Why is there something and not nothing?

[Alan McDougall]

Hello all,

The ultimate question??

Something instead of nothing?
Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.
Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is. I cannot believe that, indeed, I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions. Why is there something instead of nothing?
With nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.) Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have "nothing", but definite and absolutely do indeed have 'SOMETHING'. This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.
Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?
Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race. There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man. You see the universe has a strange Goldie locks condition about it, i.e., it cannot be too hot, or too cold etc, etc, etc, but it has to be just  absolutely correct, precise and right or life would not have come into existence and we would not be around to contemplate, debate or dialogue on this ultimate enigma. We would not exist. Life hangs on and depends on this knife- edge of harmonies conditions that have to be sustained over countless billions of years, for us to have come into existence and continue to exist. Makes one think, does it not

alan

[Psan]

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Yes indeed, this is an age old metaphysical question that no one can answer....well, not really, there are "explanations" which satisfy a few minds, but not all.

My favorite is...
This question arises because of the peculiar way in which our language and mind works.
How do we define nothing? Only as an absence of something..... the word "nothing" has no meaning without the opposite, as is the case with every other negative word.

Take the word "hole". Is there really such a "thing" (a real manifestation) as hole? No..because when we speak of holes, we are abstracting something which is not there. Its not a thing.
Now the being is defined as that which exists and everything that exists is being. We introduce nothingness by abstracting the absence of being. Absence implies that it does not exist, so nothingness does not exist. It can't. Its a construct of our mind.

Those who are interested may refer to western philosophers, and Sartre in particular (in this book Being and Nothingness). Consciousness arises when being introduces a negation in itself, so that it can "see" what it is by comparing itself with what it is not......

O my head hurts

[CFTraveler]

Yes indeed, this is an age old metaphysical question that no one can answer....well, not really, there are "explanations" which satisfy a few minds, but not all.

My favorite is...
This question arises because of the peculiar way in which our language and mind works.
How do we define nothing? Only as an absence of something..... the word "nothing" has no meaning without the opposite, as is the case with every other negative word.

Take the word "hole". Is there really such a "thing" (a real manifestation) as hole? No..because when we speak of holes, we are abstracting something which is not there. Its not a thing.
Now the being is defined as that which exists and everything that exists is being. We introduce nothingness by abstracting the absence of being. Absence implies that it does not exist, so nothingness does not exist. It can't. Its a construct of our mind.

Those who are interested may refer to western philosophers, and Sartre in particular (in this book Being and Nothingness). Consciousness arises when being introduces a negation in itself, so that it can "see" what it is by comparing itself with what it is not......

O my head hurts

But it was worth it.

[no_leaf_clover]

This is what the Tao te Ching says about it:

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html


Basically "nothing" is a concept that can only exist by contrast to everything.  Thus one gives rise to the other.

[Greytraveller]

A quantum metaphysical gedanken (mind experiment) ((and a pretty good Zen Buddhist Koan)) ---

How can you be sure that there is no Nothing just because there is obviously a Something??? 

(Meaning, of course, that the Something (Multiverse, Reality, whatever name you give it) must exist Everywhere or else wherever Something does Not exist then there Must be Nothing  )

Answers should be specific with lots of scientific proofs and scholarly references. lol     

Grey

[Kyrin Blair]

If something were truly nothing, there would be no interaction to speak of with it. Therefore, we wouldn't be able to think about absolute nothing, because by thinking about that nothing, we have just quantified it, it is no longer nothing.

Therefore, what is nothing is something that can not be thought about by us.

[Alan McDougall]

Hi guys,

The concept of nothing simply cannot be expressed, I tried by saying the existence of everything "IS" nothing. But by using the word "IS" defeats my attempt to get my mind around this impossible Conundrum.

Space, void or total vacuums are something, three dimensional areas of space containing no matter or energy. Nothing??? inexpressible if you get my drift.

Blair said

Therefore, what is nothing "is" something that can not be thought about by us.

See what I am getting at , one simply cannot use "IS" for something non-existing. "IS" denoted a something.

Hek!! Guys I think it is time to go and wash my face and forget this.

Alan

[SHSS]

Hi Alan,


I think for humans there must be nothing.  In our reality of duality everything has it's opposite and just because our minds cannot conceive of it doesn't mean it doesn't not exist.


SHSS

[Alan McDougall]

Hi SHSS,

Are you the same SHSS that is on the other forum that I am a member of. If yes I just recently joined this forum as my spectrum of interest roam far and wide.

Hi Alan,


I think for humans there must be nothing.  In our reality of duality everything has it's opposite and just because our minds cannot conceive of it doesn't mean it doesn't not exist.
   

SHSS

Come how can you say a state of absolute nothingness can exist, this is an oxymoron statement. One cannot even express nothing as this word alone suggest that nothing is a something.

I brought this up more as rhetorical question ,but it is good to see people like you give it a bash anyway


Psan

O my head hurts

So does mine but it is fun don't you think to think about the inscrutable

Regards

Alan 

[SHSS]

Hi Alan,

Yes it's me and I have only posted the same as you.  I am new too.  I know how you meant this nothing cannot exist and so I was just adding a no-brainer.  I was thinking of NVB. Non Verbal Communication.  Perhaps there is some other way to 'not express nothing' and yet still have nothing.

Best to you,

SHSS   

[Alan McDougall]

SHSS,

Well who can say now that there is not a great interconnectedness of all things?

Of the thousands of forums of the net how unlikely was it that we should join this forum at close to the same time, while also dialogue from a completely different forum?

Alan

[RemoteTouch]

Good question, I was thinking about the concept of nothing last night (coincidence?) and I think the only answer that I can give you is this,

nothing is everything because God "is".  Creation is the sexual expression of nothing, which is the infinite singularity that is God...

God doesn't exist until he escapes a part of himself, then that part is then realized once it is again experienced.  God is divided into us so that he can experience what it is like to not be every part of himself.  When he is a, he is not b and c.  when his is b, he is not a or c.  These perspectives create God, through his own consciousness.  A fish does not know that water exists until jumps out of it.  So God does not experience himself until he escapes himself.

Truth is just the direction that a conscious body (slice of God) chooses through free will.  Subjective truth is the collective direction of conscious choice.  I've chosen for this to be my reality, you can choose what you want to be real for yourself, when you explore a new truth, you will expand (explore) that part of God, that as of now is nothing.

So the answer to your question is that everything is the expression of nothing.  Think of the white color on this screen.  It looks like nothing, but when blue is removed from the spectrum, orange is what remains.  Through division and confusion, God is expressing his spectrum through us, the colors.

[Alan McDougall]

RemoteTouch,

God doesn't exist until he escapes a part of himself, then that part is then realized once it is again experienced.  God is divided into us so that he can experience what it is like to not be every part of himself.  When he is a, he is not b and c.  when his is b, he is not a or c.  These perspectives create God, through his own consciousness.  A fish does not know that water exists until jumps out of it.  So God does not experience himself until he escapes himself

I like your philosophising around an impossible concept. Kahballa mysticism has a similar idea were God had to somehow withdraw from himself creating a womb like void within himself in which he made space to create the universe. This idea is as good as any and somewhat near to your thinking

Spelling of kaballa likely wrong sorry!!

alan

[RemoteTouch]

Kahballa mysticism has a similar idea were God had to somehow withdraw from himself creating a womb like void within himself in which he made space to create the universe. This idea is as good as any and somewhat near to your thinking

Sounds interesting.

[Stillwater]

Come how can you say a state of absolute nothingness can exist, this is an oxymoron statement. One cannot even express nothing as this word alone suggest that nothing is a something.

While I agree with the first part of the reply in an ontological way (only "things" can exist, as in the physical sense, verbs (like "to exist") require a subject), I do not agree with it in a more abstract linguistic way; on a conceptual level, we say that "states"(or abstract situations, such as symmetry, the occupation of a given space by a mass, or the resting of another mass in reference to an origin) can also "exist", which denotes that they have truth value- note that this does not make a comment on the existence or non-existence of objects, but rather on the truth or non-truth of a situation; thus, we can say things like, "An uneasy peace exists between France and Australia". What is this peace? Surely it is not an object hidden in a secret bunker someplace, but then who would question that a state, which is only a relation of objects, or even of others states, exists?

Other langauges also hold clues to this idea, as Mandarin is more a relation of states, rather than always a subject performing an action(one type of state): sentences such as:   [" Rain(s)" ]   are possible- the relation that rain is falling, without the need for a subject.

In the same way, we have the idea of zero- zero describes the lack of a number- zero doesn't exist in one way- the way that the thing it describes is non-existence itself- but in another, it does, as an abstract concept with meaning to us.

I think you might be pulling hairs with the first sentence, as everyone understands that "that which does not exist cannot posess existence" (this is a fundamental tautology of the universe lol, and if you want to question THAT, than it is another discussion altogether, lol) ;what was intended is not the negation of this tautology, but rather the statement of the existence of an abstract concept.

I understand the direction you are arguing from- I just think a closer analysis of linguistics might be needed to shed light on the concept- but I think we are all on the same page, but expressing the same idea in different ways, as is often the case.

Thanks,
Stillwater

[Alan McDougall]

Stillwaters ,

Still waters indeed run deep and in your case you have proven the truth of this statement.

In the same way, we have the idea of zero- zero describes the lack of a number- zero doesn't exist in one way- the way that the thing it describes is non-existence itself- but in another, it does, as an abstract concept with meaning to us.

Yes we can get over the meaning of absolute non-existence by the use of words. But nothingness does not exist., I know I am using an oxymoron here. If there were only one quantum particle all we would have is existence, not the other mindbending impossible consept that words can not discribe

Hek like you I am trying my best, in vain, but gee it is fun!!

Alan

[Kyrin Blair]

RemoteTouch, you're my new idol, that was absolutely brilliant.

Honestly, though, we exist. And if you question it long enough, it just might change

I personally don't care what nothing is, or what is way out in the universe, or astral planes unheard of, because none of that concerns me. If it didn't exist, it'd make no difference to my life. I'mma keep on chuggin on my path.

[Alan McDougall]

Remotetouch and others

I surfed the web and found the Kabballa peace about God empying himself to make space to create. (interesting)

Isaac Luria's theory of creation.
By Louis Jacobs
This selection from Louis Jacobs' Jewish Ethics, Philosophy and Mysticism includes a translation from Hayyim Vital's Etz Hayyim (Treatise 1, Part 2) with a commentary by Jacobs. The passages from Etz Hayyim are in bold, and Jacob's commentary follows. It is reprinted with permission of the author.

Know that before there was any emanation and before any creatures were created a simple higher light filled everything. There was no empty space in the form of a vacuum but all was filled with that simple infinite light. This infinite light had nothing in it of beginning or end but was all one simple, equally distributed light. This is known as "the light of Ein Sof."
.



There arose in His simple will the will to create worlds and produce emanations in order to realize His perfect acts, His names and His attributes. This was the purpose for which the worlds were created.
In the "simple light of Ein Sof" there emerged a will to create. (Note the way in which it is avoided saying that Ein Sof willed directly, because this is considered as touching on a mystery too deep for human understanding.)

Ein Sof then concentrated His being in the middle point, which was at the very center, and He withdrew that light, removing it in every direction away from that center point.
In the Lurianic kabbalah, creation is only possible by God withdrawing Himself. The logic is simple. Where there is God there cannot be any creatures since these would be overpowered by His majesty and swallowed up, as it were, into His being. This idea of Luria's is known as tzimtzum (withdrawal).

There then remained around the very center point an empty space, a vacuum. This withdrawal was equidistant around that central empty point so that the space left empty was completely circular. It was not in the form of a square with right angles. For Ein Sof withdrew Himself in circular fashion, equidistant in all directions.

If the "empty space" left after Ein Sof's withdrawal were to be depicted as a square this would suggest that after the withdrawal Ein Sof is nearer to the center at some points more than others, whereas the circumference of a circle is equidistant from the center at all its points.

The reason for this was that since the light of Ein Sof is equally spaced out it follows by necessity that His withdrawal should be equidistant in all directions and that He could not have withdrawn Himself in one direction to a greater extent than in any other. It is well known in the science of mathematics that there is no more equal figure than the circle. It is otherwise with the figure of a square, which has protruding right angles, or with a triangle or with any other figure. Consequently, the withdrawal of Ein Sof had to be in the form of a circle.

Ein Sof is infinite and it cannot, therefore, be said that He is nearer one point than another. The great difficulty here lies in the whole concept of a limitation of the Limitless.

Now after this withdrawal of Ein Sof (which left an empty space or vacuum in the very center of the light of Ein Sof, as we have said), there remained a place in which there could emerge the things to be emanated, to be created, to be formed and to be made. There then emerged a single straight line of light from His circular light and this came in a downward direction, winding down into that empty space.
Even after God's withdrawal there has to be something of Ein Sof in the empty space otherwise nothing could exist there (nothing can exist without God's power).

Therefore a line of light (figuratively speaking, of course) is said to wind downward into the empty space. The figure is of a kind of deep hole in the center down into which the line of light winds itself. In the empty space left after Ein Sof's withdrawal, the various worlds emerged. In the kabbalah there are four main worlds, corresponding to the four infinitives mentioned. These are:
1) The World of Emanation (the realm of the Sefirot)

2) The World of Creation (lower in degree than the former); 3) The World of Formation (lower in degree than the first two);

4) The World of Action (or Making), the world as we know it, the physical universe (or, as many kabbalists understand it, the spiritual source or counterpart of this world of ours). All four worlds are seen as emerging in the empty space or vacuum.

Comments

alan

[mjm]

...Why is there something instead of nothing?...

This sounds like the begining of an apologetic for the existence of God to me...

The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists.

Norman Geisler used this as his starting premise for his version of the cosmological argument. More specifically, he used the undeniability of his own existence as his starting point.

...Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary.

Occam's Razor?

Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is.

Ah... Theory of Everything! 

...I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions. Why is there something instead of nothing?

I think I have a good answer to this question, and I personally find it satisfying. I'll get back to this in a moment...

...Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have "nothing", but definite and absolutely do indeed have 'SOMETHING'. This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you on this point. I certainly agree that something definitely, absolutely, undeniably exists, but the fact that one can conceive of a simpler model here (non-existence) doesn't prove the principle wrong, IMO. In fact, haven't you already established that we can't truly conceive of nothing anyways? How could we say that non-existence or nothingness is a simpler model if we can't even truly conceive of the model in the first place?

The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Now we're getting somewhere...

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?

As far as I understand it, these things break down at the singularity anyways, don't they?

...If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist?

Ah... now you're alluding to an infinite regression of finite causes. There's a subject that'll make your head spin if you think about it too long! An infinite chain of finite causes can be likened to a chain or series of dependencies, each dependent upon something else for its being or existence. But even an infinitely long string of dependencies can't exist independently; it would have to have been derived from something that isn't part of the chain. That something would have to be independent and underived; that is, it would have to be self-existent.   

It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question

I think the question is simply misguided. The question falsely presumes that nothing could have potentially existed instead of something. The underlying premise is therefore faulty.

That's my take on it anyways 

-Michael

[Alan McDougall]

Micheal,

God well thought out analysis and intelligent comments!! Thank you

This thread was posted more as a rhetorical question, My view is identical to yours the only explanation we puny mere mortals can give that God is "Eternal Existence" He is infinite and we just have to accept that!!

Many come to me when I pose this question and my above conclusion, with a counter question, then where the heck did this God come from?

You are right then we descend into the impossible scenario of infinite regression. My wife always brings up this "Who made God?" Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous 

( an old lady gave hear view on what held up the earth to a renowed Physicist, "A giant turtle

she said", the physicist responded madam, "then what holds up the turtle"? , to which she replied "Young man it is turtles all the way down"

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

Alan

[Mydral]

Micheal,

God well thought out analysis and intelligent comments!! Thank you

This thread was posted more as a rhetorical question, My view is identical to yours the only explanation we puny mere mortals can give that God is "Eternal Existence" He is infinite and we just have to accept that!!

Many come to me when I pose this question and my above conclusion, with a counter question, then where the heck did this God come from?

You are right then we descend into the impossible scenario of infinite regression. My wife always brings up this "Who made God?" Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous 

( an old lady gave hear view on what held up the earth to a renowed Physicist, "A giant turtle

she said", the physicist responded madam, "then what holds up the turtle"? , to which she replied "Young man it is turtles all the way down"

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

Alan

Yeah... if thats what you believe... go ahead. As for myself... nah God had nothing to do with my creation. Wouldn't even know where to start over which God supposedly created me or anyone else... there are too many, and all are "the one God". Not even taking into consideration all the "Gods" of all the past generations....

[Alan McDougall]

Mydrad

You have a problem man!! Come on!! you exist is that not enough? if you do not like your existence, well you know there is a way out if it is so terrible.

God had everything to do with your existence "case closed". There is only one "Infinite Being" and simple logic should reveal this to you.

Yeah... if thats what you believe... go ahead. As for myself... nah God had nothing to do with my creation. Wouldn't even know where to start over which God supposedly created me or anyone else... there are too many, and all are "the one God". Not even taking into consideration all the "Gods" of all the past generations....

Alan

[mjm]

...You are right then we descend into the impossible scenario of infinite regression. My wife always brings up this "Who made God?" Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous

I think I get your point here, but I wouldn't say one has to "abandon" human logic in order to reach the conclusion that God exists. I would argue in response that logic actually leads us towards that conclusion (or ought to, IMO). I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you said that God and Existence are synonymous though. I hope you didn't mean to suggest that whatever has existence is God... I don't think that's what you meant, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say the following:

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

Anyways, good chatting with ya... see ya around.

-Michael

[Stookie]

Alan - here are some of your quotes that I think other members here don't necessarily jive with:

Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous

God had everything to do with your existence "case closed". There is only one "Infinite Being" and simple logic should reveal this to you.

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

You have a problem man!! Come on!! you exist is that not enough? if you do not like your existence, well you know there is a way out if it is so terrible.

First, you say we must abandon human logic and just accept it, then you say simple logic should reveal that there is only one "infinite being".

Second, everything boils down to just believing, and most are here (I think) to experience and remove themselves from belief systems, not create new ones. To say "case closed" on the subject shows that you've already decided and made up your mind, which can limit further belief-breaking experiences.

If you take certain eastern philosophies, the goal of meditating on existence/non-existence or yin/yang isn't to come up with an answer, but to bring the meditator to an inner experience of something greater than himself and the physical universe, to alter and dissipate the life-long illusory concepts embedded in their mind from birth. Which was maybe your original intention with this thread - to get others to come to realization. But those who have the answer missed the point of the exercise.

[Alan McDougall]

Stookie,

First, you say we must abandon human logic and just accept it, then you say simple logic should reveal that there is only one "infinite being

Yes you are absolutely right, unfortunate phrazing by me! What I meant was God is beyond human understanding we just cannot in our finite way comprehend this awesome Infinite Being. He is Omi-everything and we most definitely are not?

Maybe our intellect is as far removed from his as a chockroach is from ours. I am not being disrespectful to humanity here, but just making the point that there is an finite difference between us and said insect and an infinite difference betwen us and God

When I said simple logic should reveal that there is only one infinite Being,I did mean just that. How can there be more than one uncaused cuase? There can only be one original cause of exitence?

alan