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.
Garth – drop by some time, we are still stewing this over!
Here’s another Wittgenstein quote:
There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.(T L-P 6.522)
Iblis:
I don’t think the replacement of neurons by transistors really makes any point against the phenomenal qualitative feel of experience. Either transistors can really be like the brain, in which case they really could produce real feelings, or they aren’t – and then it doesn’t matter. It isn’t at all guaranteed that transistors could really be enough like brain cells to do that, and it really isn’t clear what “functional” equivalence is anyway. Maybe something about the nature of real brain tissue, the flow of all those wave functions around, it not being a formal scheme, etc, we don’t know. Even if it acted like me, remember that the same result could come from an analog or a digital computer – and yet maybe that difference is critical to the nature of the experience it can produce. To those who complain that mysterians haven’t produced evidence of special mental characteristics, well: first of all, “evidence” is something we have through consciousness anyway, and second, no working model of a formal computing entity that acts like a person has yet been made. Game’s afoot.
PS: I think your blog was cool, please put up some new posts!
CalN, qualitative difference is a difference in kind that cannot be described as a rearrangement, as a new structure. Green does not look to us like one set of lines or dots and red like another, they both appear continuous, homogeneous, and different from each other. You just have to get it – how can a fundamental be gotten off the ground, when it is the sort of thing that everything else is defined by? Same for “time.”
My paradox: I would like to put up a diagram, but I haven’t got the hang of that for the blog yet. It’s just a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with a gray filter in one leg.
Jonathan – thanks for the excerpt.
Neil,
I think the excerpt from Jonathan just proves my point. “Qualia” is a concept so foggy it can’t be discussed in any meaningful way. That of course does not stop philosophers from filling large volumes nonsense about it. It can’t be discussed in a meaningful way before we have sufficient knowledge on how our minds work.
Count Iblis showed beautifully that we are just robots anyway. It does not matter if we are designed and constructed by DNA or designed by humans and built from transistors. We are of course all just various assemblies of molecules.
But even if I am a robot, I would not like to get tortured. Especially not by you, Neil!
The nature of time is not related to your experience of it. Space does not exist without something (objects, fields) “spanning” it. Time does not exists before there is some change going on in this space. It is this simple, since time cannot be measured unless there is some motion or change going on. There is simply no time in a space where nothing changes or moves.
Motion of objects makes is possible to measure time, just like objects at different locations makes it possible to measure distances. In an empty space without objects there no way to measure any distance (aside from the facts that there would be no one to do the measurement and that the space itself would not “physically” exist). The presence of “objects” span the space, and their motions generates time.
Now, are we finished discussing “why something rather than nothing”? If we are, I say good by to you all. 🙂
Carl
Well, what does it say about “robots” that they wouldn’t like to be tortured? The very idea implies an inner life that is more than just information – mere information would not hurt, it would just inform. You might as well just read about being damaged, or have strings pull your arms around as if struggling, it wouldn’t really feel bad…
“Time does not exists before there is some change going on in this space.” – sure, that’s why a nothing can’t change and turn into a something, but there’s no point in hashing back and forth over this over and over.
Carl, we might stop talking about the ultimate “Why”, but we will never get to the end of it! That is the nature of such questions …
Neil,
” sure, that’s why a nothing can’t change and turn into a something, ”
You should know by now that “when” something starts to exist, there is no change “in” nothing.
But that’s OK. Bye!
Carl
Pingback: Blogs On Maths: Louise Bourgeois: this art has legs (Times.. » Science Discoveries . net
A lot of words written here, with ultimately no content, no meaning, no relevance, no conclusion, no consequence, no information, no value.
Not one bit more knowledgeable after than before.
Pingback: Math’s Info: UKS and Whizz Education team up to provide the online interactive.. » Science Discoveries . net
Why is there something rather than nothing?
An interesting question. But, from what I’ve come to realize (You don’t have to take my word for it, I will admit I am only 19 if that makes me any less wiser¿) is that the question actually is quite pointless. And not because it has no answer, but because I think people are not realizing that there is no difference. Something, or rather everything, is exactly the same as nothing.
Let me explain. Take anything. Any one thing you can think of. It doesn’t matter at all what it is. Now try to explain what it is. Now if you really consider how you just described that, you will realize that you described it relative to something else. Everything is relative to something else. Thus, every thing’s existence is relative to something else. There is no static element, no one standard, of what existence is and what isn’t.
To take one example I can say: What is an atom? A “thing” made up of electrons and protons. OK. Then, What is a proton? A “thing” made up of quarks. OK. Then, what is a quark? A “thing” made up of particles (i think they’re called baryons or Bosons or something) OK. What is a boson? A particle made up of little vibrating strings of energy (only assuming string theory is correct of course) and so on and so forth …
It probably won’t take long that physicists find that particles and strings can be broken down into even smaller parts. Physics has been finding smaller and smaller parts for the past century. But as you can see the first question, “What is an Atom?” wasn’t actually answered because we haven’t gone down to the core like the actual little bit that is a solid piece of existence. We just keep relating it to something else. In the case of this atom it’s almost like it’s collective groups of nothing done over and over again. You can even go the other way and say “What do atoms make up?” and go on into the infinity we know as space.
So, I have come to realize at this point in my life that this relativity we experience will continue on indefinitely. Infinity. And that this reality is all really based on nothingness. “And from Chaos came everything.”
It seems to me that we’re really all looking at exactly the same thing from a different point of view and since it is nearly impossible (and when I mean nearly I mean so close to absolute it’s not even funny) to see from someone else’s point of view one doubts and questions it and thus create his own universe where he is the point of origin. I think this is the whole thing behind the whole concept that everything is one and that this wholeness has been fractured creating all these separate view points and thus the whole universe.
I guess what I am trying to say is that if you take one thing and one thing only and stand it alone without a reference relative to something else it ceases to exist.
I see that the author Sean notes that eastern philosophies have no problem with nothingness. I think you can go a step further, at least in Buddhism, that nothingness is the final goal. Nirvana is the ultimate state of balance. Where there is no good or evil or anything for that matter. Nothing. It is balanced because there is no yin and because of that no yang and vice versa. There is no relative opposite to rationalize each other’s existence. That is true balance. And that is the goal. Where there is no more chaos or disharmony or everything, but nirvana or harmony or nothing. Basically achieveing Nirvana is allowing everything to return to the original one state and thus have nothing else to be referenced to and thus cease to exist.
So what I am saying here is we came from nothing and now we are everything and we should be trying to go back to nothing (so that we have no worries I guess). Or maybe some would like to keep everything¿
So all this rambling nonsense comes back to the original question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” And when you realize that nothing is everything and everything is nothing, you will then realize that the questions seems to sound more like “Why is there something rather than something?” or “Why is there nothing rather than nothing?” or “Why is there everything rather than everything?”
And now you can see why the question is actually pointless. It doesn’t really ask anything. But, there is no problem asking this question in any of the forms I presented. I feel that philosophy is really just elaborated bullshit because for the most part your just running around in circles when you think philosophically. I think this question can actually be simplified down to … “Why?”
Yes that is it. WHY?
Hi Chaos,
Nevertheless we experience the world ‘out there’ as ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’.
In particular we measure the physical properties of objects, their mass, temperature, etc. etc. and can differentiate between ‘something’ and ‘nothing’, e.g. the mass of an object is different from that of a vacuum of the same volume. Scientists then tend to want to develop theories to explain those properties.
Consistency in such measurements made by different observers verifies the physical nature of the object and leads us to believe in the reality of an external reality. It also encourages the search for properties that are conserved in interactions.
One of these verified physical properties is the property of an object’s existence.
Whether we think the question, “Why is there something rather than something?” is a meaningful question or not is a matter of personal choice.
Garth
No one would argue that the existence of the universe is necessary. Everyone would presumably agree that its existence is contingent. Accordingly, there is a reasonable argument (at least philosophically) as to why nothingness takes precedence over existnece. And therefore the question is indeed relevant.
mish, you are absolutely right. Nothingness takes precedence over existence. Nothingness does not need an explanation or a cause. Existence on the other hand, can’t be explained by existence. Trying to do that is circular logic. The explanation for existence cannot involve anything that exist. So existence has to come from nothing.
But that is easy to understand.
1. “When” nothing exists there are no hinders for something (universes) to start to exist. Any such hinders don’t exist “when” nothing exist.
2. There are no conditions the need to be fulfilled for something to start to exist
“when” nothing exist. Any such conditions don’t exist “when” nothing exists.
3. No causation is needed for something to start to exist “when” nothing exits. Such need for causation does not exist “when” nothing exists.
There you all have it. Break free from the chains of circular logic and realize that we all come from nothing. There is no God. We are free.
🙂
Carl
CarlN: Even if “existence” (or what is existent) can just arise spontaneously in the midst of nothing (“midst of” must be conceived since it can’t arise “from” nothing, which is causally self-contradictory), you still can’t tell me why it has the properties it has. Indeed, if existence is natural and spontaneous, then we have pan-existentism, which is like modal realism. In modal realism, every possible world exists, but they are all mathematical forms and not substantive. In pan-existentism, all possible worlds exist, but are substantive and not merely mathematical forms in a Platonic superspace. Aside from whether you care about the substantive v. Platonic distinction (not everyone does), your notion does not explain what came into existence having these properties instead of other logically describable one (e.g., laws different from ours.) The irony is, you are the one having to use circular logic to just put this world here without foundational explanation.
Finally, what is so “free” about there not being a God? I can’t imagine you mean, we’re free morally to do as we please (all the horrible Nazi, Stalin, Inquisition, criminal etc, activity was really OK?) So, just how are we then “free” in any desirable sense?
Neil, the term “from nothing” is only intended to mean “starting to exist” without anything existing that creates it and without any cause at all. It is not from the “midst of nothing”.
However, as explained earlier, only self-consistent “things” can start to exist, so that its existence don’t conflict with itself. Is this universe the only possible self-consistent thing that can exist or are there infinitely many (and different) such unverses? I don’t know. But we can understand that the laws of our universe is looking like mathematics because it must be self-consistent.
“We are free” meaning we are free from the circular logic using a god or something else existing to explain existence. We are free from the madness of the circular logic.
Notice that there are no other way to explain existence. We are stuck with this. You cannot use anything existing to explain existence. You are left with nothing.
I can’t see how such insight could make people behave like nazis. I think rational and good behavior is easier to achieve when people get a more rational view of the world.
Carl
Pingback: Sean’s experimental science in a space he can’t access « Society with Jimmy Crankn
Why is there something instead of nothing?
I don’t know the ultimate answer, but my point of view is that any mathematical structure that is consistent (non-contradictory) exist as such (it exist as a logical structure just by being possible).
From nothing, the empty set exist. From there you can build the integers, and all other numbers, and everything else.
From nothing everything.
This interesting article expand on this:
— Max Tegmark, Is the “theory of everything” merely the ultimate ensemble theory?
— Published in Annals of Physics, 270, 1-51 (1998).
— http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe.pdf
Pingback: Chatting Theology with Robert Novak | Cosmic Variance
Pingback: Sean Carroll is my favorite source about cosmology « My agnostic views & images I like
A very good question that every child should be asked in first grade without the expectation of an answer any time soon —-it has taken me a lifetime and new theory of the universe as a retired Physicist/Systems Engineer to have an answer that satisfies. “Because the idea of nothing is empty and the universe is obviously full.”
Pierre,
Actually, I think this is best understood from that fact that anything eternal is logically impossible. The concept of eternal existence is irrational. So there is no alternative to “creation” “from” nothing.
By definition anything that is eternal has not started to exist. Likewise we know that non-existing “things” (fictional tings) like Donald Duck, Santa, God etc, also have not started to exist. Is is like logic is trying to tell us that eternal “things” (like an eternal physical reality) belong to the category of fictional things.
Further, by definition, it is impossible to give any explanation for anything eternal.
If we believe in an eternal physical reality, we will find that it is impossible to give an account of why this reality is such and such instead of so and so. Let’s assume God exists for a while. If God asks himself why he is good instead of evil by nature (or the other way around), he will find that it is impossible for him to find an answer. Or if he asks why he is eternal etc. etc.
This is an illogical situation. So an eternal God cannot exist in the same way as an eternal reality cannot exist. The eternal “things” are therefore non-existent, they are fictional.
And since something actually do exist, we are forced to conclude that “something” comes from nothing.
Tegmark is of course right in that what exists is mathematical. We already know that only self-consistent “things” can be created from nothing. However, it seems to me that he thinks that math itself (and logic) is eternal, a big mistake.
Just to repeat myself: “When” nothing exists
there are no hinders, no conservation laws, there exists no need for a cause, for something to start to exist. The proof is obvious.
🙂
Pingback: Something Rather than Nothing « Collapsing Waves
It’s always bothered me that mathematicians can use expressions that ‘do not exist’ in the physical/real sense (ie square root of negative 1), and in fact use such ‘nonsensical’ values in very real situations (including electrical engineering and quantum mechanics). It is this use of a thing that does not really exist to evaluate things that do that puzzles me. The entire Complex Plane is not a tangible ‘thing’ (such as the normal x,y,z planes)… yet it’s use in real world applications is common.
I suppose there is a difference between ‘imaginary’ and ‘nothing’, obviously in the ‘imaginary world’ Santa exists, but in the ‘nothing world’ Santa does not (nor does anything else for that matter).
Why Something over Nothing? Why Reality over Imaginary may be a better question. Why Higgs Fields over Santa Fields? Are Fields even real? Can you see one? Touch one? Well, as electrostatic discharge or radioactive heat decay I expect we ‘feel’ the fields… sort of.
I’ve been reading Brian Greene’s popular books (The Elegant Universe and, currently, The Fabric of the Cosmos). He frequently discusses the ‘Why something instead of nothing’ (Leibniz), especially in Fabric of the Cosmos.
Apparently, it was inevitable that there is something (universe) due to virtual quantum fluctuations in the nothingness vacuum. Go figure.
It is what it is.
Meanwhile, the real universe calls. Ciao.
Zenny, strictly imaginary in concept and design
I might also add that the original something wasn’t the huge something of our Universe today, but rather was about the same size as a small dog (according to Brian Greene). We owe the Grand Somethingness of the Universe (ie Galaxies, Stars, etc) to the Inflationary effects on quantum wrinkles in the original ‘blob of something. Powerful stuff that Higgs Field, whatever the heck it is.
I think you look at the question in a different way than i do.
It is an impossible question to answer – obviously.
I think the question relates back to how the universe started. How and why there was ever something instead of there being nothing? And whatever it was that started the universe, we should question how and why there was ever [insert answer here] God for example.
But i always say it is just stupid to even ask questions like these without a real answer.
And – If there was ever nothing, how could there possibly be something?
If there has always been something, then where did the first “thing” come from? and i could go on about time, but i should stop.
PS – I’m probably the only one here without a physics degree xD.