Why Is There Anything, Rather Than Nothing?

out of the infinite number of possible states of the universe, why would it favor nothing? there is only one "nothing" but there is a nearly infinite number of "something"s. perhaps at some point in the past there was nothing, but the universe moved on to a different state, a state of "something."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are suggesting that nothingness is one of the possible states the universe can adopt, and that is as valid as saying that death is one of the possible states a person can adopt. I hope you can see that death is not a state, and that to say "Einstein is dead" is a grammatical error, used for the sake of expressing an idea, but not to be taken literally.
"Einstein isn't" is probably the most accurate expression that we can give in this case.
A state of nothingness, then, implies that the "universe isn't", therefore no states or properties can be attributed to it, as it doesn't exist.
Furthermore, a state of nothingness cannot go through changes, as that would imply that something came out of nothing, which is impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So then, as I originally concluded, nothing must not exist in order for it to be nothing.

However, if "there" is something, then it's only 'cuz "there" becomes.
Is that what consciousness does? It creates something from nothing?
<br>

Ah shucks, Ronhrin... don't be such a defeatist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Übergänger's comments are worthwhile. I just note that things do briefly come from nothing, with neither purpose nor cause, as far as I know. Specifically, the vacuum polarization is such a case. (An electron and positron briefly appear from vacuum, but as this violates conservtion of energy, they quickly mutually annihilate, restoring the "nothing" they came from.) Vacuum polarization is not forbidden by physical laws. It also seems self evident that the universe is consistent with physical Laws. Thus an answer to the original question might be: "Somethings come into existence because they are not forbidden." With this view the question transforms into "Why are the physical laws as they are?"

 

Raw vacuum is not 'nothing'.

Physical laws abide the number of spatial dimensions. Like for instance electomagnetism can only work in 3 dimensions (or 1, but that's a trivial solution).

 

((an>roid.v2))) "If "there" is something, then it's only cuz "there" BECOMES. Is that what consciousness does? It creates something from nothing?"

look at it this way, analogizing this question with music. in order to understand and appreciate music, we NEEd silence/space/nothing. Usually not noticed yet without it being there it'd be unlistenable...wouldn't make sense

same with the surroundings. we look at trees, clouds, objects, and most often ignore the space wich gives them their unique shapes, and movment. so rather than giving th 'power' of creation to 'consciousness' we see that both consciousness and nothing must arise TOGETHER to make any SENSE

without realizing this, i think we can imagine a 'nothing' without 'something'...but can you imagine 'up' without KNOWING 'down'?

 

amen brotha

1. How do you know something can't come from nothing? We obviously have something, I am typing on something right now. Where did it come from? If you think that something can't come from nothing then you need not pose the question of why there is something rather than nothing, because "nothing" is then impossible, merely a mistaken concept that humans have created.

2. If a person lives, they are made of matter. If they die, they are made of matter. It is merely going from an organized "state" of a functional body, to a disorganized "state" of worm food. If the universe has 0 matter, I would say it had nothing (I guess you can count the universe as "something" but I think you are mistaken). If the universe has 0 total matter (antimatter+matter=0) you could still say that it has nothing, but you would have to define what you consider "something" and "nothing".

 

No -- I didn't mean consciousness as in an interception of an earlier ready-made world that already surrounds us, but consciousness as in the spark of naked being that becomes as it becomes. What I'm trying to figure out now is whether such a spark pushes into nothing or pulls away from it.

 

I think there is a critical distinction to be made here. It regards the term "nothing" (imagine htat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). What is it that we mean by "nothing?" Do we mean "no thing?" Or do we mean "nothingness?" The difference being that thing is a constructed form. When there is "no thing," what is meant is that there are no constructed forms (i.e., that which all constructed forms are made of is all that is). However, if you are talking about "nothingness," then this would mean that no things exist, nor that which makes up things (i.e., the basest existence-stuff).

By the discussion had so far, I would assume that "nothingness" is the rendering meant. In this case, I would agree with RosaMagika's argument, it is a non-sensical question, since it would mean that there has always been somethingness, or existence, and there can never have been a time when there was nothingness.

However, if one means "no thing," then the argument turns into something different altogether. The question becomes, "why are there constructed forms, or things?" If we consider the basest existence-stuff to be otherwise than a thing, that is, an unconstructed form, then we could say that things are a result of construction of this unconstructed form. However, the "why" (i.e., reason, or purpose) hasn't yet been answered. I suppose in order to answer the question, you'd first have to ascertain what the nature of the basest existence-stuff is. I believe it is infinite, and therefore, the constructed forms are a result of it's very own will, meeting out the possibilities of finite constructed forms.

 

Now I'm beginning to question nothingness, or no things, as proceeding the present -- any present. Hence something is the wave of reality in existence instantaneously chasing... nothingness. Isn't that beautiful?

 

((anroid>v.2)))....i mean what you mean too. which is why i say they arise togther.....i dont envisage 'consciousness' as some thing coming into a 'ready made world'...but that for consciousness to know itself there must be nothing/space/nonconsciousness

as for 'up' to know itself therer simply HAs to be 'down'. it is a dynamic pattern....a gestalt. what the analytical way of thinking does it analyze--chps reality into bits to try and understand 'it'...and then doing so can then get 'lost' and assume the abstracts it is playing with ARE reality. that one could HAVe 'nothing' withOUT 'something'

 

wtf does that mean?

a) If you mean "nothing" then it is a nonsensical question because there can't be nothing.
b) If you mean "no things" then the answer is "because they can". Properties of the universe allow "things" to come into being.

The only question then to be asked is "why are the properties the way they are". Here is my favorite answer: WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPAL! Someone else can go more in-depth with that question if they like.

 

That has nothing to do with what I said in reference to nothingness. If "no things" can come into being because of the properties of the universe, then they only do so in accordance with the properties of the universe, in which case these properties, these somethings, are already in existence, *awaiting* to be implemented. Yeah, I understand that. I was referring to nonexistence. Nothing. No thing. Nothingness. No something. No properties. Zilch.


But to answer your whatthefuck question from a different angle:

You mean like light and darkness? Acknowledging the other's existence, reflecting the other's existence, necessitating the other's existence? Hence nonexistence and existence acknowledging, reflecting, necessitating the other as one? I can see that being true from within existence itself… But what about from nonexistence's vantage point?

Let's assume you could actually travel into nonexistence—as you could into deep space: you would observe that something in nonexistence would not exist because even nothing does not exist. I think we're clear on that, right? Yet, inverted, within our own existence of a universe that surrounds us, nothingness exists as a concept—one can almost touch it in its uncanny simplicity. True? So then, what is it that we can almost touch, but are impeded from touching? And what is it about nonexistence that forbids the very notion of our existence, including the very concept of "existence"? Indeed, what I'm referring to cancels us and doesn't require our existence to "not be" itself.
<br>

 

Note:​

From within existence, or from within our minds, "nothing" is a concept—hence it exists in a manner of speaking. But from within nonexistence, nothing is… nothing (because it can not be "something").

 

Oh I see... you guys are debating the validity of one over the other. :: Yawn ::

 

((an>roid.v2))).....you simply cannot KNOW nothingness. because there would have to be something to know it. to say 'ahh there is nonexistence, or nothingness!"...it may seem easy to do in a thought experiment, but if you really think about it, when you think about it therer is an observer lookin

imagine when you go to bed later. you know that sleep goes through stages...ie., r.e.ms (rapid eye movments/dreaming)(...and there's also deep dreamless sleep. whilst there there is no 'you' to say 'i am now looking at nothingness. it just is. but also you ARe there, in that it's you that are asleep, and who wake up.......

 

My initial thoughts in a conversation I was having with a friend a week or so ago..



To this ignorant observer you are 'nothing', but are you nothing independent of his whims? No! As someone said earlier, nothing would be inherently paradoxical. Then again just be cause we can't fathom it doesn't make it nothing per se..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

<br>

Don't let marginal logic stop you from taking your intergalactic vitamin pills!

But seriously, who said anything about "knowing"? I've been talking about a concept: one is not marginalized when one doesn't "pretend to know"… An exercise in futility, you say? Why not a cryptic exercise that demonstrates effectiveness of presence—and then extends beyond presence?! Academia is no substitute for darkened thoughts, you know. Or just because thought is something, you assume the messenger stifled before nonexistence folds you away into darkness? Mortality is not a pretty concept, is it? Yet… how very related to nothingness it is! It feeds it.

Yet… what if you could visualize nonexistence before nonexistence folds you away! Oh never mind—you're not taking your intergalactic vitamin pills.
<br>

 

If I said I have nothing in my pockets I'm sure you wouldn't start a philosophical debate..

I have zero oranges today. I have nothing today. Zero is the concept. Twasn't invented by man, now was it?

 

No. I'm sure if you said you had nothing in your pockets today, your statement here would end up in the cesspool—I would not have dumped it there: conventional minds would have.

But you're saying I shouldn't explore concepts? Why not? Concerned that I would fall off the edge of the universe?