” vs. “something”, sensible? Perhaps there are other intermediate options which are, to abuse the highly redundant quote of Haldane’s, not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can possibly suppose.
I think I’m basically just restating Sean’s (and Grunbaum’s) position in a different way, now that I read over his post. But whatevers.
I hate philosophy. Intellectual masturbation, that’s what it is. 🙁
John,
This was strange reading, you discuss unicorns and stuff, fictional ideas that depend on human existence (for “existence” in human minds only) as if these concepts has anything to do with the question of existence or nothing.
Logic does not at all depend on our history or whether we are human or alien. It does not depend on whatever we might fill our minds with. It is really strange how such simple concepts can appear so complicated. Truth and reality does not at all depend on humans anything of what you refer to.
Falling threes and their sounds..
Something is said to exist if it is not nothing. Nothing is nothing. Nothing has no “shape”, no attributes whatsoever. It has no properties and no rules or “laws” are associated with it.
Nothing is the only thing that does not need an explanation as there is nothing(!) about it that needs explanation. This also means it does not need any causation.
Only that what exists needs an explanation.
Why algebra? There is no algebra in nothing. Algebra is “generated” by existence. Asking “why algebra” is the same as asking “why something”. We don’t even need to know what algebra is to answer such a question.
All questions depend equally on existence. No questions can be asked “when/if” there is only nothing.
🙂
Carl
Isn’t “nothingness” just such a fictional idea? Have we ever observed “nothingness”? You can’t observe it by definition. The entire idea is based upon our (human) assumption that “somethingness” has a complement, an opposite, and that the opposite is this thing, “nothingness”. My question is this: how do we warrant such an assumption?
Every logical system depends on axioms. Those things we take as axioms depend on the history of our understanding of how the universe works. They depend on what we perceive to be unalterable and how we think about things. And how we think about things ultimately depends on our hardware, i.e. our brains.
Truth and reality? Human beings have never experienced truth or reality. This is partially my point. We model truth and reality, certainly. But models have flaws and imperfections. And you can only examine those flaws and imperfections by developing better models. And we get into an infinite cascade from there, with each model improving upon the last. Godel and Turing aren’t famous for nothing, you know.
Messed up my blockquotes a bit in the previous post.
Jon,
This is the “human-centric” thinking.
No, they didn’t notice any change in reality in the Andromeda galaxy when humans appeared on Earth. And logic for them is the same as for us (maybe not all of us).
They also ask why something instead of nothing.
Follow your line of line of thinking and you end up believing all that exist is your own mind. But even that does not change the question. Why your mind instead of nothing?
Physics as well as logic does not depend on the existence of humans. It’s is the other way around actually.
But anyone is free to confuse oneself.
Carl
Carl, the ‘Andromedans’ might also conclude that a universe popping out of ‘nothing’ is also absurd!
Where I take issue with your argument is in the two lines of argument:
1.
and 2.
The problem with the first line of argument is that it assumes that existence requires ‘establishment’; this assumption is debatable, yet you base the whole of your logical edifice upon it. As I said the universe may simply ‘be’, uncaused, without beginning and without end. I personally do not think this is the case, but I acknowledge that others do think so. and I have to allow that possibility.
The second line of argument I find astonishing. Basically you are saying that in ‘nothing’ as there are no laws then anything goes, but you can argue anything from this premise and if you can explain anything then you have explained nothing….
One problem we have is the one and only universe we can observe is highly ordered in its structure. The physical basis that formed the Big Bang then and holds reality together today is mathematical in nature, yet mathematics is a mental activity. As I quoted from Stephen Hawking, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”.
I find your explanation that the fecund universe with its mathematical laws sprang from nothing, because in nothing there was nothing to stop it, less than satisfactory.
Interestingly this puts a twist on my statement (#47 above) that there are two sorts of people, those who think the question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is the most important question of all and those who think it is no question at all.
You obviously think it is an important question but give an answer that completely satisfies you although I find it to be no answer at all.
Garth
Hi Garth,
I agree, many Andromedans will find this unbelievable 🙂
If we assume existence don’t need to be “established” (“constructed”/initialized) then any eternal gods can be dreamed up and their existence can be claimed to be logical. Such a situation is of course not logical in itself and must be rejected.
First, maybe we should clear up something (as I confuse myself sometimes as well).
1. There is the concept of “caused” and “uncaused”
2. There is the concept of “explained” and “unexplained”
(this is probably very bad English but I think you get it..?)
Creation from nothing is (of course) uncaused since “nothing” can’t perform any acts “of causation”. Nothing can’t do anything.
But this nonetheless affords an explanation for existence and “why something instead of nothing”.
Regarding anything eternal we also see that causation is not involved. But suddenly also the explanation disappears. We are automatically “barred from any explanation. We cannot get any answer for “why existence”.
This is of course another way to look at the whole issue here. When something becomes unexplainable (for no good reason), we must reject it since there must be something wrong in our initial assumption. Here the initial assumption is the eternal existence. So eternal existence is not a logical concept.
Carl
The existence of an eternal God is not necessarily illogical, that is, depending on the nature of the god that is being invoked.
The ancient Hebrew name for God, taken from the story of Moses and the burning bush, “I am that I am”, is active in meaning and refers to God as the author, or in your words, the establisher, of existence. That notwithstanding, those cosmologists such as Fred Hoyle who held to the Steady State Theory because they were atheists did not find the acceptance of an eternal universe was rendered illogical by the possibility of an eternal deity, quite the opposite in fact.
I understand the difference between uncaused and unexplained; I only added in ‘uncaused’ as that would be an extra characteristic of such an eternal universe.
The existence of the eternal universe, if this universe is indeed eternal, is indeed unexplained. But that is the point, it’s existence would not need an explanation, it would simply ‘be’. One holding this view would consider the Original Question “No question at all.”
Garth
Garth,
I think I have demonstrated in various ways the logical impossibility of eternal existences, including gods. And the particular nature of any such gods does not matter at all. “Supernatural” beings have of course no more explaining-“power” than any other existence when the question is about existence.
Also, I can’t imagine why you prefer to have no explanation instead of having one. I can only guess it’s because you want to hang onto some god(s).
Regarding the “status” of question itself read my 107. There is nothing wrong with the question. Otherwise you would prove it, right?
Anyway this is very useful. If I’m right, I need to find the best ways of explaining this.
Creation from nothing can explain a bit more than just “why something rather than nothing”, but (most of) the fog around this issue needs to be cleared first anyway.
Carl
All,
Hm, everybody has left it seems. Should we leave it at this? Probably everyone is fed up with this.. Although I think the topic is important. But I do not want to come across as some lunatic spammer. Well, maybe I am..Should we move on and discuss the logical implications of creation “from” nothing? Could be interesting but I will not “force” the issue anymore.
Carl
Hi Carl,
I haven’t left yet, though I think we have agreed to disagree.
I would be interested in what you think the logical implications of “creation from ‘nothing'” are, if indeed in nothing there are no rules, for surely there are no definite implications, is it not a case of ‘anything goes’?
Garth
Hi, Garth
Ok, let’s see.. Read through a couple of times maybe, as this is bad English..Maybe I shouldn’t try to cram it into one piece but..
Yes, the “no rules in nothing” could mean that anything can “happen”. But what is “anything” in this case? The only thing that can “happen” “when” there is only nothing is that something starts to exist. Nothing else can happen, obviously. A quick proof (in the usual way): If we assume anything else can “happen” (except “creation”) there must be something “already” “there” contrary to our assumption of only nothing.
So only one thing can “happen”, that things start to exist. But what things? Anything? The other alternative is that nothing at all “happens” to or “in” nothing. But that is the case as well! Nothing happens to nothing! Unbelievable? See later..
I think it is best to recap a little bit first.
I point out once again that there is nothing illogical about something that starts to exist “from” nothing. The lack of conservation laws etc in nothing, means that creation from nothing is logically consistent and “physically” unhindered. There exist no requirements for causality as well “in” nothing. And we must necessarily use nothing as a “point of departure” for explaining existence. Any other “starting point” will necessarily involve circular logic.
Not only will any other explanation involve circular logic, it will necessarily also involve some eternal existence (a god, or some physical laws or something) in this explanation. The logical impossibility of anything eternal is another reason any such explanation fails. So for these two reasons “creation from nothing” is forced upon us. There are no alternatives.
Many may still disagree, but anyway, let’s see where this will take us:
1. There is no time “in” nothing. Assuming otherwise will of course lead to a contradiction.
2. Nothing is always “separate” from existence. If nothing at all exists there is of course only nothing. If something exists (like a universe) there is “still” nothing apart from what exists.
Apart from what exists there is nothing. “Nothing” does not exist.
3. Since nothing and existence are separate they are never “mixed”, not even in the “moment” of creation. 0.1% existence is as logically impossible as 99.9% existence. This means that when something starts to exits, nothing is “untouched” by this event. And it means that time is confined to existence. So, even “when” things start to exist, nothing happens “in” or “to” nothing!
4. “No rules in nothing” means that the properties of what comes into existence must be completely “random” somehow. The only requirement that can be logically imposed is that the properties of this “something” (call it a universe) must be self-consistent. Something that is not self-consistent will conflict with its own existence and cannot exist. That also means that it cannot be created (or start to exist). But how much does that limit the “number” of possible universes? Is a universe like ours the only possible self-consistent universe? Or is the number infinite? The answer is one of the two. We only know that the number is not zero anyway.
We should maybe also note that centuries of physics has only brought us one “piece” of knowledge that is absolutely certain. And that is that our universe is self-consistent. The logical self-consistency of reality is the most important piece of knowledge we have. Physics has of course brought us very much more, but most of this knowledge will be improved on as time goes by.
5. Since “nothing” is “untouched” by existence, we see that things can still be created “from” nothing even if something “already” exists. “In” nothing, it is not “known” whether something exists or not. So the existence of any number of universes does not affect the creation of “new” ones.
6. Universes created from nothing are independent of each other. Why? The only link between them is nothing. So there is no link. There is no possibility for something to be created from nothing inside an “earlier” universe. There is no “nothing” inside something that exists. Also travel from one universe to another is logically impossible, because of the lack of a link (sadly enough). If we think about two different universes that has started to exist, there is no way to determine which of them was created “first”. In each universe the “local” time cannot be applied for other universes.
7. There can be no limit to the number of universes that “has started” (or will start) to exist. Proof: There is no mechanism “in” nothing that can put a limit on this number.
8. Given the infinite number of universes (with “random” but self-consistent properties), the “fine tuning” of our universe is easily explained. On the other hand, if the properties of our universe are the only possible self-consistent reality, we must expect there to exist an infinite number of copies of our universe (and there will “still” be created new ones).
9. Given that our universe necessarily must have a beginning in its existence, we see that it is natural to interpret the Big Bang as this beginning. Cosmological models that propose that the universe always has existed in on form or another are necessarily wrong (on that point at least).
10. Because of the “no rules in nothing” the universe could have started its existence with any finite (and random) size. There is no requirement “in” nothing that says existence must begin as a point. So the laws of physics could still be valid even from the first moment of existence. It is logical to impose the requirement of self-consistency even at the moment of creation. But of course it may be possible to demonstrate self-consistency (using future, improved physical models) even in the limit of a point-like universe. But realizing that logic does not require a point-like universe at the first moment of Big Bang might be of help for cosmologists?
We (or I) still do not know anything about the moment of creation other than we know it is logically possible. We need to “find” some mathematics that can describe this. If we can splice this exercise in logic and “metaphysics” with some math describing this event, a theory of Everything does seem possible. A Theory of Everything would at least be possible in principle. Whether we ever would get there is another thing.
I will finally point out that a Theory of Everything is in fact impossible if we use something existing to explain existence. That includes eternal existences of course (like eternal physical laws). Proof: It’s circular logic to use existence to explain existence. That makes a Theory of Everything impossible.
But that’s what many religious people want, of course!
Carl
On the other hand, some religious people actually want a Theory of Everything.
This is because such a theory would need to be ‘established’ by an eternally existing God to avoid the circular logic you have identified otherwise.
Such a God would serve as the author and guarantor of the laws under-girding that theory.
Of course that point of view has to first accept the possibility of a ‘being’ eternally existing outside time, unexplained and uncaused, which I understand you do not accept.
Garth
Garth,
I was hoping for some “resistance” here, but that’s OK. I just want to point out that
a “Theory of Everything except God” is not a theory of everything.
—
This is because such a theory would need to be ‘established’ by an eternally existing God to avoid the circular logic you have identified otherwise.
—
There you are putting God into the circular logic loop. I’m not sure if He likes that!
If He exists, that is.
Carl
Carl,
Once you have one universe ‘popping out of’ nothing, of course you can have many or as few as you like.
Resistance:
I have three criticisms of your argument.
1. For reasons explained above I find your argument explains ‘nothing’, if you would pardon the deliberate pun! It may be a logically sound argument, but then so are “reductio ad absurdum” arguments, it is the logical conclusion that is absurd.
2. The further conclusion that there are many, perhaps an infinite number, of universes is a quite plausible but untestable conclusion. Where do we stand with it vis a vis the scientific method?
3. I am worried about your argument’s use of time. In ‘nothing’ there would be no time, therefore the casual link is broken in any case, there being no former cause of a later effect. I am not sure that anything can be spoken about this situation, for all possible hypotheses are equally plausible.
Garth
We are discussing about Nature (as causa sui:), or what ?
about personal impressions (or different traditions and skills
to make use) of the words `nothing’ and ‘something’?
I’m not sure that mother-nature understands (in all her regions)
English, or Fortran, or philosophical systems;
but it seems or it’s a piece of evidence that nature `understands’
in all regions some simple (and the same) mathematics,
that is, follows some strict physical law which
should admit a rigorous mathematical formulation.
Then it makes sense to probe and discuss some `mathematical
system’ (not philosophical:), eg field theory
(one can divide `world’ down to a point) —
say, whether all its solutions are eternal or not, and so on.
(to CarlN, 112: it is a pity that you are not so strong
in GR (say as ‘t Hooft or Witten) but perhaps you are
strong in hermeneutics 🙂 BTW, is there possible (in QED 🙂
a one-photon-world ? one photon for ever — it is not so
interesting but still it’s `something’.
One more BTW, some people are still interested
where is a photon when it is coming through Mach-Zander
interferometer (amplitude wave goes through both arms, but
what about photon itself? is amplitude just means to calculate a
statistical horoscope?) — look at
`Experimental Realization of Wheeler’s
Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment’, Science 315 (2007) 966
Minkowski space is not (absolutely) empty space (to Bob, 115):
according to GR, it is filled with the metric field, g_{munu},
and according to AP — with (co)frame field h_{amu}
(and g_{munu}=eta^{ab}h_{amu}h_{anu}, eta —
Minkowski metric).
If the main and simplest tensor (torsion)
Lambda_{amunu}=h_{amu,nu}-h_{anu,mu} vanishes,
one can find the inertial coordinates (`scalar fields’), y_a,
making integration y_{a,mu}=h_{amu}
(`coma’ denotes partial derivative).
This case (Lambda=0) is trivial solution (with many symmetries)
to any AP equation; and here is NOTHING to be measured
or to serve as a scale of time or length, completely nothing.
So why not to mark (to label) this case as `nothing’?
(definition by usage;
to Jon,154; is your (love-)hate to philosophy so serious ?
they are saying also about `guilty pleasures’– answering
journalist’s questions 🙂
Garth,
I believe I have explained existence: Why does anything exist instead of nothing? Well, it’s because existence “comes from” nothing.
You, on the other hand, prefer the no-explanation: “Something exists because something exist.” If you really are happy with the circular logic then of course it’s your choice. Of course I might be wrong on some (or all) points, but you are necessarily wrong. Circular logic is necessarily wrong.
2. The number of universes? How on Earth can this be the only universe? 🙂 That is like thinking there can only be life on Earth or that the Earth is the center of the universe, or like thinking the God you happen to believe is the one that exists.
But you are right, we cannot observe the other universes, we can only deduce it from the fine-tuning of this universe.
3. Causal link? There is obviously no requirement for a causal link “in”nothing.
Requiring such a link violates logic.
Carl
Ivan,
We’re discussing existence (I guess 🙂 ). So it is about Nature. In my view there exist nothing but Nature. Some might say there are also supernatural things (gods and devils) that exist as well. But the concept of existence covers all cases anyway. And the logic of existence can be equally applied to gods and Nature.
So the questions are like: How come Nature to exist? Why is it not nothing? Nothing surely are simpler.
I’m trying to argue that in order not to end up with circular logic, we must conclude that nature comes from nothing.
Ordinary physics progress from macroscopic thing, gradually to smaller and smaller “things” (toward nothing?). Also backward to the beginning of time.
I’m just trying to start with nothing and work the way up. 🙂
I get the feeling that in two-slit (or many slit) that the “particle” is not there , its only as wave. It seems it is only particle when it “needs” to be a particle (hitting detectors). Boundary conditions seem to dictate when it is particle and when it is wave..(?)
Carl
Carl,
Its not that your logical argument doesn’t provide an explanation of the existence of something from ‘nothing’, it’s that it can explain anything and everything from ‘nothing’.
There is no structure, no discipline, and there are no rules in the explanation – it is this that I find to be no explanation at all. It gets me no further in answering the original question, though I concede that that is a personal opinion: you obviously find it profound, whereas I find it empty.
I understand that you have explained existence to your own satisfaction, its just that it doesn’t satisfy me any more or less than the ever existing universe, or indeed eternal ‘God’.
Garth
Garth,
No structure, no discipline, no rules? I’m trying to be very careful to use only valid logic in my arguments. Whatever results from this is just what it is. If I’m wrong, someone surely can point out where I have failed in my reasoning.
Reality is self-consistent. And any valid description of reality must be equally self-consistent. So if my arguments are not self-consistent on some points, this can be spotted and my explanation shown to be wrong.
Carl
Carl,
It is your argument’s self consistency that I have compared to “reductio ad absurdum” arguments, which are within themselves self consistent. The fact that they then lead to an absurd conclusion is proof that something was wrong with the original presuppositions of the argument.
In the case of your argument above I would question the statement
.
Why does the existence of ‘something’ require ‘establishment’?
I do not think you can prove this statement one way or another, it is a statement of faith.
Garth
A further comment would be, “Why insist on logical argument?” If indeed there was nothing in ‘nothing’ i.e. no rules, why should logic remain?
This is what I meant by saying there was no structure.
To give an example; one possibility recently advocated by Max Tegmark is that reality is mathematical as expressed in his short paper “Shut up and calculate” , http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024v1.
and
But why should mathematical structures simply “exist”? If in ‘nothing’ there are ‘no-rules’ why mathematics?
Garth