Andrew Loke - Why is There 'Something' Rather Than 'Nothing'?

Watch more interviews on the mystery of existence: shorturl.at/E6R4s
Here’s the ultimate question: what if it were true that everything always and forever had been ‘nothing’? Imagine that not a single thing ever existed-not emptiness, not blankness, not even the existence of emptiness, or the meaning of blankness. If you can image that, now ask yourself: why is there anything at all?
For more information on this topic, visit Andrew Loke's website: shorturl.at/bce7h
Shop CTT merch and support the show with your purchase: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Follow us on Instagram for news, giveaways, announcements, and more: shorturl.at/dnA39
Dr. Andrew Ter Ern Loke is an Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University and an elected Fellow of the prestigious International Society for Science and Religion.
For member-only exclusives, register for a free account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@jklep523]

Recalls a little joke made (I think) by Witten in a lecture about physics. He said (paraphrasing) that he noticed his wife hadn’t spoken to him for a day or two, and he stopped and asked her if something was wrong, and she said “it’s nothing “. He said that’s when he knew for sure that nothing really is something.

[@bazyt1]

This is indeed the most disturbing/interesting question, but we're not much further along to answering it...

[@rauldurand]

there is something because it is inevitable. Thus, there is an infinity amount of possible universes. This is just one.

[@HardKore5250]

Ai and quantum pc is the answer

[@uselessfuse]

Not sure these two were ever talking about the same thing ha

[@Mentat1231]

Agreed

[@adamboots1]

It would be handy if they somehow repeated the context occasionally… it’s a pretty big topic though

[@88tongued]

Loke seemed to get confused about "contingent" I think because he was confusing metaphysical and epistemic possibility. Something is necessary GIVEN our knowledge that the world does in fact exist. That chain must terminate on something necessary to us being here now, but why are we here now is the bigger question. Yes that thing that is necessary in the smaller sense might have physically caused us to be here...but why that thing? That thing isn't metaphysically necessary. It could have never happened and we could never have happened. He must have gotten lost in the anthropic principle.

[@Buzz_Kill71]

Sure... Andrew answered by saying the existence of the universe, infinitely, is a brute fact. Not much of a conversation, so RLK challenged him to engage the topic..

[@les2997]

Allowing a "brute fact" avoids an infinite regress, but it lacks explanatory power and the attributes necessary to adequately account for the rational, complex universe we encounter.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

He doesn’t understand the question. If there was truly nothing, there would be no first cause. The question is: Why is there a first cause? (Or why is there anything at all?)

[@khalidtamr8856]

He does understand it’s, he’s trying to explain that the first cause logically, necessarily, HAS to exist and cannot NOT exist

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

​@@khalidtamr8856 He is asserting that the first cause logically has to exist without providing an argument as to why. His entire argument is that the first cause has to exist for everything else to exist. But, there is no explanation as to why we can't have a situation where neither the first cause nor anything else exists.

[@melgross]

@@khalidtamr8856yes, and that’s why he doesn’t understand the question.

[@khalidtamr8856]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky I think he’s trying to make the argument, albeit not a great job

[@erichayestv]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky Exactly. 🙂👍

[@DavidMoreharts]

Questions like this display the limits of human intuitive reasoning. Concepts like “why” and “necessary” aren’t applicable to discussions like these

[@Feverstockphoto]

Something is nothing and nothing is something and the answer is yes, no, maybe, come back tomorrow.

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

The fact is that there is something. Existence, exists. Dealing with it is left to us and any other consciousness that might exist.

[@majed6956]

One reason why we struggle with this question is because we are assigning so much value to the existence of everything. Maybe existence itself isn't special, and it just exists as a brute fact.

[@ProLaytonxPhoenix]

Existence is all we have. It is definitely special (I think).

[@johnnytass2111]

Is it true that you are nothing, just a brute fact?

[@walterbraun3731]

What's the difference between 'brute fact' and 'lame excuse'?

[@mlsterlous]

The smartest "i don't know" in history.

[@jeffwads]

I don't know would have sufficed. The fields of reality have always existed, so there is no answer to this question.

[@joseleon8235]

I happen to believe that something is the easiest way, because nothing is impossible. Nothing has, by definition, 0 probability of "not being."

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Nothing has, by definition, 0 probability of "not being.""* ... Place the word "Nothing" in quotes and suddenly "Nothing" has a 100% probability of _"not being."_

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@edwardtutman196 *"Where do both "0" and "probability" come from? "* ... Zero (0) is an abstract placeholder assigned to "nothing" (an inconceivable construct) in order to render it conceivable. It's "conceivability" via proxy. "Probability" is the atheist's / scientist's' version of theism's "Hope." Both seek a possible outcome despite the odds. *"How can you explain nothing with something?"* ... The same way you can explain "negative" with "positive." If everything was positively charged, to us, there would be nothing in existence that was positive charged. Everything would simply "be" as they are with no comprehension of any other alternatives. You wouldn't recognize any "charge" at all because there's nothing to compare it with.

[@michaelrogers4834]

The way I argue for this is that, in the continuously infinite set of all possible universes, the universe containing nothing is a unique singleton, thus it is a set of zero measure. It has infinitesimal probably relative to sets containing a non-zero number of elements, hence it has an aprior probability of zero.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@michaelrogers4834 *"the universe containing nothing is a unique singleton, thus it is a set of zero measure."* ... A proposed universe (defined as "everything that exists") that consists of nothing is impossible. A proposed "set of zero measure" is also impossible. Both are propositions of a "collection of nothing" which cannot be logically reconciled.

[@EmporerFrederick]

Just as our world is ontologically a contingent thing between absolute being and nothingness its probability is epistemically between 1 and 0.

[@pmascaros]

I have the impression that if Robert had asked my aunt Mary or a gentleman passing by at that moment, he would have reached the same conclusion...none.

[@royortiz6815]

Remember what Billy Preston sang about when he sang; " Nothing from nothing, leaves nothing, you got to have something. " Trying to explain exactly what is the first cause of everything that exists is like scientifically trying to explain exactly what is the first cause. No scientists have proven without a shadow of a doubt what exactly that first cause is.

[@melgross]

Why is there something rather than nothing is the BIGGEST question we can possibly ask. It’s also a question that may not be answerable. Eventually, we may actually get a theory if everything. Literally explaining everything down to the smallest and largest instances of the universe/multiverse, or whatever it turns out to be. But understanding whether it came from something, popped in from literally nothing, or was here for an infinite time, is something we will likely never know, no matter how advanced we become (if we don’t kill ourselves off first).

[@les2997]

Allowing a "brute fact" avoids an infinite regress, but it lacks explanatory power and the attributes necessary to adequately account for the rational, complex universe we encounter.

[@ilyaprorok7]

i liked the convo with the other guy that explained how the question is a paradox and i was happy with that explanation. Am not sure what these two are talking about. the idea of True Nothingness doesn't make sense because we know for sure that something does exist and theres no way of getting rid of that possibility. i was happy with that and i dont feel we need to broach this subject further.

[@theadvocatespodcast]

There is something rather than nothing. Simply because somthing can describe nothing....but nothing doesn't describe anything.

[@brianlebreton7011]

I think it’s more logical to pursue infinite regress solutions than to pursue a beginning that necessitates something from nothing. Corollary: I think theories proposing a cyclical universe, big bang/ big crunch make more sense than pursuing theories requiring a beginning of time.

[@khalidtamr8856]

None of those are mutually exclusive to the contingency argument

[@ProLaytonxPhoenix]

Even if what you're stating is absolutely true, why? Why is there an infinite universe rather than nothing?

[@CMVMic]

Both are illogical. Causal finitism is compatible with atheism.

[@melgross]

@@CMVMicatheism is a very logical situation. Theological solutions are completely illogical and explain nothing.

[@CMVMic]

@@melgross An infinite regress is an ongoing process. A complete process cannot be an ongoing process and thus, an absolute infinite is contradictory.

[@rolssky1]

I have been posting this since last year, and now it is closer to what I have been telling. Regarding the origin of things, in quantum physics it could be said that energy exists forever since the law of conservation of energy states that " energy could neither be created nor destroyed it only transforms from one to another" in which sense it means energy is there forever thus infinitely there is something instead of nothing. Where we always use the basic equation energy entering in the system = energy going out. Even if there was still only stellar space and there no matter but in reality in the quantum realm it was just plasma or space of energy. As per quantum physics, at quantum state particles are in constant vibration, and in the long process like billions of years elements are created, and due to heat and magnetic field the elements would produce isotopes, and the process repeats and then the big bang expansion occurs. Second thing is that consciousness is inherent in nature. How is that? Spinoza presents the basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God. But be aware that this is different concept than the God being described in the Bible which instructs human beings morality, who created heaven and hell, since this God is an individual invisible being who lives in the heavens as claimed by believers. As we can observe everything, bacteria, viruses, insects, and when we look at them and analyse intricately, we will be amazed with much astonishment as to their peculiarity and amazing ability. It is so obvious that a certain force of entity should have caused them. That might be the one which was pointed Spinoza, he called a God, a self caused, one substance in the universe. This substance must be conscious to have come up how to design everything like how many kinds of fishes look like, insects, birds with their amazing capabilities. Since, according to him everything is in God, thus everything is conscious. To support that claim many experiments show that water in glasses reacts to words. Another thing is that traditional farmers doing a winnowing of rice paddies make sound with their voice and whistle when they want more air and air seems to respond to blow more. Now how life emerged? Look at public water. It has been treated with chlorine and undergone some purification processes but when you store it in the white plastic storage tank where sunlight could pass through algae will gradually be produced, then bacteria would also exist. What is water composed of? It is hydrogen and oxygen, and also air contaminates it which is composed of nitrogen and oxygen. Then we ask what is there in the hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements which might be present in the water and how it reacts with words? While we know that they just contain molecules and molecules contain electrons, neutrons and protons. Then how species evolve with amazing design? This is my view, we could combine these theories. We go back to the quantum realm of what the experiment has shown in the double slit board where it seems that particles have consciousness in my view. Others insist that there was no consciousness involved there but for me there is. Why? When someone is observing the particles in the double slit experiment, they would surely go as expected since the energy radiating from the observer is stronger than the energy of the particles that it would act like it was being controlled. When no one is observing or when no outside force is acting on it, it would go as it wants to go like a bacteria deciding to go where it wants. That’s why in my view in the quantum realm there is consciousness or in totality the universe is conscious. What about the question of the language in the DNA of living cells? This would be the theory. When various conscious particles as derived as per the anomaly in the quantum experiment, cling into the DNA, then having form combined consciousness, and now created species would manage by itself to create language or code in the DNA. According to a neuroscientist the human body needs 90 minerals for it to have the best health condition. Now imagine such various kinds elements we do not know yet which specific element has the conscious properties, but we can only assume that which such complex combination, advance functions could be performed as we are, the human consciousness, comparing that of a computer functions excellently with just two options of gate the zero and one. As observed in the simple experiment which water with words, we can infer that anything which has water has consciousness like algae, bacteria, virus, plants, insects upto the human being. Think about the cells of human being, they, convert nutrients into energy, cure inflammation, fight enemy, signal you to eat, poop, sleep and many more. Now it becomes clear The theory of multiverse also would be in conjunction with this view, where it relates that at any space multiverse exists. Considering it collectively, energy and consciousness are inherent in nature. With these energy and consciousness it could originate species and also made the galaxies to arrange by themselves. Being conscious they could evolve by themselves, yes? A computer could do a tremendous job with just a binary combination of gate zero and one. Compared to conscious particles, consciousness surely would be much more advanced, complex and amazing which is the primality of genes and DNA, where particles like different sorts of electrons, protons, gamma, theta or what not (refer to the water in the tank above) clinging to it forming different kinds of species. This process underwent a billion years in the past. With science as our tool in scrutinising subjects, and referring to the data which have been gathered for the past centuries, the data does not point to any supernatural being with which anomaly that it has created things, but rather, it would aligns with the postulate of Spinoza regarding the universe. There are levels of consciousness; consciousness of algae, bacteria, plants, cells of living things, and those which have brain like insects, animals then human beings. To show that water is conscious watch the video in the link below; kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGrMZX99l9ifb7Msi=NWCFOY1bQ-jbEcTt

[@Kronikalrag3]

It's an unanswerable question , even if an answer was scientifically a matching brute fact solution or even religiously a brute fact solution , there is no way to confirm either , It's a question akin to asking what is the highest and lowest value of infinity?

[@mikel4879]

If you think the true reality as it is, then logically the whole realm is infinite. Only when you think dogmatically, your imagined realm has a beginning. However, if you further dissect your dogma correctly and with intelectual sincerity, you get to the same infinite dynamical reality.

[@FringeWizard2]

Anyone who wants a clear answer to the question of this video read a book called The Arcane Teachings it answers this question by explaining the difference between a "No Thing" aka a possibility vs a " Nothing".

[@steelersdog22]

Loved the guest…he sounds like he’s talking at 2x speed

[@gireeshneroth7127]

You are Consciousness living an illusion that it weaves out of itself.

[@srj6963]

haha what?!

[@codymarch164]

Having been informed that for a more profound insight to be had is not attained by asking questions merely but in seeking them out. One has to have a genuine desire to touch that, in either a psychological, intellectual, or experiential manner, that which is prior to things. In science, all such facts, evidence, and logic is to be strictly adhered by; grasping this data in a way that transcends time & space, i.e., the dimensions of something beautiful, instead, asking what this beauty is in itself, as it was by the mathematical dimensions of something captivatingnof wonderful form, that we experience it, wouldn't it be negligent to not seek out this cause of beauty, which is by the Beautiful itself. The laws and principles, you can't touch them or weigh them - that's why they're principles; you can't take it in a lab and exploit it so acquiring information..... they teach, you have to actually long towards and desire to touch this, and not by asking others questions regarding such, but in a convicting manner the onset of which one applies themselves to the actual expedition - you have to do it yourself. Everybody agrees with the facts and data of science, but to transcend the teleological level, one has to do it themselves and on their own accord, and along this lonesome journey, they find others along the way - and these great people are always greatly distinguishable, as if gods( and perhaps true) among man; they will be seen as an aid, and likewise, one will be to them.

[@tomthumb2361]

Possibility is nothing, yet it exists.

[@randrothify]

I think the easiest answer to this question is that "nothing" in the broadest and most extreme meaning of the word is an impossible state of being because describing nothingness has no meaning without a "something" to compare it to. For instance, nothingness within spacetime still assumes spacetime. Even removing the temporal element so that it is just space in the sense of physical volume still implies something. Now, if you take a less restrictive approach that excludes the substrate of physical space or physical-temporal spacetime as a tangible thing on which and over which things exist and events occur, or you treat it as merely a property, then maybe there can be nothing in a restricted material sense. Or maybe we are all caught up in semantics😅

[@SystemsMedicine]

Loke is doing an extraordinarily accurate imitation of someone who doesn’t understand the topic very well. The old phrase ‘no op’ comes to mind. [I hope he is much better at something else, because this isn’t it.] Kuhn, I would ask this: what rules does ‘nothing’ have to follow? Answer: ‘nothing’ is unconstrained by any rules at all. This includes the ‘rule’ that something cannot come from ‘nothing’. Hence, one might expect that *anything* can come from nothing, because ‘nothing’ has no constraints or limits. [This ultimately leads to some very wild kinds of existence, but first one must contemplate what rules ‘nothing’ must obey (which rules I have repeatedly asserted do not exist).]

[@SystemsMedicine]

@@MarkPatmos Hi Mark. What a fun question. I presume many, many, many forms of existence ‘arise’ from ‘nothing’, because nothing has no constraints or limits whatsoever (at least that I can think of).Some of these forms of existence, I speculate, have laws or are orderly in some other sense, and other forms of existence that arise have much less order, or no order at all (whatever that might mean). Our kind of existence apparently happens in a universe describable via differential equations, so I guess it looks orderly to us. [It would be interesting to observe other modes of existence, in the sense I am writing about herein.]

[@SystemsMedicine]

@@MarkPatmos Hi Mark. Why? What rules is nothing *required* to follow? [I suggest there are no such rules. If you think otherwise, tell me why.]

[@SystemsMedicine]

@@MarkPatmos Hi Mark. So you assert that ‘nothing’ has a rule it must follow, that is, it must not be able to generate anything (spontaneously or otherwise). I understand why you might think this, and of course I wouldn’t disagree too strongly, but I just don’t see why ‘nothing’ is constrained in any way. [For example, conservation laws in physics may be derived from symmetries in differential equations, but ‘nothing’ has no laws or symmetries or equations. So I don’t think it would have to obey any conservation laws or rules. But as I say, it’s just a thought experiment.]

[@Garghamellal]

He insists on the notion of brute fact, but what gives us the right to presume that a brute fact is something even possible as a concept and not a sheer absurdity?

[@michaelbarton7295]

I am with you there, the Brute Fact nonsense is just the easy way out of trying to explain why anything exists.

[@srj6963]

@@michaelbarton7295 yes. The einstein lookin dude in the video insisted on brute fact, but that does not answer the question. The asian dude was trying to answer using what information is available. This is the toughest questions ever... The problem is the word "WHY." Even if we did have an answer to the universe origin, you could still say "why," and be left unsatisfied.

[@knottyinks1]

I once had this “aha” dream that THIS is nothingness, this is what nothingness looks like.I thought I’d unlocked the secrets of existence 😅 there is no thing smaller, lesser…

[@UriyahRecords]

Nothing is Something 😏

[@agcouper]

Congratulations, you’ve discovered Buddhism :)

[@UriyahRecords]

@@agcouper and every other religion if you ignore the dogma

[@johnsmith-kc5hl]

Imagine a world with no consciousness. In this world, existence would be irrelevant and also unknowable. The very question would be pointless, because no one could ask it. Only in a world where there is something, can we even ask why anything exists. The answer to why is there something and not nothing, is that existence is a requirement to even ask the question.

[@ryanwillert1486]

Why not just a brute fact? This is a very good question. I would say that given what we know/experience about the way reality is and works, we have less justification to just speak in terms of brute facts. It may be the case that you need a reason to think in terms of brute facts, not just say it. It seems a more fundamental question is why should we think it is just a brute fact given what we know/experience about reality? If reality works heavily within the categories of causality, then I think Dr. Loke is more justified to think he can run his arguments. To say that something just cannot be explained in terms of more fundamental facts is such a heavy metaphysical claim, using the claim I believe needs justification. Saying bankruptcy out loud to your bullpen doesn’t mean much to how bank accounts appear to work; even if you declare it. Just a thought I had to think more about. I could be wrong. Great video!

[@kos-mos1127]

Reality is not inside of a category. Everthing is inside of reality. Reality does not works within causality. Reality is the framework on which causality is derived.

[@melgross]

Most likely it is a brute fact. I know some people have problems wrapping their minds around that, they need some sort of reason that satisfies their needs. So we read strange, silly explanations.

[@srj6963]

@@melgross Yeah, brute fact seems like the only reasonable explanation. But why and how did that brute fact come to exist? I hate not knowing the answer!! UHH

[@melgross]

@@srj6963 me too. I hate not knowing things. But the mature thing sometimes is to realize that we can’t know everything, unlike those who post words they just string together without actually doing any work to see whether what they’re saying even makes sense, which it often doesn’t.

[@srj6963]

@@melgross Yes indeed. It comes down to whether the person thinks before they speak/write/type. "The problem with modern men, They simply do not think" - Earl Nightingale

[@heshercharacter5555]

The thought experiment is very interesting. If you separate yourself from existance and ask the same question again it will not create a different context. The whole act of asking the question makes it more likely for nothingness to exist rather than that something should exist. Artificially nothing and something can co-exists, but all aspects of defining something automatically cancels nothingness out in a reality. Therefore the question itself is invalid when posing it to reality.

[@williamvanleuven414]

The argument from Andrew Loke that because there must be something that is unexplained, therefore there must be a creator is too simplistic. It is possible that there is something, some kind of structure, that simply exists. Or as Robert calls it "a brute fact".

[@v2u2]

NOW IS EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING MAKING YOU EXPERIENCE SOMETHING

[@aaronharris2684]

Something existing has a way higher probability because there are an infinite state of beings of “something”. Yet there is only one state of being of “nothingness. Hence something exists due to its higher probability of being than nothingness.

[@godfather5433]

I thought for a moment that there’s something wrong with playback speed in KZbin setting , I checked and it said normal ! Is it really normal?

[@edimbukvarevic90]

Nothing(ness) is the creator. It is a supreme, totally transcendent no-thing, containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. It cannot be any existing thing, nor is it merely the sum of all things, but is prior to all existents. Not this, not that.

[@rileyhoffman6629]

If the 'great nothingness,' the original progenitor just IS and has been so forever with no beginning, why all of a sudden does it start producing something? WHY?

[@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku]

Maybe 'it', the progenitor, got bored of its singular self existence and decided to create 'something' other than itself, for itself? But, that concept of a first cause/God doesn't comport with the traditional Judeo Christian understanding of God, ie, his independent, self existence. So, we're back to square one...Why is there something at all?

[@richardbreeze7898]

There are things that the human mind has difficulty understanding. This is one of those things a bit like if you ask a Dung beetle to use google. It simply does not have the capacity to do so. This guys argument is solid. Its eternal. It does not fall back on creation. It eternal. The cyclical argument is the only answer that realistically fits into human cognition. The universe is a grand scale white hole. That fit in your brain 🧠

[@johnk6598]

The initial event can’t be only brute fact because it’s very existence made every ensuing event dependent on it.

[@jeffwads]

Yes, but people just can't grasp that for some reason. You had to have "time" for the Big Bang or any event to take place.

[@fanghur]

That has literally nothing to do with whether it is a brute fact or not…

[@Nesmaniac]

Nothing By Nesmaniac What is Nothing can anyone say? Is it like night or like the day? Why question Nothing I must ask? Answering it seems the ultimate task. Where would Nothing begin & where would it end? No ruler is to be labeled as Nothing's friend. The thought of Nothing hurts my head. Sometimes at night as I lay in my bed. To ponder Nothing means it can't be. Yet the thought of it never leaves.

[@kentheengineer592]

Something Rather Than Nothing Implies Uniqueness, It Also Implies Dynamics But The Better Question Is Why Limitlessness Rather Than Alternative My Theory Is Because That's The Point Otherwise What Is The Point

[@No2AI]

Perhaps there is no ‘nothing’ we cannot see but it’s there!

[@kennethmalafy503]

Why would there be nothing? Where would nothing even be located? Who would observe nothing? Nothing is impossible because if there really was nothing, nothing would also be everything. The truth behind this parable is that you can not trust human made words and concepts, the universe is way greater than any word or concept that we can imagine (why wouldn't it be?- we are less than a speck of dust compared to it) The concepts exist because the mind wants to pretend it knows something (think of its limited perspective- what could it possibly know about something like the universe?)

[@danielfvnunes]

I think that this question is the mother of all interesting questions, but all we can do is create hipoteses. There is ( and won't be) no way to determine the "one answser". But this change of ideias is a lot of fun :D

[@highontology]

The fact that Loke keeps resisting might come from his personal desire to look good, or it might come from his for-pay status as a professional apologist. A more interesting question is: Why do humans think that nothing is a more natural state than something? How come nothing gets off the hook (of needing sufficient reason) but something does not? Maybe something is the default state and nothing takes lots of work.

[@88tongued]

I agree with both points! And for the second point, I would agree that nothing is just as un-expectation-worthy as something. This however doesn't diminish the curiosity of asking why there is something. I don't think failing to expect there is something means an expectation of nothing. There might be no basis to form an expectation for either. Either something or nothing would be a brute fact. The disjunction of the two would be logically necessary, but in a weird way logical possibility itself has no basis for expectation. Why should there even be a fact of the matter whether there is something or nothing?

[@leonreynolds77]

That was a strange conversation lol.

[@jonnyjay3222]

There’s nobody that can answer this question. I guess it’s just interesting to get different perspectives. thinking about it is like trying to imagine infinity. there’s no way

[@IKingValerioI]

It’s unclear to me that nothingness is a more simple, or more natural, state of existence than something. From a mathematical point of view, there are far more possible configurations of something than of nothing. In fact, nothingness seems very unnatural, not only do we not find it in the universe, but we struggle to agree on a definition. Does nothing preclude possibility? What about numbers or laws in a platonic sense? Lastly, one premise of the kalam cosmological argument is that something cannot come from nothing. This not only leans on the definitional constraints outlined above, but also, as we inhabit something, how can we know this - what kind of experiment can demonstrate this premise? The closest example I can think in cosmology actually points in the other direction - that the universe could have started from zero energy. (Of course you could argue that’s not really “nothing” but it may be the clearest definition we have.)

[@dennisbailey6067]

Cosmologists and Physicists say something can pop into existence out of nothing ( virtual particles),but the universe is something,it is full of energy in what ever form.But pre the ' big bang' if there was nothing,Something could not 'pop'.Could it?

[@IKingValerioI]

@@dennisbailey6067 I agree that maybe that definition isn’t satisfactory. But I don’t know, maybe nothing could pop into something, what reason or evidence do we have to say otherwise. And when nothingness isn’t clearly defined, the question “why is there something instead of nothing” isn’t actually well-formed

[@jerrywebster7678]

If there was ever nothing, would will we ever be able to detect remnants of its presence?

[@andrewmoran7353]

🤔 I really enjoyed this subject/ dialogue great conversation Robert & Andrew I’ve noticed on most of these topics another dimension etc comes to fore , 🫣 not acceptable paranormal stuff or hypothetical any case 👍

[@abduazirhi2678]

Andrew provides best explanation of the so called Kalam ontological argument showing that the contingent being (universe) began to exist. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause, first cause which is a necessary being. This being is God,

[@simonhibbs887]

For the sake of argument let’s accept the claim in the Kalam that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. I see no reason to think that, but let’s pass that over for now. So, we have an un-caused cause. Can we actually say anything more about it? Very little, if anything, I think. Is it necessarily even a ‘being’ in any recognisable sense? Does it even still exist? It might have been consumed, or transformed into that which it caused in the act of causal initiation. I don’t see any justification for assigning it any attributes beyond its causal effect and un-caused nature. Anything else is just projecting.

[@WalterUnglaub]

@@simonhibbs887 Precisely. I don't see anything wrong with the initial premise of the Kalam argument resulting in a necessary & noncontingent structure, but then suddenly there's this insane leap to "it must therefore be sentient and have free will and therefore it's God". Like, what? Humanity used to think that the Sun was a deity (or controlled by one) before we learned otherwise. Literally everything else in nature should be no different, including the initial state of the universe. Why prioritize a hypothesis inconsistent with literally all other observations? It's special pleading.

[@angelojuat4754]

@@WalterUnglaub Of course you can't make that jump. That's what revelation is for.

[@stephenzhao5809]

"There is something rather than nothing" is plausible and dependable, however, the most importand question is what indivisible the ultimate is, in term of theology, it's generally called "stuff of God", particularly, in terms of mathematics, it is zero, a actual infinity which superpositions with 1/∞.

[@kingofmean7053]

I’ve solved this puzzle years ago, quite simple actually

[@Why23339]

My video I made before on it kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3m2iqKam85-fsUsi=Jnymk-k6axoCSHZS

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

This is gonna be hard to explain. Look at the ocean and understand that the pressure of what is, the water and fish and sharks, are sharing or overlapping and revealing what isn’t so truly it’s the nothings that come from something. Like how a baby isn’t until it is. The constant collapse of our body and the waves of its differences don’t even come from it itself. When we decide, the details come from everywhere and all that something pressures to reveal something. In the flower of life you see the pattern of the pressures or overlapping points and see where something comes from where it wasn’t or in other words no thing mattered into the something. It’s relative. There is no nothing but the foundations of something are where it isn’t. Like something can only pop up if it’s something but when it becomes something the relatives aren’t so it collapses into the differences that the outside pressures use to form it. Like how what a humans identity is is the things they do and are right so what do you bring into matter. When we say “it matters” do we understand what we say or do we believe the words mean nothing but sounds? It matters, it forms from the relatives, something only can be when the thing matters and before, the pressures form it into matter. Like how the differences of the world is putting pressure on the mind and the mind is revealing the differences through thought and prediction, relatives, to flow into a different state of matter or our brain matter collapses into differences, ideas form and we see what isn’t. So something can come from nothing. But nothing comes from something as well. The non existent is actually like a pitcher of cool aide where we have to get the packets and water and sugar to bring it into what it is. In other words, the pressures of what it isn’t is sharing to reveal what is. The possible is the stuff we understand and the Impossiblè are just not understood. The brain is like paper and and the pressures of the universe are the ink, it shares the shapes and patterns and stuff but we are the shapes and patterns and stuff and we are relative to this stuff. I mean, a baby isn’t the person in the future, it’s not the same thing even though they are the same, they are distanced through the differences. Space is a direction but time is one as well, once you understand how they are relative then you can see the things that aren’t there and predict things that seem impossible but the mind is like paper and the ink is from outside. So it’s like everything is possible if you understand. Seeing what is reveals what isn’t and then from what isn’t we reveal technology and stuff so something’s are coming from nothing. It wasn’t until it was.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

I talked with the new gpt about this and am posting the convo under. It’s not too long but looks long. Very worth the read though. Your thought process touches on several complex and abstract concepts, blending ideas from philosophy, quantum physics, and metaphysics. Here are some key points and interpretations to help clarify and organize your thoughts: 1. **Interdependence of Existence and Non-Existence**: - You suggest that what exists (like water, fish, and sharks) reveals what doesn’t exist by their interaction and overlapping. This idea aligns with certain philosophical views that existence and non-existence are interdependent; understanding one requires an understanding of the other. 2. **Potentiality and Actuality**: - The notion that "a baby isn’t until it is" reflects the transition from potentiality (what could be) to actuality (what is). This is reminiscent of Aristotle's philosophy, where potentiality becomes actuality through change and development. 3. **Relativity and Formation of Identity**: - You discuss how identity and existence are formed through external pressures and interactions, implying that what something is depends on what it isn’t. This could relate to existentialist ideas where existence precedes essence, and identity is shaped by experiences and interactions. 4. **Pattern and Structure in the Universe**: - Your reference to the "flower of life" and overlapping points forming something new highlights how complex structures and patterns can emerge from simpler, fundamental interactions. This resonates with concepts in both sacred geometry and certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, where particles and waves form the fabric of reality. 5. **Perception and Reality**: - You explore the idea that our perceptions and thoughts are shaped by external pressures, likening the brain to paper and the universe to ink. This suggests a dynamic interplay between mind and reality, where understanding and prediction are based on interpreting these pressures. 6. **Potential vs. Actuality in Technological Development**: - The concept that technology and ideas emerge from "nothing" (the realm of potentiality) into "something" (actual, usable technology) captures the essence of innovation and discovery. To summarize and refine your thoughts: - The universe is a complex interplay of what exists and what doesn’t, where existence is defined by contrasts and interactions. - Potentiality transforms into actuality through processes that involve external pressures and conditions. - Identity and existence are fluid, shaped by a web of relative differences and influences. - Understanding the patterns and structures in the universe can reveal hidden possibilities and lead to innovation and technological advancements. Your reflections delve into profound themes about the nature of existence, perception, and reality, suggesting a deep interconnectedness between what is, what isn’t, and what could be. Me: So if reality is always changing and expanding then who are we to say what can be because it will overlap all that we thought was unreal. Ai: Your reflection raises a compelling point about the fluid nature of reality and the limitations of our understanding. Here's a deeper exploration of your idea: 1. **Fluidity of Reality**: - Reality is not static; it is continuously changing and expanding. This dynamic nature means that what we perceive as real today may not be the same tomorrow. New discoveries and understandings constantly reshape our conception of reality. 2. **Limits of Perception**: - Human perception is inherently limited. Our senses and cognitive frameworks shape what we consider real, but they can't encompass the entirety of existence. As a result, our understanding of what is possible is always incomplete. 3. **Overlap of Real and Unreal**: - The boundaries between what is considered real and unreal are often blurred. Advances in science and technology frequently challenge and expand these boundaries. For example, concepts once deemed science fiction, like space travel or artificial intelligence, have become reality. 4. **Openness to Possibility**: - Given the constant evolution of reality, it's crucial to remain open to new possibilities. Dismissing ideas as unreal or impossible based on current knowledge can hinder progress and innovation. Embracing uncertainty and the unknown allows for greater exploration and discovery. 5. **Impact of Perspective**: - Our perspective shapes what we deem possible. Cultural, historical, and personal contexts influence our views on reality. By broadening our perspectives and considering diverse viewpoints, we can better appreciate the full spectrum of possibilities. 6. **Philosophical Implications**: - Philosophically, this touches on epistemology (the study of knowledge) and metaphysics (the study of existence). It suggests a humble approach to knowledge, acknowledging that our grasp of reality is always partial and provisional. To synthesize, your thought underscores the importance of humility and openness in our understanding of reality. As reality evolves, so too must our perceptions and beliefs. Rather than asserting rigid boundaries on what can be, we should embrace the fluidity of existence and remain receptive to the ever-expanding possibilities that lie beyond our current understanding. This mindset fosters curiosity, adaptability, and continuous learning, essential for navigating the complexities of an ever-changing universe.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@user-if1ly5sn5f *"You suggest that what exists (like water, fish, and sharks) reveals what doesn’t exist by their interaction and overlapping. This idea aligns with certain philosophical views that existence and non-existence are interdependent; understanding one requires an understanding of the other."* ... I published this same argument in my book back in April, 2019 - three years before ChatGBT was released. *"Human perception is inherently limited. Our senses and cognitive frameworks shape what we consider real, but they can't encompass the entirety of existence. As a result, our understanding of what is possible is always incomplete"* ... My argument is that *"logical conceivability"* is the litmus test for what can or cannot exist. Other than this single impenetrable barrier, the human mind is free to conceive of all manner of "Existence."

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"You suggest that what exists (like water, fish, and sharks) reveals what doesn’t exist by their interaction and overlapping. This idea aligns with certain philosophical views that existence and non-existence are interdependent; understanding one requires an understanding of the other."* ... I published this same argument in my book back in April, 2019 - three years before ChatGBT was released. *"Human perception is inherently limited. Our senses and cognitive frameworks shape what we consider real, but they can't encompass the entirety of existence. As a result, our understanding of what is possible is always incomplete"* ... My argument is that *"logical conceivability"* is the litmus test for what can or cannot exist. Other than this single impenetrable barrier, the human mind is free to conceive of all manner of "Existence."

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC we can use what is to outline what isn’t. We see by the outlines and think the outlines are all that is when it’s not one thing. It’s like we are looking at the shadows on the wall because all we think is thing and we miss all that’s there and relative that isn’t there. It’s like opening a door and letting what isn’t walk in and share with us.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@user-if1ly5sn5f ChatGPT will splurge out fawning elaborations of whatever you feed into it. Try this. Start a new session and ask it the opposite. It will very happily support the reverse argument for you.

[@hansvehof]

I stop the video after 5 minutes, does mr Loke eventually understand the question?

[@buddy.boyo88]

> question asker : why something rather than nothing? > philosopher, theologian, scientist : uuuuuuhhh *wall of text > me: it is what it is man, I just work here

[@JM-ty6uq]

Andrew’s argument fundamentally requires that there is a chain of causation in the universe, but our best explanation of physics at the macrolevel (GR) says that causation breaks down on the event horizon of a black hole. Unless we have a clearer description of basic physics to prove that causality doesn’t break down at any scale of time and space then his argument for why there is something rather than nothing remains questionable

[@88tongued]

Even if a correct theory of physics came out and explained how causation never breaks down, his answer has a fundamental issue which is that a "first cause" is not necessary. If you are told what the first cause is, unless it is logically necessary, it is not an answer to the question which includes explaining why the first cause happened in the first place.

[@JM-ty6uq]

@@88tongued You make a good point. I think that the ‘first cause’, if one did exist, would be more similar in flavour to an axiom, which you can often give good arguments for, but never completely justify. For example, in mathematics the entire theory of arithmetic follows from Peano’s axioms, and the argument for why they should exist at the foundation of it all is tautological: because those axioms are sufficiently rich to describe arithmetic as we knew it before the logic guys came to write the axioms down.

[@Bassotronics]

Latin people's incorrect dialect "No tengo nada". That's actually a double negative meaning you actually have something.

[@jamesaman4259]

If I'm understanding Robert's question correctly, he is agreeing that what we experience (call is "c") as existing is 'not necessary' in an of itself, meaning that it must have a 1st causal agent. He is then asking if this 1st causal agent is either itself (a) "necessary" or 'just' (b) a "brute fact." I would be interested in Robert explaining what is the difference in meaning by assuming b --> c vs. a --> c. For example, is Robert saying that the 1st cause should just be assumed as a 'brute fact,' and therefore no speculation is possible as to the "nature" or "intentionality" of this 'brute fact'? Robert seems to want to call the universe's 1st cause a brute fact and not a necessary agent, and I'm wondering what that buys him in terms of thought? (He did mention that he perceives a brute fact to be a larger category that contains necessary agents (a), so I guess he's saying that a brute fact (b) can be itself 'accidental', and even without having a 'nature' or 'intention' to create "c"?)

[@ltec1]

Love the channel. For me this sums up a pretty typical conversation with a religious person. Dodging and weaving around the question - blinded by faith.

[@JrobAlmighty]

It's simply impossible for there to be nothing. It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.

[@garyc1384]

Why is There 'Something' Rather Than 'Nothing'? - because matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[@Why23339]

The matter needed a first time

[@gianfrancoporcaro5406]

There is no logical necessity as to why there to be something rather than nothing. That there is something rather than nothing, when there doesn’t need to be, points to a volitional act, and therefore someone with intentions and motivations that is the source of existence - not something

[@user-ev4wk4jp1k]

All things are composite and therefore contingent upon other things for their being. That which is necessary is not a "thing." This "non-thing" is a complementary mode of being, which possesses all the attributes that things do not possess. Attributes such as omnipresence, omnipotence , eternality, etc. Ultimate Being wherein the two complementary modes of being (everything and nothing) complete one another is itself because it is possible for it to be, whereas is is not possible for Non-being to be.

[@Gazic]

Well that's that sorted then. What's next?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

for an infinite regress would require infinity or infinitesimal?

[@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu]

Conflicting motion flux directionality, and the competition of averages of local intersecting motion vectors, polarization forms (hbar) in potential energy states, and kinetic exchange of (hbar) forms the basis for wave functions. All physical theories have dependency (the natural world) the most complete physical theory is the one that can tie all them together with a simple mechanism (it doesn't mean that there isn't a infinite regress, it just means that it doesn't make sense to talk about a infinite regress at a specific foundational level which is important to us) charge capacitance (potential energy) and charge inverse interaction (kinetic energy) = the doughnut and all it's bisexual relations.

[@mortedelsogno]

The problem with using the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) to answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it bypasses the primary question rather than addressing it directly. When we contemplate why there is something rather than nothing, we realize that "nothing" is an impossible state because "something" exists. For "nothing" to truly exist, there must be a complete absence of all things, including abstract concepts like mathematics and the idea of possibility itself. Since the possibility of existence is still "something," absolute nothingness is logically impossible. The first stage of cosmological arguments, including the KCA, simply posits that something must exist. Even atheists can accept this idea. However, the KCA goes further by asserting additional claims such as the impossibility of infinite regression, the existence of a theistic deity, and that such a God is necessary. This introduces complexity to the argument. The claim that an infinite regression of causes is impossible can be challenged in multiple ways. One example is by demonstratimg how Einsteinian physics on the relativity of time shows that our intuitive, linear understanding of time doesn't align with the actual nature of reality, which undermines the KCA's premise of time and causality. This underscores our epistemological limitations. To critique the KCA more deeply, we should examine the distinction between essence and existence in the concept of God. The KCA asserts that God is a necessary being, meaning that God's essence inherently includes existence. However, this assertion does not address the actual existence of God. Logical necessity means something is true by definition, such as defining an equilateral rectangle as a square. The real question is whether this concept of necessity applies to God within the KCA framework. Claiming God is necessary is akin to describing the toppings on a pizza without explaining why the pizza itself exists. Moreover, the KCA neglects the question of what would define God if the universe and all reality didn't exist. This question is critical because arguing that God must necessarily exist makes God's existence contingent on the existence of the universe. If the universe didn't exist, the definition and necessity of God would be meaningless. Ultimately, we're left with the undeniable fact that something exists, but we remain uncertain about what or why it exists. The KCA fails to provide a satisfying answer to the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing.

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

The Kalaam updated by Craig to incorporate the Big Bang model of creation: Anything THAT BEGINS to exist, must have a cause.

[@mortedelsogno]

​@@UniteAgainstEvil While William Lane Craig's updated version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument incorporates the Big Bang model, it's important to clarify that the Big Bang theory itself does not unequivocally state that the universe began to exist in the way the KCA suggests. This is a common misconception. Just as the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life rather than the origin of life itself, the Big Bang theory explains the development of the universe rather than its ultimate origin. The Big Bang theory describes the expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago, but what preceded the Big Bang, if anything, remains an open question in cosmology. The term "beginning" in the context of the universe is philosophically and scientifically nuanced. In physics, time as we know it may not be applicable to the state of the universe at the Planck epoch (the earliest period of the universe). Therefore, the concept of a "cause" that operates within our temporal framework might not apply. Craig's argument relies on a classical understanding of causality that may not hold in the context of quantum mechanics and general relativity. At the quantum level, events do not necessarily follow deterministic causal chains as they do in classical physics. Moreover, our current scientific understanding is limited by the observable universe. Statements about the absolute origin of the universe are speculative and extend beyond the empirical data we have. The KCA's assertion that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause" presupposes a metaphysical framework that may not apply to the universe as a whole. Philosophers such as David Hume have argued that our notions of causality are derived from within the universe and may not be applicable to the universe itself. In short, the updated KCA attempts to incorporate contemporary cosmology but it oversimplifies and misinterprets complex scientific theories while fueling misconceptions about the Big Bang theory. Lastly, there are various cosmological models and philosophical arguments that challenge the premises of the KCA.

[@emergentform1188]

yes

[@dennisbailey6067]

Even if there was a 'god',that entity has to exist somewhere.Who created this somewhere?

[@emergentform1188]

@@dennisbailey6067 Also, what created this god entity? If there is a god, and that's a big if, then I doubt that even it knows where it came from. I wonder if it's atheist in that it doesn't believe it was created by another god lol. Yea the god theory is just silly and shortsighted, Santa for adults.

[@user-dq3eb4yp9s]

I go to Max Tagmark postulate, his level 4 universe. Even in “nothing”, 2+2 still equals 4. Consequently, in mathematics (abstract), every possibility can exist So, if the answer to Stephen Hawking’s question, “what breaths the fire into equations”, well, maybe that’s the answer. Something exists because it can. In other words, we know it already does so in mathmatics.

[@stefanblue660]

Why can' t you accept, that consciousness is necessary to explain what's going on beyond physics? Physics can only describe what, but never why. You need an observer, without consciousness impossible.

[@realitycheck1231]

"Why is there something rather than nothing". Some people believe there is nothing after death. So clearly, for them, there is something and nothing. There is a beginning and an ending to everyone. The question should then be; why something and nothing. But based on every video, nothing is not an option. The after death 'nothing' is never discussed..Instead the focus is that it's impossible there be nothing. Not true, to those who believe there is something and nothing. A beginning (something) and an ending (nothing). I would hope this is true but I'm not convinced based on the numerous videos, because it's implied that a state of nothing does not exist at all...

[@ronhudson3730]

Nothing is a self-contradictory word. Nothing becomes something - nothing. If nothing existed it obviously allowed for something to exist. We are proof of that. Thes circular arguments lose their allure upon repetition.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

The brute fact is that reality exists a priori. Because there is a reality, there is something. You could not have something before having a reality. One can argue about what reality is, but one can not argue that something existed before reality. The reason there is something rather than nothing is because reality exists.

[@user-yo9on6wf6r]

Reality existing is posteriori as it requires experience and sensory. A priori is logical reasoning alone.

[@clownworld-honk410]

To witness nothing, visit my home town. A cultural and physical vacuum defying the laws of ...well... everything!😮

[@FringeWizard2]

American?

[@grijzekijker]

Not true, because your town includes you; a sparkling energetic singularity ready to burst ...

[@clownworld-honk410]

@@grijzekijker thankyou thankyou!

[@chrisgascoigne6199]

Why is there an assumption that the Cosmos came from absolute nothing? And an assertion that ‘nothing' is what physics needs to understand and describe? There is something and, in all likelihood, there has always been something and the term ’no-thing’ is an oxymoron because it posits a thing before dismissing it. If physics, cosmology or philosophy needs to understand and describe anything it is eternity.

[@williamburts3114]

We can define reality as the totality of all existences thus consciousness, material phenomena, time, and cause and effect all make reality completely whole. And reality cannot be caused because time and cause and effect operate within reality and don't transcend it.

[@gregoriusmike]

Speaking about truth. To get closer to truth Free Assange!

[@gregoriusmike]

@sg24336 And why do you say he's a criminal?

[@feltonhamilton21]

Loneliness doesn't exist for example if you awaken levitating in a dark place and you never knew what existence was all about you will not feel alone or fear anything because you don't have a material body and you're made of just pure energy with self awareness a separate diagram of energy something that can convert into any desire of sensation in waves of joy and happiness.

[@j8000]

Why would there be nothing? There clearly is something, what's the reason to think there ever wasn't anything? We never see matter spontaneously appear, nor disappear. The safest assumption seems to be that matter never spontaneously appeared.

[@chrisrace744]

Its because everything comes from somewhere. But we cant fathom where existence comes from. Nothing seems more logical. I.e. we always start with an empty cup before we fill it up with stuff

[@j8000]

@@chrisrace744 Your cup might be empty, but decanter isn't. Stuff never comes from nowhere. It's a completely unsubstantiated logical leap to assert that at some point stuff came from nowhere.

[@chrisrace744]

@@j8000 Then youre just describing the problem of infinite regression. If stuff came from stuff which came from stuff that is infinite regression which is logically fallacious. At some point there must have been no things. Then there was things. You can't "start" with everything already existing.

[@88tongued]

I don't know why there would be nothing, but why is there something? I don't think nothing is the more natural state or default assumption. I'd be surprised there is any fact of the matter at all.

[@chrisrace744]

@@88tongued But not having something is the default. Like we don't have unicorns or elves. The set of all things that don't exist is greater than the set of all things that exist. So by logical extension we start off with nothing then big bang (the start as we know it) then stuff evolves from there. So its logical to assume there would be nothing, yet there is something.

[@Tlane1952]

I am that I am

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"I am that I am"* ... _"I am what I am, and that's all that I am."_ - Popeye

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@Amrit-ElixirOfLife *"With our thoughts we make the world" - Buddha"* ... I bet Popeye can beat up Buddha.

[@dougalmcalpine6804]

It's the bubbles of nothing that make it really something. Cadbury's Aero bar got it right.

[@Why23339]

Uhm..

[@TheTroofSayer]

Loke isn't grokking the phenomenological issues. The phenomenology of "somethingness", whatever that may be. To speak of a "brute fact" is to attempt to strip it of phenomenological ambiguity. If we assume the quantum void is analogous to the void at the beginning of creation (virtual particles, Feynman diagrams, etc), then we have grounds to infer that the void is creative. If the universe suddenly disappeared, you would be left with... the void. *The void always was and always will be* . Which implies that nothingness is an impossibility. No first cause required.

[@luridlogic]

In a reality in which nothing is possible, there will be nothing. We might say that in a reality in which something is possible, there will either be something or there will be nothing. However, the nothingness in a reality where something is possible is very different to the nothingness in a reality where nothing is possible. The former nothingness has potential, whereas the latter nothingness does not. The possibility of something in a reality where there is nothing, represents a potential for change, a potential for something to come into being. For this unrealized potential to endure indefinitely there must be an obstacle that prevents that realization. Even the absence of a trigger that causes that realization would represent such an obstacle. This potential would then effectively be unrealizable, making this reality one in which effectively nothing is possible. This is to say that a reality in which there is the potential for something, must ultimately realize that potential. We said before that “In a reality in which something is possible, there will either be something or there will be nothing.” But we see now this is incorrect. Rather it is the case that … In a reality in which something is possible, there will be something. Therefore, there is something rather than nothing because in our reality, it is evidently possible for something to be and a possibility for something to be, must ultimately be realized. But then why in our reality is it possible for something to be, rather than impossible for something to be? It is more reasonable to argue that the possibility for something to be, has a probability value rather than a binary state. There is evidently a non zero probability that in our reality, something is possible. For it to be impossible that there be something, it has to be the case that the probability for there to be something, is exactly zero. Any infinitesimal non zero probability for there to be something results in a reality in which there is something. There is more probability mass above zero than there is at zero. Therefore in our reality it is possible for there to be something rather than impossible for there to be something because the possibility of something is more probable than the impossibility of something, and consequently there is something rather than nothing because it is possible for something to be, and a possibility for something to be, must ultimately be realized. Posted at allancampbell.wordpress.com/2024/05/30/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/

[@Sagradia]

But why is there an infinitesimal probability for there to be something in the first place?

[@luridlogic]

@@Sagradia The probability that something is possible is not necessarily infinitesimal. The point is that even if it is vanishingly small there will ultimately be something rather than nothing. The only way there can be a reality in which nothing is possible is if the probability of something is exactly zero. If we allow that in a given reality the unknown probability of something could be any possible value between 0 and 1, then it is vastly more likely that the value is not zero, simply by the fact that there is more probability mass above zero than at zero.

[@Sagradia]

@@luridlogic Intuitively, the probability of nothing being able to create something is a flat zero. Not even any infinitesimal nonzero. If this premise is true, then we are left with only two possible conclusions: (a) the universe has always existed, or (b) the universe came from something. Empirically, the universe likely had a beginning. Thus (a) can be ruled out. That leaves us with (b), the universe came from something. With your case, then, a nonzero (even infinitesimal) probability for there to be something, would be a quality of this something from which the universe comes from.

[@luridlogic]

@@Sagradia In our reasoning on this question we must take care to not lean on conceptualizations that are themselves artifacts of any possible reality. Examples of such would be time, space, matter, energy, mind, God, laws of physics (such as what can or cant be created out of what), beginnings, ends. We must restrict ourselves to logic and reality-agnostic abstractions.

[@sqlb3rn]

I think the concept of "nothing" is simply impossible. Like the square root of negative one, it only exists in logic. There is something instead of nothing because nothing is impossible. A very simple yet hard to accept answer. Asking why nothing is impossible is like asking why two negative numbers multiplied equal a positive. It's impossible because it's illogical and could not be that way. The only way the concept of nothing (or imaginary numbers) can be used is by ignoring reality for a thought experiment that could never actually happen.

[@simonhibbs887]

Another way to put that is that whatever else we can say about the universe, it is necessarily possible for it to exist.

[@FringeWizard2]

​@simonhibbs887 The universe is not a possibility it is a fact. I don't see the universe as finite also.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@FringeWizard2 Surely for something to be a fact, it must be possible?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"Surely for something to be a fact, it must be possible?"* ... I agree that possibility is a necessary precursor for existence, but what if I said, "Nonexistence is impossible." would that be an impossible fact, or a possible fact?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Complete nonexistence would imply no possibilities, and it is necessary that our universe is possible, so complete nonexistence including the absence of possibilities is excluded.

[@Eric-yn6ur]

So why can't matter exist through the same argument that it was an event of brute fact? That a creator doesn't need a creator therefore matter doesn't need to be created rather it just came into existence. Matter is a first cause.

[@aleksandarbobinac630]

the answer is simple, nothing is something, so nothing in itself is something...

[@Why23339]

Nothing has no properties so your wrong

[@MiladTabasy]

Just as our world is ontologically a contingent thing between absolute being and nothingness its probability is epistemically between 1 and 0.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

If the universe had no beginning, therefore there always was something - its non-existence is therefore impossible.

[@lisahyland7945]

Something is the collective past of all things but in a way of being a separate state from nothing. Nothing cannot be defined as it has no shape and is without form and therefore has no point of reference. Nothing therefore lends itself to the realm of death which by nature is the unmaking of all that has shape. The something that arose from nothing (a state of emptiness), gave rise to light which in turn gave rise to darkness...this became everything... Everything there is follows the law of evolution which always gives rise to something that has not been before. This is how humanity became born and there evolution became stuck....

[@iphaze]

This is a circular argument

[@2ndAmendmentX]

Why is There 'Something' Rather Than 'Nothing'? When answering this question one should find useful several perspectives: human perception, mathematics, and physics. From human perspective we can look at language. Current research suggests that all languages have a concept of nothing, and one can presume that deep into our prehistory, nothing was a concept well understood by our ancestors. One remembers nothing from before one was born, and likely around the same time early humans were contemplating stories, songs, cave art, etc that predated their birth, the concept of nothing-ness arose. However, that is conjecture, and all we really know is that nothing-ness seems to have existed as long as written language. I suspect however, that our bacterial ancestors did not consider nothing, and that nothing-ness as a thought arose sometime between that primitive ancestor and early humans. From mathematics, we should look at the number zero and its history. Zero was rather late to the game in mathematics currently known only to have been introduced around the third century BCE, with other numbers (at least written) dating as far back as 3400 BCE. This progression in mathematics suggests a strong preference for something-ness over nothing-ness, at least in terms of human perception of mathematics. Now to physics. “The universe abhors a vacuum.” In fact, wherever we look, we see something, even in empty space. As far as modern physics understands, nothing does not exist. So, physics at least strongly pushes for something-ness. However, that is only true when examining fundamental physics. Emergence tells a different story. Emergent properties of physics describe not the fundamental laws as we understand them such as quantum mechanics, but rather concepts which are consequences of these laws. e.g. thermodynamics, pressure, sound, chemistry, astrophysics, geology, etc. One may consider stars, galaxies, planets, and life to be emergent. Jazz music is emergent. Outside of theories involving the infinite (e.g. Many Worlds, and infinitely large and old universe, Many Universes, etc), Jazz music is something that exists now, but not always. This non-existence is a form of nothing. Therefore, the physics of emergence has plenty of nothing-ness. So, ironically, we can see how at least with physics and probably human perception, nothing can arise from something. Is the reverse true?

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

seems like an interesting conversation about which came first, the chicken or the egg? A profound question no?

[@simonhibbs887]

Evolution says the first chicken egg, laid by a non-chicken ancestor of chickens. It is a fun question though.

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

saying that, I do like the cut of that young mans philosophical jib

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

@@simonhibbs887 but how does a nonchicken lay a chicken egg, darwin was a knob ;)

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"Evolution says the first chicken egg, laid by a non-chicken ancestor of chickens. It is a fun question though."* ... But what the question is really asking is which came first, the _egg_ or the _egg layer._ Based on your response, the "egg layer" came first.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yep, the most primitive organisms would have reproduced by budding or something like it (as water Hydra do), and budding evolved into egg laying, so in theory there would be a point where a budded organism produced the first egg. Technically.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

causation necessary for there to be something?

[@ghaderpashayee8334]

I loved it when he sneaked in "God". 😂

[@Jositoooo]

Meanwhile in the antimatter universe: “Why is there nothing rather than something?”

[@08wolfeyes]

I often wonder what type of nothingness are we speaking of? Are we talking about an infinite nothing or zero sets of nothing? Both are, of course, different, although by definition, still something. I don't think it will or possibly can be something that we solve, at least with evidence. We can, of course, look at it as a thought experiment, which will be the most likely outcome. Perhaps the probability of all possibilities is that something does arise and is inevitable, especially when you take virtual particles into consideration. However, where those come from and the energy required to create them may at least need space to exist for them to even come into being. I would also add that it might not be even possible for us to describe nothing. If you even attempt to describe it or put words to it, you're essentially making it something. You can have an intuition about nothingness although you may not be able to even imagine it with the human mind. When most people try to picture nothing, it's often a blackness they see which again, is something. Perhaps why it might be that it's more likely that there us something rather than nothing.

[@pascalneraudeau2084]

The possible cannot not be! So it is necessary. Its instances are contingent as in the wave function of a particle... The “brute fact” is a contingent decoherence of the necessary possibility. We go from continuous to discrete, as in mathematics from reals to integers by taking a position, an observation, a solipsism... my consciousness is a contingent instance which imagines itself to be a "brute fact", yet the evolution of my universe is coherent (fluid)... it is this coherence which is mysterious... I think that everything is Light: it progresses in a space where what is possible remains possible and what is achieved remains achieved.

[@Why23339]

My video I made before kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3m2iqKam85-fsUsi=Jnymk-k6axoCSHZS

[@dmellybelly]

Existence exists. And it does stuff. We are some of the stuff

[@miroru1]

What is this existence and why does it exist? ... There apparently is something. ... We are. The Universe exists. ... Something is. ... But why? And what is it?

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

Why is it? it's almanac 😂😂