Brian Leftow - Why is There Anything at All?

[@DrJanpha]

Listening to this dialog in the morning is enchanting nonetheless, more so with coffee

[@duytdl]

I just love the host. He seems to know all the jargon. After the guests give a long articulate answer, he just throws "oh you mean x", where "x" is a seemingly well-known jargon term given to whatever the guest was talking about. It really speeds up the process of extracting every last bit of knowledge the guests have on the subject.

[@TheSpeedOfC]

He has asked dozens and dozens of people this question and is now somewhat of a subject matter expert on the topic. I think Brian gives one of the more complete answers I've seen so far.

[@haiderkhagga]

"Why is there anything rather than nothing" Robert L Kyun is obsessed with this question

[@haydenwalton2766]

yep, he's modest, but he's a bloody gun! It's a brilliant series

[@David.C.Velasquez]

Dr. Kuhn is sharp as a tack, but I fear will never be satisfied with the answer. I can respect that.

[@shazanali692]

Strange be never got a interview with sir Steven Hawkins before he died. Or did he. I don't know is there one

[@PEM-zt5rd]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the host of all hosts. The quality of Closer to Truth and the quality of his questions together with the caliber of guests... makes this a show considered to be one of the GOATs. Yes... of all time... and space.

[@VolodymyrPankov]

Agree. Incredible.

[@bazyt1]

The ultimate tough question, but they offer a good way to tackle it -- what form must the answer take or not take. Interesting discussion.

[@robertm3561]

It’s an absurd question, as the assumption of something coming out from nothing is irrational and outdated way of considering reality. There never was a beginning, as nothing can ever come out from nothing I.e. everything that is, has always existed. Imo scientists are jammed with the thought of limited universe, where it clearly isn’t limited partly because Einstein couldn’t figure out the “singularity”

[@wingsuiter2392]

It’s an incredibly stupid question.

[@WayneLynch69]

This is a universe of heat ONLY. It could not have begun de novo; 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It cannot be eternal; 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (it will distribute all heat...if eternal it would have done so). Einstein said: "Thermodynamics is THE ONE law of universal content which will NEVER be overthrown" NOTHING has EVER scratched those laws in even the most extreme. After making Einstein Einstein, Eddington said: "anyone whom challenges thermodynamics has no hope...only total humiliation". NO physicist would dream of claiming they have elided thermodynamics WHATSOEVER. This argument exists NOT because physicists don't know they have no prayer of controverting thermodynamics; but because they have a faith that the universe must answer to natural law ONLY. So there HAS to be an answer. Faith is NOT SCIENCE.....

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

@@WayneLynch69 Is the Big Bang Theory faith based?

[@benjamintrevino325]

​@@Samsara_is_dukkhano, because it is a theory, not a declaration of fact.

[@docdaytona108]

Getting a strong sense that the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” theme is playing in Robert’s head after about one minute of this topic discussion.

[@Alejandro388]

and have you spotted Robert's very near eye-roll at the last few seconds?

[@jonathanspruance4502]

This was one of the best answers to this question that I've seen so far on this show. I agree that ultimately the answer has to bottom out in a brute fact (but not 'god'). I think that either 1) 'nothingness' is an ontological impossibility and therefore 'something', in it's most primary form has to be the brute fact underlying reality or 2) 'something' and 'nothing' are ultimately non-different at the lowest level of reality. I'm sure the answer is much more complex and elegant than we can ever imagine.

[@DavidTraynier]

I appreciate his point about eliminating causal and contingent explanations, but I find necessity unsatisfying too. Necessity is surely a relational characteristic. If reality was born of an egg, what would it mean to say that egg was necessary? Necessary to what and why? How would one explain the necessity? How would one even know it was necessary? My own view on this is that, with this question, we have reached the limit of our understanding. We are creatures born in a tiny aspect of a fundamentally casual universe. We simply can't conceptualise a reality beyond.

[@georgegrubbs2966]

The answer is straightforward. There is something rather than nothing because there always has been something; it is the basis of all that comes from it.

[@jonathanspruance4502]

i completely agree. this is the only possible answer.

[@TH-nx9vf]

There is something rather than nothing so that nothing can know itself.

[@Tom_Quixote]

It seems to me that he starts out by saying the answer can't be causal, but then he claims that there must be a necessary being that caused the universe to exist. That's causal. Even if he just claims there are some things that are necessary, then where did that necessity come from?

[@TwoPyramid]

you nailed it.

[@billeltot]

Indeed , and saying that there could be multiple necessary beings is simply untrue .. when u discuss logically the properties of that necessary being u will find that it's impossible for two of them to exist together .. it must be one other than that limitations starts appearing which they need explanations outside of themselves .

[@browngreen933]

Saw that too. First eliminates God, then sneaks God back in. 😮

[@PatrikLindenfors]

It is always disappointing to hear this answer regurgitated by the religious for this very reason. Why is it taken seriously in this series? It devalues the rest.

[@billeltot]

@@PatrikLindenfors maybe bcs u don't know that the contingency argument fits like a glove .. with god and it's properties when u go deep in the discussion better than anything als .

[@mozerm]

Of all the unanswerable questions this is the most unanswerable.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Of all the unanswerable questions this is the most unanswerable."* ... I don't believe so. I believe there is a *logical explanation* for "Existence."

[@Mentaculus42]

Or it is actually the opposite and it becomes obvious when the answer is recognized (especially when an orthodox assumption is recognized as … )!

[@Mentaculus42]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I like the way you do the “quote”.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@Mentaculus42 *"I like the way you do the “quote."* ... I do that for three reasons: *(1)* people delete their comments, *(2)* so that others know what I'm referring to in my reply, *(3)* lets the OP know that I thoroughly read their comment.

[@browngreen933]

It's a trick question. 😂

[@Jinxed007]

"Nothing" only exists as the opposite of something, as "something" only exists as the opposite of nothing. In both cases, "something" and "nothing" are required to make sense of either idea. The even more interesting reality is that there is not one square inch of any part of our reality where you'll find absolute nothing. "Nothing" is merely a concept provided for understanding a multitude of other ideas regarding reality. So not only can't there be nothing, but nothing isn't even a thing. It can't exist. OK, now I need an aspirin.

[@benjamintrevino325]

And if some day we discovered some place that contains nothing, would it become something, because we could point to it and say, "Look, there's nothing."

[@Gsp_in_NYC]

my favorite question.

[@mediocrates3416]

Coherence; truth in the grand sense. If it's not coherent, it is not.

[@francesco5581]

Brute fact does not explain "complexity" too (as Kuhn rightfully notice) ...would be a bit too much of a lucky chance. SO is something that exist necessarily, in a no-time environment ... most probably a kind of consciousness.

[@r2c3]

5:39 very hard question for any guest to answer :)... but since something requires something else as a source then the nature of the 'source' something has to be considered as being at least as complex as to enable the existence of the something we observe... everything, we observe, is following specific patterns that can be calculated mathematically, to a certain degree of precision... so, in order to enable existence of something, the 'source something' requires at least the ability to control and arrange the "element/s" of existence in a specific way as to enable their interaction among them... unless the element/s have these properties to begin with... even though, we still don't know if we're dealing with a limit space, energy, and time, erything derived from the source seems to be very attracted to these basic elements as without their possession their existence would not be possible... but to me it seems as everything without a structure/identify, or even when deformed out of its intended purpose will loose its structure/identify and cease to exist... 🤔

[@haiderkhagga]

Interesting. Also God cannot be, as you put it, calculated mathematicaly, then God is not possible/doesn't exist. And since we know no one can answer "who created God", then it automatically means God is not possible and doesn't exisit

[@kos-mos1127]

What you are describing is a cause that arranges and orders everything. This does not answer the question why there is something rather than nothing. What is needed is a basis from which reality can be derived. This can be done by removing everything from existence until we get down to something that if removed would make it impossible for anything to be. Hypothetically removing the Cosmos would make it impossible for anything the be. Removing the Cosmos means quantum physics disappear, the vacuum of space disappears, time disappears and all of reality would disappear. Nature would also disappear as well as abstract entities. Removing the Cosmos is like shutting down Amazon Web Services and tying to check if applications hosted in AWS.

[@r2c3]

@@haiderkhagga "God cannot be calculated mathematically" I was referring to things that we observe as being shaped/structured/formed by a set of rules that resembles that of mathematics... so, the source that was discussed has to somhow apply these rules to things that we observe... I don't know how to calculate or even understand the nature of God... I think it's impossible for us to even conceprualize the nature of Divinity... the focus was on the least properties that are required to form/shape everything we observe around us...

[@r2c3]

@@kos-mos1127 hello kos-mos... my comment was addressing the question at 5:39... we have already discussed the possibility of the universe coming into existence from nothing before, and I still think that it's not possible for anything to emerge out of nothing, in case I haven't discussed that with you previously...

[@kos-mos1127]

@@r2c3 The idea that the Cosmos had a beginning or came from nothing is Christian Apologetic nonsense. Science does not say the Cosmos had a beginning or came from nothing. The Cold Lambda Dark Model states the Cosmos was in a dense state with no horizon and expanded to a nearly empty state with a light horizon. Anything else is speculation base on taking the Standard Model of Cosmology out of the regime where it applies. Immanuel Kant already answered the question on something from nothing. People incorrectly ascribed thingness to space and time. Space and time are not things they are the relationship between things. Neither space and time have a beginning because they are measures not things. Albert Einstein summarized it by saying space is what you measure with a ruler and time is what you measure with a clock. In physics space and time are rulers and clocks. To ask of a ruler or clock came into existence is nonsense because they are tools that we use to make sense of the world around us.

[@tomdaniels6868]

good start.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

I'm starting to agree with the notion that the universe is indeed just a brute fact. Perhaps somehow arising from Platonic abstractions. The universe just has to necessarily exist.

[@mithrandir2006]

Existence must come to exist, it's just what it does.

[@HyzersGR]

Complete nothingness is impossible. Because you can never eliminate possibilities, and logical prepositions.

[@anteodedi8937]

​@@Bricklore_25What explanatory power does that add exactly? Mind may be immanent in the cosmos/nature. Inanimate cosmos may have primitive/proto mentality. There is usually a correlation between complexity of structure/function and complexity of mentality. A human has more complex structure and functions than a pigeon, a pigeon has more complex structure and functions than a beetle, a beetle has more complex structure and functions than inanimate cosmos. The same arrow goes for the complexity of mentality. Naturalism has the explanatory power you need and wins by virtue of simplicity.

[@TheSpeedOfC]

I think the question only makes sense inside the confines of space and time but if could get to the "place" where it all originates the question becomes irrelevant.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@TheSpeedOfC Without spacetime there is no place where it all originates. At minimum the Cosmos still has to be there in order for a cause to be possible otherwise the argument becomes circular.

[@zenmite2525]

The question seems like a real question...even a deep question. As others have said, absolute nothing doesn't exist. It is a concept, an abstraction of the mind with no corresponding reality. "Why is a mouse when it spins?" At first glance, this seems like a real question, too. When I was 13, I started to think and experience that uncanny question as well. The fact that anything existed suddenly became weird. Existence itself seemed unlikely. I thought I was going insane. Like a zen koan, the only way to answer that question is by changing your perspective. You have to see the absurdity of the question itself. Existence doesn't have a cause, because that cause too would exist. Rules that apply to items within a set do not necessarily apply to the set itself. Just my 2 cents.

[@alsdyall]

That was a great answer. That was way more than $0.02 that was about $0.57. and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

[@louisbullard6135]

Right the idea of nothing is just an idea. Nothing actually doesn’t make sense. We have grown up to understand nothing as no food, water 💦, trees etc. I wonder if in reality nothing is just a made up term we humans use!!!

[@jermainroberts361]

i can see you are an alan watts fan. good on you. you're on the right track

[@Roscoe0494]

I have had, as many have had, the mind blowing experience as a youngster of trying to imagine nothingness. My vision was simple, no space, no time, more like a singularity. Don't muddy it up with ideas or concepts or numbers because they can't exist if there is nothing out there, no physical existence to conjure them. So my first step is understanding the nature of space and how we went from no space to some space, because that is the leap from nothingness to physical existence. So to me it is the same question as asking why was there a big bang?

[@jermainroberts361]

@@Roscoe0494 you cant get physicality from nothingness... something and nothing exist simultaneously. you can't have one without the other.. ying and yang

[@waryinzero]

At the 8:22 mark, you say, "...an ultimate blank forever." Is not an ultimate blank "something"?

[@HyzersGR]

Absolute nothing is impossible. Because the fact that something exists at all means you can never eliminate possibilities.

[@longcastle4863]

Interesting. Can you show the logical steps from proposition (something exist) to conclusion (therefore everything is possible)?

[@HyzersGR]

@@longcastle4863 I don't think everything is necessarily possibly realized, only things that aren't logically contradicted. I can't imagine a universe where 2+2 doesn't equal 4 for instance. But the fact that some things actually exist means that it's self evident that complete nothingness is impossible.

[@VaibhavChimalgi]

that's a good point. Also, the fact that only when something exists, one can ask "why is there anything rather than nothing" and can never be asked if there was an absolute nothing, suggests that absolute nothing is impossible.

[@jameswoodhouse1843]

You are starting your thesis with the proposition that something exists, but we are being asked to assume that it never did

[@VaibhavChimalgi]

@@jameswoodhouse1843 the catch is you would never be able to assume that if it never did exist. Hence, that proposition is self evident.

[@levimatthewmorris]

The question presupposes a fundamental difference between something and nothing and a reason or purpose for the universe. I feel the answer combines something/everything/nothing and does away with the notion of why in favor of how.

[@kos-mos1127]

Nothing is he subset of everything. Nothing cannot exist without something.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

I submit a fourth alternative answer to the question Why is there something rather than nothing? That is that the question itself is bogus. Just because it is grammatically correct doesn't make it a legitimate question. I assume existence exists and time is in the universe. The speaker assumes, by way of taking the question before us as legitimate, that the universe is in time. He assumes the universe is contingent and secondary and that 'nothing' is noncontingent and primary. To him, 'nothing' is the something that something was created out of by some noncontingent entity. For me the noncontingent primary entity is the universe itself. The universe is not just another thing in the universe. To talk about it as if it were is to go down a rabbit hole that Ocham would abhor. To say the universe is just a brute fact is to give the question semi-legitimacy. It is not to have the insight that the answer is in linguistics not in physics. A necessary self-existing being, conceived as God or the universe or something else, is thereby said to have aseity.

[@ronaldjackson6333]

I agree the the answer must assume that the universe is necessary. However, what clouds the issue is that it might be impossible to rectify our understanding of the how and when of the physical universe, which is becoming clearer at times and uncertain at other times, but seems to be advancing, and our subjective experience of the world we are thrown into (re: Heidegger's notion of "thrownness"). We are "always already" limited by assumptions that seem endless. How can the essentially subjective mind give the ultimate answer to an objective universe? That, to me, is the source of difficulty in even formulating the question.

[@c4CHIN]

As an organism, like all organisms, we have senses of things, including time and space in our case as people, and as people we have our own sense of time and space in reality, realized naturally as well as artificially. Truth, however is not reality. Truth is not for organisms. Only Awareness, which is more like intuition than knowledge, can realize Truth. In Truth, as much as there is something, there is also nothing. As much as there is space and time, there is also non-space and time-less. (Namaste❤️🙏)

[@SaltyDraws]

How did it start, why, and who or what started it all?

[@jimmyendless]

We live everyday life on the assumption that something cannot come from nothing yet the universe began. Interesting discussion.

[@browngreen933]

But the current universe began from something not from nothing -- we just don't know what pre-existed the current universe.

[@kalewintermute28]

Saying something necessarily exists is a lot different from saying there is a necessary 'being'. That aside, I liked this chap a lot more than most of the guests that come at the question with a religious background.

[@woofie8647]

The fault is in the question itself. Our language allows us to ask questions that do not have an answer within our current understanding of "reality", whatever that turns out to be. We need to better understand reality and consciousness before asking "why" and "how" the universe is what it is. Our language is not up to the challenge because neither are our brains.

[@synaestheziac]

Hegel’s Science of Logic is by far the most sophisticated attempt to answer this question ever given. Anyone who seriously wants to grapple with this question needs to read the Logic, at least up to the section on infinity.

[@brothermine2292]

The "why" question can be morphed into a "how" question, such as "how does the universe exist" or "how did the universe get here." To make it clear that the answer doesn't have to include a purpose.

[@synaestheziac]

@fartpooboxohyeah8611 what makes you so sure that we are definitively limited in that way? Or that there are no possible answers?

[@synaestheziac]

@@brothermine2292 Hegel doesn’t invoke purposes in the logic of being

[@brothermine2292]

@@synaestheziac : My reply about morphing the "why" question into a "how" question was aimed mainly at the person who replied to your comment before I did. He claimed "why" is "not a legitimate question."

[@FernandoW910]

Awesome

[@Paul1239193]

A while ago Leibniz said the universe is contingent but God is necessary so God is the answer etc.

[@chrispietryga8710]

Phew! I just love this channel...

[@wagfinpis]

It is far more productive to alter the angle of the question, after you see that the answer to the question doesn't need to make you happy. example: how ordered is it possible for the universe to be? Is a singularity possible? Is a singularity less or is entropy less? is less possible?

[@moychi1329]

humankind will never never never know❤

[@ThatLucasGuy93]

If there was Nothing, than what would halt Everything?

[@mykrahmaan3408]

The question is "the beggar's wound" of purposeless seekers.of knowledge: "Knowledge for its own sake out of curiosity", instead of KNOWLEDGE ONLY FOR PRACTICAL SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF BEINGS is the culprit.

[@kenmapp4891]

Brians idea of necessity seems (to me) to imply causation.

[@wattshumphrey8422]

Robert - think you would be good to refer to millenia old mystical and meditative traditions with this question -- per those: both "nothing" (void) and "something" (substance) exist, and, both give rise to each other and are flip sides of the same reality.

[@ElkoJohn]

Can a ''necessary something'' also be a ''first cause'' ?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Does the question 'Why is there anything at all?' contain within itself the implicit assumption that existence is contingent? I think it does and I reject it. As Ayn Rand said, Existence exists.

[@jonathanspruance4502]

Agree. The 'why' makes the question illogical.

[@marc6433-r9k]

The answer is Intellectually at this time we are incapable of understanding the truth of our reality.

[@stephenwatts2649]

Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you. I am? It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that. All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you. The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it. To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you. My God, this is unbelievable. Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed. Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"! One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing. Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now. This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this. When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination. And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways. Please? You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality. You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process. This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process. This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created. I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life. Okay. Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there." Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all. This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe. Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up? Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same. They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you. I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy) We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter. Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love. This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth. There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.

[@joqqy8497]

I don’t think we know the definition of nothing. It is easy to assume we do, but we don’t. We compare nothing to something. Both cannot exist simultaneously, and so the can never be compared. Nothing can never realize something and vice versa.

[@anonxnor]

The people who say that it's just a brute fact that there is anything at all, that there is a universe, are basically saying that the universe itself is a necessary being, aren't they? If we instead of "the universe" say "existence itself" then it becomes more obviously why existence itself is a necessary being. Existence itself has to exist because that's what existence means.

[@simonhibbs887]

Pretty much yes. I'd dispense with the word 'being' as it's a heavily loaded term, but if the universe exists it seems plausible that it does so necessarily.

[@blizzforte284]

If we consider 'existence itself' as a necessary being, it does raise interesting questions. How does existence itself come to possess the property of necessity? Where does that necessity come from? Does this suggest a deeper layer of reality that we might not fully comprehend yet? And if existence itself is necessary, does that give us any insights into the nature of reality and why it is the way it is?

[@oliviamaynard9372]

There is something because nothing doesn't exist

[@truthdawn7773]

That something must be not changing, capable of everything, and created everything that needs it's parts and laws

[@billhawkins192]

Nothing exists. We only perceive it to.

[@oliviamaynard9372]

@@truthdawn7773 Something is already everything. All that is possible already exists.

[@oliviamaynard9372]

@@billhawkins192 Nothing can't exist because something does

[@truthdawn7773]

@@oliviamaynard9372 how something is everything 😶😶 All that is possible exists because theres something decided that ,and know what possible,so that something created everything that needs every part of itself ,so it cannot exist by itself ,and it has a beginning

[@patientson]

Patience. Patience my brother. Have you ever asked a pregnant woman why she would choose patience over impatience? 9 months acausal living and increase in insight of self-control.

[@stephenkagan]

So far as we know, the only 'thing' that exists necessarily is the quantum vacuum energy. Right?

[@helveticahotline]

Perhaps the unsatisfying answer to the question "Why" is the appearance of the necessity to ask the question at all.

[@dougsmith6793]

The answer to this may be dismissed because it's too simple. The answer? Persistence. This is like time, but time is a measurement of persistence, whereas persistence itself is the property being measured. If there's truly nothing, there's nothing to persist. So, nothing, by definition, is a non-persistent state. The only thing that can persist is something.

[@pascalguerandel8181]

I'd like to see an interview with world renoun Dr. Pim van Lommel from the Netherlands..His paradigm of consciousness!

[@Arvy111]

I beleive I know the answer. There is NOTHING but consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental. There is nothing else. Now within this fundamental consciousness we experience everything. We experience all matter, universe everything. However nothing actually exists as separate or outside of consciousness. An example is a dream. We can experience sitting on a beach with a beautiful sunset sipping a pina colada. However when we wake up we realise there was no beach, no sunset and no pina colada. However we did experience them in consciousness. This helps give us a clue. Consciousness is the only reality.

[@simonhibbs887]

It's hard to see how that is consistent with our lived experience, which is that we are unconscious for significant periods of deep dreamless sleep every night, and also have no consciousness when anaesthetised. How can something that is fundamental in the way you suggest stop happening? That seems more consistent with consciousness being an activity. But also, when there is a discrepancy between out conscious awareness and physical reality, our experience is that external physical reality always wins. When we experience optical illusions, mirages, or other mistaken perceptions, those discrepancies are never resolved in favour of our conscious perception. While we are conscious, we are constantly presented with a stream of novel information we are not previously aware of. That information must have a source outside out conscious awareness. It seems to be a highly consistent, persistent source of information that stays consistent and persistent while we are not conscious. What is that source? It seems to be consistent with our understanding that it is an objective reality.

[@blizzforte284]

@@simonhibbs887 It could be that during periods of unconsciousness, such as deep dreamless sleep, the awareness shifts to different states of consciousness that are not accessible to our waking awareness. This might suggest that even in these states, some form of consciousness or awareness persists, albeit in a different mode. Information we encounter, whether through learning or new experiences, is not truly external to consciousness. Instead, this might suggest that consciousness has the capacity to generate novel experiences, including new information. This perspective challenges the assumption that information exists independently of consciousness. What we perceive as an external and objective reality is, in fact, a collective projection of consciousness. While some aspects of this reality seem consistent, it could be argued that this consistency arises from the shared nature of consciousness among individuals. Optical illusions and perceptual mistakes could be seen as instances where our individual perceptions momentarily diverge from this shared projection.

[@Arvy111]

@simonhibbs887 Consciousness as a fundamental does not come and go. When you sleep or are aneithesetised consciousness continues. However the brain acts as a kind of restrictive antenna to receive information . This antenna is simply turned off during the aneithesetised period. Consciousness itself cannot be turned off or stopped or reduced . Some evidence to prove this. The double split experiment reveals matter has no actual objective reality and is in fact a non local wave of information. This wave only appears as an object of matter when observed. Why? Because it appears only as separate objects within consciousness. The effect known as the observer effect further proves nothing exists outside of consciousness. Therefore you cannot have a brain form and grow and then have Consciousness grow from its trillions of neurons. That's impossible as a brain can only appear within Consciousness. Consciousness must come first. Therefore Consciousness must be fundamental. Further proof. Near death science has shown extensive evidence of Consciousness continuing after the death of the brain. And anecdotal evidence shows that conscious experience is in fact greatly enhanced post (brain) death. It appears the brain actually filters and reduces the full capacity of Consciousness. Once the fundamental nature of Consciousness is understood then it reveals there is no space or time or matter in object reality . In fact All is information within fundamental consciousness. And the exciting revelation reveals no death. How can you - Consciousness- die when you - Consciousness- is fundamental ? Impossible. Cheers

[@blizzforte284]

@@Arvy111 If consciousness is not dependent on the brain, how do you explain the intricate relationship between conscious experience and brain activity? How does this perspective account for the strong correlation between changes in brain states (due to injury, drugs, etc.) and changes in conscious experience? While the double-slit experiment raises intriguing questions about the nature of reality, some interpretations argue that it's more about the behavior of particles on the quantum level rather than the nature of consciousness. How can we confidently bridge the gap between the behavior of particles and the nature of consciousness? Near-death experiences are indeed fascinating and have been subject to scientific inquiry. How do we address the differing interpretations of near-death experiences, some of which argue that they can be explained through physiological processes, neurochemistry, and altered states of consciousness? If consciousness is the fundamental fabric of reality, how do you account for the diverse range of conscious experiences and perceptions? For instance, why do different individuals experience the same external events differently if consciousness is the sole reality? The reductionist approach in science suggests that complex phenomena can be understood by analyzing their constituent parts. How does your perspective accommodate the reductionist viewpoint, given that you propose consciousness as the fundamental entity? If consciousness is the primary reality and everything else is an aspect of it, how does this viewpoint explain the apparent limitations and laws of the physical world? For example, why are there consistent patterns and laws governing the behavior of matter and energy? How can your perspective be empirically verified or falsified? Are there scientific experiments or methods that could definitively support or challenge the idea of consciousness as a fundamental reality?

[@stevekane8609]

Is there an Axiom of Existence? It is not causal but simply a fact where it's denial is logically absurd, making existence logically necessary. It can't be any other way. Similar to the 'brute fact', but with a logical description.

[@keiwo_tritiyos_muketo]

OK the "necessary beings" they are still 'something' why not energy which can neither be created nor destroyed? The concept of "nothing" is a difficult concept but can be grasped when thought about carefully

[@cornopeanus]

what does he mean by it can't be a causal answer? I didn't follow him on that.

[@renko9067]

In THE VOID the only presence that makes sense (and is necessary) is infinite possibility. It’s only necessary because you can’t eliminate it. This is the wave function quantum mechanics talks about. In fact, experiments show that at the level of quantum wave function there is energy, and to remove that energy to create an ‘absolute void’ would require more energy than the wave function contains. This wave function (see Sean Carroll) is one thing. There is one wave function that includes the entire apparent universe. Because it is one, it is incomparable and therefore without dimension. Because it is one there is nothing for it to travel through and nothing to travel through it, so there is no time. It has no beginning and no end, therefore it is eternal. It modulates within itself and dreams the apparent universe into apparent existence. This is the One Mind zen (and Vedanta) has spoken of for millennia: an eternal, incomparable, impersonal field of infinite possibilities dreaming. To ask why would imply cause and effect, but there is only IT. “I am that I am.”

[@pjaworek6793]

Ooh, me likes Brian. Anything before the universe couldn't be casual because it would itself be a thing (in the universe). You got my attention! That something necessary is the universe. A brute fact. Shute, then Brian loses my respect with the old jump from something necessary/first to a 'necessary being', out of nowhere. What was the point of the last 4min if you were going to assert something based on nothing previously said!!!??!?

[@MrArchie800]

I'd love to live long enough that one day our 'science' might be able to have a proper go an answering this question.

[@marcus3502]

It could be a language problem. How do we describe nothing at all? Certain things do exist that cant be described by language, color is one, numbers are another. I could even argue sound is another. Not external sound but the sound generated by your mind whenever you recall a memory. That sound is certainly not a vibration. So we could just lack the words to define what nothing is.

[@markpmar0356]

This particular question is sounding more and more like a peculiar example of Gödel's incompleteness axiom.

[@esorse]

"[T]here could have been nothing" (0.12s) maybe paradoxical, since prohibited temporal precedence is a necessary condition of nothing before something *. * This is a.necessary condition for that if that cannot exist without this.

[@workingTchr]

I think Robert doesn't appreciate how rare he is to even _have_ that angst of envisioning the possibility of there never having been anything in the first place. Is this what Sartre was referring to in Being and Nothingness? Is Being (as such) the focus of Heidegger's thought? Anyway, most people who weigh in on the discussion, like the guest here, presume that the asker must be confused in some way. You can see from the way they respond to the question that it just doesn't bother them (the way that it should).

[@gert8439]

By relying on definitions Leftow can introduce the concept of a necessary Being which caused the universe to exist. But using definitions, we can just as easily define the universe itself as a necessary Entity. Ultimately both rely on accepting as brute fact the existence of Something (rather than nothing). And adding a necessary Being then looks superfluous. The underlying problem is that our notions of causality and logic have formed from our observations of how the existing universe appears to work. It's those 'in-universe' observations which are the basis for our human concepts of causation and logic, (and we know we humans aren't perfect observers and thinkers). We can't step outside the universe to see what, if any, rules apply there, it doesn't even make sense to us that a state of nothing can have rules like causation or logical necessity, when there isn't even time or space. We're simply not equipped to answer the question, because the way humans model the universe through our experiential observations and thinking are geared to navigating the universe from within it.. Inserting a god of the gaps as an 'explanation' for what we're not equipped to explain is a possibility, but one which doesn't get around our limitations in a way which can make it demonstrable. It's just saying you don't think the universe itself is inexplicable, so there must be a cause which inexplicably doesn't have a cause itself. And calling that inexplicable necessary first cause God, a term which carries a lot of other baggage. When we're simply not equipped to answer a question, saying ''Don't know'' is the only correct answer.

[@browngreen933]

Yep, super monkey brain only goes so far then gets entangled in its own built-in biases, assumptions and magical thinking.

[@gert8439]

@@browngreen933 Quite.

[@blizzforte284]

Atheists who propose that the universe exists necessarily face the challenge of explaining the origin or cause of this necessity. They may need to address why the universe possesses the properties and conditions that make its existence necessary in the first place. Theists who assert that God exists necessarily encounter similar questions. They need to explain the source or origin of God's necessity and why God's existence is self-contained and not contingent upon anything external.

[@martinstaines5394]

The seemingly illogical existence of nothing from our perspective certainly lends weight to the existence of God or the simulation hypothesis or both?

[@tomrobingray]

Necessarily something must exist, because non-existence cannot, by definition, exist!

[@simonhibbs887]

That's just a problem with the english language. We can ask if non-existence could pertain, without tripping over that issue.

[@tomrobingray]

@@simonhibbs887 We can easily talk about impossible things: four sided triangles, or a whole number between one and two, but that doesn't imply they can exist!

[@blizzforte284]

If we consider 'existence itself' as a necessary being, it does raise interesting questions. How does existence itself come to possess the property of necessity? Where does that necessity come from? Does this suggest a deeper layer of reality that we might not fully comprehend yet? And if existence itself is necessary, does that give us any insights into the nature of reality and why it is the way it is?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@tomrobingray I’m not arguing that non existence is a coherent concept, just that in this case the English language requires careful usage to express the concept clearly.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@blizzforte284 Interesting. It seems to me that whatever exists necessarily must exist in the state, and with the attributes it has necessarily. After all, why would it have any unnecessary attributes? It seems like there would be no reason for those attributes to exist.

[@missh1774]

Wouldn't it be easier to ask the opposite of truth for reason... "why lie, why is there untruths, how does false negative exist?" Take for example, achievement. What defines the typical route of success. What are all the things in society that provides a trusted formula through modern conventions to create symbols of achievement. Can a single mother of 5 children be a successful independent sole earner? Are we redefining reasons, in the lies that is all around us?

[@TorgerVedeler-j8v]

I think that this question is only half of a bigger one, which I ponder sometimes. The other half is this: Why is there THIS thing rather than the near-infinite number of possible OTHER things? So there is something, but why this something and not another?

[@marklewis3378]

thats much easier to answer... once there is something, we can trace the morphing back to a point and work out why.... There is no possible way for us to ever uncover or understand the mechanism for the first cause...

[@CMVMic]

​@@marklewis3378the first instance of change emerges from the intial structure of a substance. It was the first cause.

[@marklewis3378]

@@CMVMic And where did that substance come from? its a semantics argument, as you know the idea we are discussing isn't comprehendible

[@CMVMic]

@@marklewis3378 the substance didnt come from anywhere. It always existed

[@marklewis3378]

@@CMVMic that sounds easy to buy into on if you dont think for more than 3 seconds about it...

[@benjiedrollinger990]

John 1: The Word Became Flesh 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

[@AllenProxmire]

"there can be only one answer". his answer

[@nicklack1986]

I emailed them this exact question a couple weeks ago and this video I made too. See below. I have screenshots of the email if need be.

[@nicklack1986]

How the Universe Might Exist 2.0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZyrqpV-nsmAi8k

[@life42theuniverse]

Why’s there something rather than nothing? Blackholes exist. A blackhole within a blackhole separated by spacelike curves of spacetime.

[@Gregaro_Ivinalidinovic]

the real question is "How something, rather than nothing?"

[@johnmaisonneuve9057]

The question can’t be answered because claiming a ‘first cause’ leads to the question ‘what caused that? Something popped in existence a billion billion billion years ago. Why? No answer is possible. Fini.

[@patientson]

Patience, and the control of not falling back into the world of impatience. The world of impatience will kill both a mother and her unborn child. Every holy texts in existence today teach Patience and why you must remain in control - be patience. By being patient, you activate parts of you that will allow new abilities, especially and including excellent communication with another. Your own main job on this earth is to grow, order and dictate within you how you wish your day to go, not look into the beginning and end of the universe around you.

[@danielkammer3244]

Why nothing rather than something?

[@bananacabbage7402]

There does have to be an explanation for existence, otherwise there would be nothing. The answer is that existence is relative to the observer. Mathematics describes possible consistent structures and its logic works independently of our universe. It is meaningless to say that mathematics or any mathematical structure exists in an absolute sense, but within a possible structure there can be observers that are aware of their own place in that structure. To these observers that structure exists and is their universe, because that is how they would see it, just as we see our universe as existing.

[@Mentaculus42]

Is this explained in your book? So the “Universe” is the ultimate “Quantum Turing Machine” that allows quantum physics to “compute” the “ENERGYSPACETIME” evolution ¿¡?! 😊

[@bananacabbage7402]

@@Mentaculus42 The book does not go so far into this philosophy but I have written about these ideas in my FQxI essays if you are interested. E.g. in "A Universe Made of Stories"

[@neilbertuk1]

Well thanks for that, I’ve just had an embolism.

[@sleepingninjaquiettime]

Stephen hawking once said the possibilities are endless

[@billeltot]

Indeed .. even an elephant watching the moon now is a possibility , but the real question is how probable that possibility is ... ?

[@browngreen933]

That describes Existence quite well -- endless possibilities.😊

[@HyzersGR]

@@billeltot In an infinite amount of space and time, every possibility is realized somewhere at some time.

[@billeltot]

@@HyzersGR that doesn't solve the problem , Ur statement in of itself is problematic ... Can an infinite space time exist ... ? .. Good luck explaining that logically .

[@kos-mos1127]

@@billeltot An infinite space time can exists.

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

The notions "Something" and "nothing" are contingent upon a subject-object relationship which implies Subjective conscious awareness.

[@williammabon6430]

Why is there something? It is easy. INFINITY =1/x(delta) +1. Infinity is real. How do we know this? Because Infinity describes all numbers. A number is a set in space that changes with space. Infinity requires no start or stop but we can get a causal and effect event inside a system of infinite points. This event we can call it a spatial segment of a changing set.

[@janklaas6885]

📍5:19

[@donespiritu1345]

I have never seen RLK so humbled and frustrated by a guest since his interview with Christopher Isham. The only way to deal with RLK and this question is to ask him what answer he expects or what kind of answer could bring finality to the question. This guy cuts him off at the pass by saying the answer could not be causal, nor contingent. RLK had no rebuttals to that so he asks the guest "well, what kind of answer could it be?". The guest remains noncommittal and simply puts forth some ideas. Now these ideas are not intuitive. It would be hard to make them explanatory so Kuhn finally gives up on this one.

[@stephenwatts2649]

Did you know that there is no inherent illumination or luminosity in photons? “Light,” as such, cannot be found there. Photons are, perhaps, ‘packets’ of energy which have the properties of both spread-out waves and localized particles. Photons only take on the appearance of being luminous as they arise within consciousness, in our mind’s eye. It may be that photons are spread-out energy potentials that fill the immensity of space, and only take on the appearance of being a localized discrete particle of “light” when we become aware of them in consciousness, in this actualized awareness we call mind. Thus, you are the light of the kosmos. This “light” is only arising in us. The world outside of a mind is perfectly ‘dark,’ or empty, unactualized in any way. Of course, what else could it be? What would perceive it as illuminated, or as any “thing”? All of our thoughts are the activity of consciousness, modulations of that consciousness, incarnations within that pure consciousness, rays shining from inside that consciousness. We are agents of that consciousness, emerging from within that consciousness. All there is to experience is the knowing of it, and that knowing is God’s own Self in us, living in us, the source of our life, the energy of consciousness itself. We could say that God lives in us, since consciousness seems to have become localized in this particular body-mind. Or we could say that we live in God, since all that we perceive arises in that consciousness, including our body-mind. Thus, Jesus was right to say, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10-11, 20). Both are true, and they are true of us as well. We are arising within God, and God is arising within us as well. Sometimes this is called “mutual indwelling,” the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, also called perichoresis or co-inherence in Christian terminology. God is the field of consciousness in which all knowing occurs, in which all thoughts and perceptions and feelings and sensations arise, like waves in the ocean. Our body-mind and its thoughts are like localizations within that consciousness, temporary manifestations of that Ultimate Reality, expressions of that consciousness, that being, that One. God becomes veiled and hidden from our awareness when the thoughts that arise in and from consciousness believe they are something separate and discrete from the consciousness in which they are arising. The thoughts form a separate entity, a dualistic subjective ego, a separate self identity, an independent being, an “Adam/Eve,” which thinks it is apart from infinite nondual divine consciousness and Ultimate Reality. This seems to be the “Fall,” the beginning of duality and separateness and alienation from God’s Presence. But how could thoughts be separate from the consciousness in which they have arisen? They can’t, but that is exactly what our thoughts and our self-identification with them think they are. It is a kind of psychological illusion. The thoughts take on their own separate identity apart from pure nondual consciousness, forming a self, a person, an entity, seemingly cut off from its own source and essence. Once we look at it like this, it seems impossible, and that is because it is. Our ‘self’ is never actually separate from the source in which it arises, thoughts are never separate from the consciousness in which they emerge, the wave is not separate from the ocean. The thoughts that make up our ‘self’ are just finite actualizations or relative localizations of the infinite potential of absolute consciousness, or Divine Being, or Ultimate Reality. In Christian symbolism we call this the incarnation of God. In Buddhism it is the Dharmakaya that incarnates as the Nirmanakaya Buddha. In Hinduism it is Brahman that manifests itself as each Atman. God becomes incarnate in reality, in the flesh, embodied, in us and all things. There is no time, no space, nowhere we can go, nowhere we can be, that will be outside of this Presence of God, outside of this consciousness, beyond the borders of God, or the Ultimate Reality. God is always present, and is Presence itself, awareness itself, consciousness itself, the “spirit of life” within us, from which we derive all being, all knowing, all our substance, every thought, every sensation. It all arises in God. This is perhaps why, in order to pierce the veil and know God directly, contemplative practices such as meditation help train us to transcend thought, to go back to the source of thought itself, beyond all thoughts of self, to recognize that from which it all arises, this pure open vastness of nondual unitive at-one consciousness. Do you see why we cannot “think” God? Nothing that arises in consciousness as a thought will be that consciousness in which it is arising. No relative finite manifestation in consciousness can be the absolute pure infinite consciousness, even though every manifestation or relativization or actualization of that consciousness is made up of nothing other than that consciousness. God is Present even while we are trying to comprehend God, even in the midst of that very comprehension. God is what makes that attempt at comprehension even possible. God is the very field in which we are trying to know God. When we let go of the trying, the conceptualization, surrendering the thoughts that are trying to know themselves, and rest in the pure still silent open awareness of being, that is when the realization of God may dawn on us, as us.

[@wingsuiter2392]

There is no more unscientific question than a question that begins with “why”. It’s really a dumb question.

[@brothermine2292]

It's often a sloppy way to express a "how" question. How did the universe begin? If it had no beginning, how does it exist?

[@wingsuiter2392]

@@brothermine2292 clearly people regularly use the word “why” when they actually mean “how”, but in a KZbin video that is trying to get “closer to the truth”, using precise language needs to be the No. 1 priority…not doing so is sloppy and should be pushed back on sternly.

[@kenmapp4891]

Wrt the number 12... the number 12 can't exist in its own, it requires 1, 2, 3 etc to infinitely, and then of course the rational and irrational numbers too. If something is necessary then so are all its implications

[@ravisankar1581]

‘Something out of nothing’ is an absurd idea. If there is a tree, it must have come out of a seed, whether the seed was seen by anyone or not. Sometimes you see a tree sprouting from a crack on the roof of a building. Where did it come from? From a seed which the wind must have blown on to the roof. A tree can only grow from a seed. Similarly, existence can only come from existence. This is what the Upanisad is suggesting when it says that before the world was manifest there was existence, one without a second. The word means ‘existence.’ The Vedanta scriptures describe this existence as a state of being. It is one without a second. It is pure, all-pervasive, beyond thought and speech, and formless. It is consciousness. Some philosophers maintain, however, that before the world originated there was nothing, one without a second. They claim that the world emerged from this nothing. Let’s explain this state of nothingness. A sage once explained nothingness in a simple way as follows 'Look at those trees. The trees are meditating. Meditation is silence. If you realize that you really know nothing, then you would be truly meditating. Such truthfulness is the right soil for silence. Silence is meditation. 'You must be simple. You must be utterly naked in your consciousness. When you have reduced yourself to nothing--when your self has disappeared, when you have become nothing--then you are yourself close to God. The man who is nothing knows God, for God is nothing. Nothing is everything. Because I am nothing, you see, because I am a beggar, I own everything. So nothing means everything.' From state of nothingness we move to awareness. Now how to see this awareness briefly every day our atma (Soul) is covered with ego that is why your being is clouded. Once you subside the thought and challenge the thought everything abides in the self. The self free and you are happy. Modern example of this a brief glimpse that is when you take selfie of your self You become briefly happy. At that point your Atma shines. When Atma shines God shines. This is spirtual teachings taken from the upanishad in Hindiusm which has extensively discussed this subject thousands of years ago.

[@hc8379-f4f]

This is just a language game. "Nothing" is some thing, after all. The set of all things includes null things. Put another way, the conception of "No Thing" can only be held by "A Thing."

[@syedaleemuddin6804]

The buck stops with God. Hard to believe but truly true. Else you wouldn't die, what is death why death? Because God makes it happen as if you won't feel it.

[@kos-mos1127]

This is bs.

[@ravisankar1581]

A story about Nothingness and existence There lived once a boy named Svetaketu Âruneya. To him his father said: 'Svetaketu, go to school; for there is none belonging to our caste, darling, who, not having studied (the Vedas), is, as it were, a Brahmin by birth only.' Having begun his apprenticeship (with a teacher) when he was twelve years of age Svetaketu returned to his father when he was twenty-four, having then studied all the Vedas,--conceited, considering himself well-read, and stern. His father said to him: 'Svetaketu, as you are so conceited, considering yourself so well-read, and so stern, my dear, have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?' What is that instruction, Sir?' he asked. 'Fetch me from thence a fruit of the Nyagrodha tree.' 'Here is one, Sir.' Break it.' 'It is broken, Sir.' 'What do you see there?' 'These seeds, almost infinitesimal.' 'Break one of them.' 'It is broken, Sir.' 'What do you see there?' 'Not anything, Sir.' The father said: 'My son, that subtle essence which you do not see there, of that very essence this great Nyagrodha tree exists. 'Believe it, my son. That which is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art That.'

[@Alejandro388]

please, put Max Tegmark and this guy in the same room, that could be productive

[@AnonAnon1]

If there was a creator god it would have to be far more complicated than the universe and everything contained in it. A sculptor is more complicated than a slab of marble but didn’t cause the marble to come into being.

[@stephenzhao5809]

6:23 ... when it comes to God on the other hand many philosophers think we know a good deal about what God's nature would be like uh they would say that God is a perfect being that he's omniscient omnipotent perfectly good and so on [I really thank you, Robert, I love and carefully listen to many of yous videos which give me inspirations. Same as you, I also really want to know those question you asked and then share my thoughts here and my facebook. God's characteristics human wishes are partially true according to my understanding and scriptures, e.g. his omniscient and omnipotent because of his infinity. However, his perfect western culture may not get the real point leading misunderstanding, e.g. Isaiah 45:7, KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. According to my understanding the original words, literal interpretation suppose to be light is formed by selection pressure, dark is freely in ultimate chaos, work with plan and wisdom give you shalom, if doing nothing disaster will come, and I had set all these in default.] the infinite beings is a ceaseless creativity. it's unnecessary for human's need. The infinitely many things in default generate God The Best, then there is something as I said in BTS pp: All cosmoses are simply running over back of indeterminate form, 0×P∞, and driven by a perpetual machine, God The Triune, from whom every quantum fluctuation pops up.

[@durosempre4470]

Why triune? It would be more logical to argue that the ultimate source of everything is one. Perhaps two, as in yin-yang. But if you posit three as the ultimate ground of being, you might as well say 3 billion. Or 3 trillion. It doesn't make sense.

[@brothermine2292]

Why not a causal loop? Many people would think a causal loop is paradoxical, but I think we don't know enough about space & time & energy to be sure. In science fiction time travel stories, one of the common tropes is the causal loop.

[@benjiedrollinger990]

1 Timothy 6:16 King James Bible Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

First it is tautology means nothing. Secound it isnt Science when he keep out phich proceedings. Guys cover up his ignorance in baseless an emperism verifications.

[@kurtg7630]

Boredom. Boredom is why there exists something.

[@constructivecritique5191]

Context may have helped you understand your question! Why is there something in my bank account rather than nothing? Why is there something in our reality rather than nothing? Why is there something rather than nothing in the physical universe? The question is based on the dellusion that we know what the container is.

[@michaellangan4450]

Keep in mind that ''existence does not exist'' It is not an attribute.

[@kos-mos1127]

That is what people forget existence does not exist.

[@drawn2myattention641]

What about the Higgs Boson? Maybe if we fully understood the Higgs, we’d see its self-evident necessity. And it seems to have a lot of control over fundamental reality. So, every few trillion years it gives rise to a universe? That seems a more simple posit than the operatic god of the theists.