Why Anything At All II? | ENCORE Episode 1907 | Closer To Truth

[@TXKurt]

It's the question that haunts me always. The question I never tire of asking: "Are we there yet?"

[@deetimeless5836]

WOW! This is the best episode, of the best series, ever! I want to thank you Robert for your work and your rigorous thinking and persistence, and thanks to the participants in this episode for their brilliant input!

[@checkavilatility]

What a great episode! Thank you!

[@JaniceDoe210]

The only thing that makes any sense to me is… non existence is just not possible, it’s not a thing, never has been and never will be. If there is existence, which there is, because we are here, ‘non existence’ doesn’t mean anything. Existence doesn’t have an opposite. That’s why the question is so baffling, existence in itself requires non existence to be completely non sensical.

[@Thee-_-Outlier]

Well that depends on how you define nonexistence. At face value I agree, but I have theories that break things into two "universes". One is our kinetic reality which is infinite and linear and the other is an infinitely expanding pool of data. That data set is paradoxically at equilibrium despite expanding. Meaning it has no transference within it. It expands because our kinetic world arranges the data in various ways thus creating new data and thus the pool expands as we move thru linear time. Basically we use that data in our kinetic reality, but being the infinite expanding pool of data is at equilibrium it can be seen as non existent in a practical way.

[@jayrob5270]

Doesn't really answer anything though as non existence would require existence to be equally impossible, it works both ways, so I still wonder why it turned out to be existence rather than the other way around. Brute fact is probably the unsatisfying answer.

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

@@jayrob5270 the satisfying answer for me is this: there are two possible extremes: either nothing exists, or everything exists. Being conscious... We can skip ahead to the answer: everything exists. But why? Imagine this: a universe with exactly nothing in it. Non-existence proper. In this nothingness... Is there anything that is "true"? I would argue that even in this "empty universe" there exists a kind of "cosmic mathematics".. ie 2+2=4, a^2+b^2=c^2. Even though there are no physical objects in this universe, this "cosmic mathematics", (which does not rely on any conscious observer to exist) still exists IN THEORY. When I talk about "cosmic mathematics" I am referring to the part of mathematics that is discovered rather than invented. If you accept the existence of this "cosmic mathematics", everything else in our physical universe can be "explained" by it. By "explain" I mean: whenever we try to explain something, we try to describe its structure in more and more basic building blocks. But, this "cosmic mathematics", this "potential for true statements to exist", is the one "thing" that does not require further explanation. The implications of this worldview is: our physical universe is simple one universe on an infinite "numberline" of universes that exist inside this purely theoretical "cosmic mathematics". Therefore, our universe needs no further explanation than the number 231. Does the number 231 exist? If so, then our universe can exist with the same justification, albeit, our universe is a mathematical structure infinitely more complex than a simple integer.

[@JaniceDoe210]

@@jayrob5270 exactly, non existence requires, existence, But existence doesn’t and cannot include non existence.

[@ryandinan]

Francesca B - I had this exact same thought! This was very well-written and explained!

[@Cardioid2035]

I literally think about this all the time

[@Dion_Mustard]

same :)

[@kentheengineer592]

That Question Has Been Resolved Eons Ago If You Study Specific Areas of Intellectual History

[@Cardioid2035]

@@kentheengineer592 what works would you recommend?

[@tonysalmon4361]

No you don't

[@Cardioid2035]

@@tonysalmon4361 At least once a day realistically

[@tomg5661]

I think the best answer to the question of why there is something instead of nothing revolves around the fact that as we understand nature to deeper levels, we are actually just describing it. Whether it is general relativity or quantum mechanics, our mathematical theories/laws just describe how nature behaves. In an absolute sense they don't tell us why, they are just increasingly deeper mathematical descriptions. Since it appears that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed it is likely the first cause. In addition, our brains are wired to understand the universe in cause and effect scenarios - like If-Then- Else lines of code in a computer program. The explanation for the existence of the universe is therefore similar to how religions rationalize the existence of their gods. I am because I am... We are not wired to understand at that level. Perhaps this inability is related to the fact that we are just temporary creations. It would be interesting to have a Closer to the Truth episode that looks at how the brain processes information and understand things...

[@wizardofboz76]

I think about this all too much, and I have come to the conclusion that there must have always been "something". True "nothing" would have no driving forces capable of bringing the something into existence. Even if something was placed into a nothing, that still is a something - taking an action. I mean, lets face it - which ever the answer is, and it has to be one of them, its mind blowing. If something always was, then we now have the real manifestation of actual infinity... and does it apply to size as well? If not, does actual nothing exist at the boundary?

[@wizardofboz76]

Just to add one extra bit to this - the idea of something from nothing is just as uncomfortable and bizarre to me as a something that always was - an existence without creation. Maybe "why anything" is the wrong question. Maybe it should be "how".

[@MrLGDdestroyer]

Amazing episode! Keep at it Robo!

[@douglasparise3986]

If the universe had a beginning, wouldn't there have been a time, before the beginning,when there was nothing. What existed before the beginning. That was another episode

[@RolandHuettmann]

The best answer here is: "I do not know the answer of it." But let us propose a dimension beyond human mind where reality does not require an answer within the limited logic of human mind. It means being "out of the box" rather than just thinking "out of the box".

[@jamenta2]

When I think of the nature of time and how I think about it, I can easily imagine time infinitely moving forward from my present moment and never ending. But I find it peculiar and odd that when I attempt to imagine time as never beginning ... my mind just can't comprehend no beginning to time. Not only that, my mind cannot grasp that time might have had a beginning - because there must have been some time before that. I think our ability to rationalize may hinder us from understanding certain truths - for example, that time itself may not even exist in the way we rationalize it does.

[@nicholash8021]

​@@jamenta2 What's more incomprehensible is that of all the infinite time before me, and all the infinite space around me, I could not manage to avoid bumping into my ex. Granted, there are some mass and density characteristics that increase the odds of that, but still...

[@richk562]

That’s the question that kept me up as a kid at night.

[@redhammer1917]

He has been asking this question since l have been watching this show for 4 years.

[@em.1633]

He's been doing this show since the late 1990s. Twenty years, not four. And he hasn't gotten an answer. So I would hope he keeps asking it!

[@redhammer1917]

@@em.1633 how long has he been on KZbin? I've been here 4 years

[@em.1633]

@@redhammer1917this channel was created in 2013 according to the yt indicator on their profile

[@hubadj]

The problem with this question is that it asks for just one single cause. In reality there is infinity of reasons for the universe to exist and it is only our limited understanding that stands on the way of enlightenment. When your ego dies, everything becomes clear. That's how I see it.

[@BlazoOfficial]

Thank you as always!

[@Thee-_-Outlier]

Defining nonexistence is what matters. I have theories that break things into two "universes". One is our kinetic reality which is infinite and linear and the other is an infinitely expanding pool of data. That data set is paradoxically at equilibrium despite expanding. Meaning it has no transference within it. It expands because our kinetic world arranges the data in various ways thus creating new data and thus the pool expands as we move thru linear time. Basically we use that data in our kinetic reality, but being the infinite expanding pool of data is at equilibrium it can be seen as non existent in a practical way.

[@browngreen933]

Existence: "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam."

[@xtexasredx6051]

Great episode, I have given this much thought over time. And the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that true 'nothingness' simply cannot exist, because reality is simply reliant upon it, a string of contigencies have to end at some point at which you come to the true absolute of everything. The question in itself does not make sense, true nothingness is simply a human construct that cannot exist (in physical reality). Simply by imaging 'true nothingess' you are invoking the fact that something has to exist to percive this 'true nothingness'. As to the physicists that exclaim that something that is the absolute of everything cannot exist, or claim that the absolute of everything is quantum mechanics or whatever theory they propose would that not also claim that this set of rules and its mathmatical reality, in fact is the true nature of God the creator of everything?

[@wesley6442]

I think the answer can be found in Tim Maudlin's words on how he said, that the total energy of the universe is zero. Zero is another way of saying nothing, having zero "something's" is the same as having "no-thing's" but there are still so many questions left unanswered for me, but I feel that this realization is one step closer to understanding "nothingness" I'm still wondering what is this manifold that matter moves through? why does it act as a harmonic oscillator.. why does it have the properties it does, is it so that it is able to reach zero energy again? why wasn't it just at zero energy in the first place? why didn't spacetime just not fluctuate at all? maybe because it is illogical to ask, why did "something" do "nothing"? perhaps it is erroneous, irrational, a sort of philosophical paradox made manifest in our reality..

[@academicviews]

I agree ... the closer to finding the answer to the question 'why is there anything at all' has to have, as its first major premise, the total energy of the universe is zero. If as is suggested that the ultimate contingency need terminate in something that is ultimately a Necessity ~ a creator, a boson, a kind of seed that that juxtaposed gravity against expansion.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

As the first person interviewed suggested the answer to the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing? is to be found in understanding language. Specifically, the universe is not just another thing in the universe. So if you talk about it and ask questions about it as if it were, you will find yourself in a muddled state of confusion.

[@richardhildreth4471]

I remember as a kid considering nothing. And I thought if nothing exists, if I can say there IS nothing than it has to be something. And if that were the case, then something could be nothing, because it is the non existence of nothing which is something. Therefore nothing is something, and something is nothing.

[@orlovsskibet]

I've found something that satisfied my own hunger for an answer to this. For now :-) - There are only one way there could be nothing, but infinite ways to be something - Something can't come from nothing, so there has never been nothing - If time is infinite and necesseary, then anything that can happen will eventually happen

[@orlovsskibet]

@@HebiNoMe exactly, so if that is the case, we get a do-over at some point in the future 😀 Actually we are then already in a do-over 🤔😏

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Rambling gibberish

[@nicholash8021]

I disagree with your last point. You will never escape taxes or Famer's Insurance commercials.

[@ianmckay3535]

@@HebiNoMe I agree with the premise that anything that can happen will eventually happen, but I don't know that it implies repetition of such actions. In order for repetition to occur, we would have to be able to return to the original state that set it in motion in the first place. At least from our current understanding of the universe, entropy makes this seemingly impossible.

[@Michael-de-Jong]

The question WHY is not a search for a cause, which will lead to a circular reasoning, but rather the acknowledgement that it is a wonder and forever unexplainable. I think the universe is a celebration of this wonder.

[@fc-qr1cy]

11:50 i love this answer from George

[@videosbymathew]

There IS an answer to the question, whether or not we can get to it is another question entirely...

[@oRealAlieNo]

Life only makes sense when your distracted. The moment you looking into it you get that Eddie bravo face...

[@kcleach9312]

as soon as you even think about nothing it becomes something!

[@alloy2005]

There is always something or something else. Nothing is not opposite of something. Just something else.

[@myles5158]

This doesn’t make sense sir.

[@ryandinan]

This was such a great episode! It’s funny, I had come up with nearly the exact same hypothesis of Mario’s last night, before I watched this! Flawed, obviously, but wow - each guest was super interesting to listen to. Your interview/debate-style is what makes this program so informative and valuable. I’ve learned so much - thank you!

[@Life_42]

Congratulations 500k subscribers.

[@ricktaylor7648]

Love his answers

[@anthonyclegg1511]

It is impossible to have nothing, because nothing, would be something.

[@ricktaylor7648]

I love the question as well

[@philochristos]

I got a copy of Lawrence Kuhn's book on this subject. I started to read it a couple of weeks ago. I had it lying on my bed, but then it just disappeared. I've been looking for it for days now, and I can't find it anywhere. It's the weirdest thing.

[@TactileTherapy]

His book was answering the question why there was something rather than nothing

[@mikel4879]

Sam H / Yes, but you forget that Lawrence's book is written in digital format, and he wrote the program containing the digital book specifically to degrade itself into the micro direction at the maximum speed the software program and the present hardware can allow. At some point the digital book got so infinitesimally small that its influence, at that infinitesimally size and under it, doesn't affect at all anymore the size of the realm in which you're living now. Exactly at that point Lawrence's digital book disappeared completely for you; therefore, under that real infinitesimally point Laurence's material "digital book" never ever matters causally at all for your current living realm. That's exactly the real CAUSAL limit for which it DOESN'T "EXIST" for "YOUR SIZE" anymore. That's the limit at which and under which "NOTHING" exists for you.😏🤔

[@Nellian]

Such a great, hilarious comment!

[@2msvalkyrie529]

@ Sam D O P ......Disappearing Object Phenomenon. It's real ! !

[@DATo_DATonian]

Something like that happened to Steven Wright one time. He lost one of his socks. So he called _Information_ and asked where it was. The operator told him it was behind the sofa and according to Steven she was right.

[@AndrewAnderson-vb4pp]

Its a question we should never stop asking even though we will never answer it ,

[@patientson]

Man can't bear the pain of surrendering to kindness and patience cause they think they will perish. You can't evade the promise of life of kind and patient conscious love.

[@_a.z]

It just is!

[@Hermes1548]

Your anxiety reveals one of the negative effects of trying to know absolute truth: you lose enjoying life’s joys. Santayana may help you here: causes are not as important as the good things that come from those causes. If the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" or "What is Being" as Heidegger (like you) was obsessed to ask, should be answered, my choice would be: In the realm of infinite possibilities, being this universe with these physical laws is just one possibility. As Santayana said in Realms of Being (1942): ‘In a contingent world necessity is a conspiracy of accidents.’ Which means: even if you say that these laws of our universe are necessary, this necessity would be an accident, a contingent fact, a contingent possibility among other infinite ones the realm of infinite possibilities contains. Santayana mentioned Leibniz for the idea of the realm of essence. Santayana writes (Soliloquies in England, 1922): “This realm is no discovery of mine; it has been described, for instance, by Leibniz in two different ways; once as the collection of all possible worlds, and again as the abyss of non-existence: ‘The non-existent . . . is infinite, it is eternal, it has a great many of the attributes of God; it contains an infinity of things, since all those things which do not exist at all are included in the non-existent, and those which no longer exist have returned to the nonexistent.’”

[@moychi1329]

there was nothing and thats the nothingness we struggle with

[@markupton1417]

"Nothing" makes no sense without there being something.

[@goranmancevski5550]

Nothing cannot be detected.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

Which requires more contingency and necessity, existence of something (anything) or nothing?

[@geeks4greyson425]

"I Am That I Am"

[@iam6424]

Asking this question again and again and again...will lead to what ? Shouldn't the nature of " the truth " be tht it cannot be questioned ? If it the brute fact / Truth is tht there is always something...and tht "something" is unlike anything...i.e it can NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED🙏🏼

[@danielfrancis3660]

Sometimes I think the language we use is not appropriate for the concepts under discussion. The word 'something' is easy enough to understand. I would argue that nothing is a type of something. If I say nothing is devoid of everything even this is something. Maybe nothing has no meaning when discussing these concepts.

[@fc-qr1cy]

FROM DUST to EARTH spinning and spinning we think when will we ever get there. What is the rush, the Sun is coming to us.....

[@KazgarothUsher]

I'm convinced the guy with the beard is a wizard! He needs to sit at the table of the wise :) Just kidding - his logic had me intrigued. More from him :)

[@fotoviano]

gravity inverse cubed works analogously in a 4 dimensional space. But even in a 3 or 5 dimensional space it's fine as long as you don't expect the flux to be constant. The underlying existence of a 3 dimensional space seems inherently assumed in this conversation (laws of nature would be the same, etc) but it isn't even clear that dimensions exist or have clear meaning outside of our minds. The same goes for mathematics being a "universal truth". Mathematics is just a description of how our minds/brains work, and so we interpret the "physical" or "real" world accordingly, and that's the reason why the physical world seems mathematical.

[@ricktaylor7648]

Wow this gentleman is the one!😁👨‍🏫

[@richardmooney383]

Surely, the question should be "how is there anything at all?".

[@HyzersGR]

Take away spacetime, fine, but it’s impossible to eliminate possibilities. There’s no such thing as nothing.

[@alaaeldinibrahim5080]

I think I know some answer and this answer is a straight forward logical thinking.. with some deep pondering ..we just have to flip over somehow our way of thinking to consider which is opposite to our long settled concepts. We think that before the universe and everything there was nothingness .. which is a very big mistake that misled our thinking . Absolute Nothingness has never existed and can never ever exist. Because it is merely a hypothesis like absolute zero So, logically there is existence before each existence and beside and around each existence..with no gaps at all .. Existence is non stop non ending non starting .. massive inclusive .. no others with him at all.. no excluding.. .. otherwise there would exist a nothingness which is totally impossiple . Absolute nothingness is the opposite of existence it is an imaginary absolute zero . You can not ask absolute true existence who gave you existence. ! . Absolute true Existence is one...is complete oneness And is belongs to Allah ..Almighty God. All matter and the whole universe are drawings materialized in our conceptions With very precise marvelous astonishing beyond our mind continuous developing creative expansion with highly precise synchronization.. Even matter sensing is an effect of waves and energies . I think..the secret of the universe is non stop creativity even our mistakes are paths leading to new creativities. So, we have to flip our minds over to accept that absolute true existence is the origin non stop .. before, with and after everything .. no start no end..

[@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038]

"We think that before the universe and everything there was nothingness" Who is this all encompassing we you have the temerity to speak for? Speak for your simple-minded self! And prove this absolute conclusion, "Absolute Nothingness has never existed and can never ever exists". You can't. Take your mythical fantasy Allah (god) & stick tit where the sun don't shine, inside your empty skull.

[@slawomirstec9160]

I was thinking about it a lot. I guess we ask a wrong question. My mind understand there must be something or nothing. It is possible that there exists something between. Something that contradicts our logic. Similar situation as in case people from 2D world can't imagine 3D dimension.

[@frederickkoons1935]

The answer to: Why is there anything? is wrap up in a simple phrase and some deep thought, Here it is: Nothing exists!

[@Tom_Quixote]

Then you're just stuck with "Why does it seem like something exists?"

[@ronald.pickering]

David Rutherford gets it.

[@brianlebreton7011]

Love David Hart’s analysis. One thing bothers me that is not talked about is the underlying assumption of logic as the path to the truth. David comes the closest to even stripping that away from the non-contingent foundational cause, but the assumption of a logical explanation for a pre-existing or eternally existing cause agent is still present even if not verbalized. Can logic ever explain why something has always existed, that is non-contingent by looking for the attribute of necessity?

[@rodgerhunter1591]

Well not sleeping tonight but I think in this instance philosophy is the path closer to truth

[@simonhibbs887]

I think they're (mostly) all right. Most of them seem to agree that logical consistency as represented by mathematics is necessarily true, in other words it is not contingent on anything else. OK, so we all agree we have something that is necessarily true. The theologian makes a good argument that for a universe of contingent objects to exist there must be a non-contingent cause, something that necessarily exists. so hang on, aren't we answering our own question? The guiding principle of physics is to find the underlying principles of reality, which must be logically consistent. It seems plausible that the extant laws of physics, or some subset of them, may well be the only laws that are logically consistent, if so then they would also be logically necessary true. Since these laws of physics include quantum mechanics, which allows for spontaneous quantum events as described by the physicist in these interviews, then there's our answer. There's work to be done to demonstrate this, but it seems that should be possible.

[@nmh75556]

I have the abilty to look at someone and make them turn into gold

[@marcelor.aiello5050]

Fascinating video! Thank you! Think its a tautological question with no yes or no answer. If in a multiverse maybe some of them are what the human mind means by "nothing", In our universe at least nothing seems to be impossible ..or should say "nothing" seems to be impossible :)

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Lack honest phich standard.

[@davecurry8305]

Believe me, I know. I am a figment of my own imagination. You have absolutely no idea how interesting this is.

[@moychi1329]

there is nothing when we die

[@BalramSingh-dx6su]

The thing is, that all Physicists and Mathematicians are Philosophers first, the deductions of the Physicists and Mathematicians were all thoughts before the measurements are compounded giving a right or a wrong answer. That the "late event" of a thought of the Physicist or the Mathematician cannot be compounded or comprehended by him should not be the reason for it's dismissal as unreal. Such an approach , with due respect, is a denial by the Physicist and the Mathematician that his own thoughts are real. In other words no thought can come about unless it already exists in the universe.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Life is Eternal, have No beginning, (No meaning) have No origin, (No Name) it has always been. No one have seen the Living behind Life. Life can't be seen, Only Known. The Stuff-side of Life is a Motion-Ocean, pure Motion, it have always been a Motion-Ocean, pure Motion. So the question is Not 'why', but, HOW does the Eternal Life re-new It Self, how does the Eternal Life Picture looks ?

[@jeffamos9854]

Your making stuff up

[@gracerodgers8952]

Why is there something rather than nothing? To make bad little boys ask questions.😁

[@jareknowak8712]

We will never know, perhaps there will only be new theoretical possibilities for an answer.

[@johnrainmcmanus6319]

LOGIC: A: EITHER THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING OR NOT A: THERE HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING. IF A, THEN THERE CAN BE NO FIRST CAUSE, THEREFORE NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "WHY?" IF NOT A, THEN SOMETHING CAME FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, HENCE AGAIN THERE IS (TAUTOLOGICALLY) NO FIRST CAUSE, THEREFORE NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "WHY?" HELLO?!!! HELLO?!!! HELLO?!!!

[@echo-off]

The necessity of platonic truths were mentioned. Why do you not dig deeper here? The obvious fact of our existence already proofs that our existence is possible. Eventually physics will (or will not) find the right object in the platonic world, namely some everything explaining unified laws, that corresponds to this possibility of our existence. Lawrence, PLEASE ask the question where is the difference between such a platonic existence and our reality.

[@delaney5721]

To me it seems equally impossible for everything to exist without any cause setting it into motion (this is probably just our limited evolutionary thinking of cause and effect) the idea of something always existing seems equally impossible as nothing always existing. Clearly, something does exist because we are aware of it. We can’t observe non existence in nature so therefore it must not exist. Pure nothing has never existed and never will it would seem. There is ALWAYS something, but why or how? That is the question. To think of this in a way that doesn’t involve cause and effect. What came before does not make sense when describing the cosmos. I hope we find the answer one day

[@ThatMemoryIsAlive]

Mario guy is full of it

[@remedythis-dreamworld]

There is this place…that has forever been….no future to look forward to…no now..no then.

[@rjgood1]

Let's begin with the fact that the universe does exist. Something does exist rather than nothing. That clearly implies that, at the very least, there had to be the potential for the universe to exist. You cannot escape that. You cannot say that there ever was the potential for nothing to exist.

[@djayjp]

At least the theologian admitted that his "god" doesn't have (virtually) any of the features attributed to such an entity as traditionally considered. Surprising honesty! Begs the question then, why is he Christian ha.... Also instead of a "god" it could just be the quantum vacuum foam.

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

nothing-ness is not a thing in itself... it is the negative form of something-ness. Something-ness gets its identity by not being nothing-ness. So... nothing-ness is not a thing, really. The thing at the bottom of it all is the layer that contains the dichotomy: somethingness vs nothingness.

[@djmarioc]

To answer the question why anything at all is obvious, it's unavoidable and to ponder other possibilities will not change the facts, accept it and move on. The laws of nature appear to exist, determinism appear to exist, evolution appear to exist but consciousness exists. Consciousness has produced the concept of God and Atheism which are both unavoidable, we cannot undo the concept of God, history cannot be undone, destiny cannot be changed. More people believe in God than not, the idea of a creator is winning at the moment, fact. Who knows if that will ever change, I highly doubt it for some things are just unavoidable.

[@walterfristoe4643]

There is only exactly one way for nothing to be the case, but there is an infinite number of ways for something to be the case, it's as simple as that. Or is it?

[@heinrichv6578]

let's assume that at some point there was nothing, absolutely nothing, we know for sure that now we exist, so before anything existed there was the possibility of us existing. Τhus we conclude with some certainty that the concept of absolute nothing does not exist because there was the possibility of existence! Τhis possibility it is something

[@scariachenmannanal309]

Almighty

[@whitefiddle]

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Kuhn was given three reasonable answers to his question [Maudlin, Ellis, and Hart]; I don't insist they are TRUE answers, but they were honest and reasonable replies to the question put before us. Kuhn ends his nonsense with, "I always come home to the original question." He's like a child in a highchair flossophizing about the existence of peas in the universe; all the adults try to treat him with dignity and answer his question and all he can do is throw his sippy cup on the floor and repeat his complaint about there being peas on his plate. Kuhn is raging against the light.

[@theliamofella]

A little thought experiment , if there was truly nothing in existence and then by magic you appeared in an expanded balloon with all the laws of physics inside and oxygen etc plus yourself, and the balloon and it’s contents is the only thing that exists with truly nothing outside of it, and you pushed your hand on the wall of the balloon, would you be able to push the fabric of the balloon forward a little bit or not? There would be nothing to push forward into but no force to stop you pushing

[@deetimeless5836]

I like that lol. Off the top of my head I would say that if the laws of physics existed inside the bubble, they would impose constraints on the bubble, its boundary, etc, and would not allow a balloon as described, like a soap bubble that you could push on.

[@fullyawakened]

A Non-question but let's entertain it. Nothing CANNOT exist, by definition, it is NOT A THING. It has never been and never can be. The only thing left logically is something. There has always been something and always will be.

[@Circuit7Active]

I know someone that is scared to death of dying. Man up!!! It's gonna happen

[@maxpower252]

Because…

[@AlienRelics]

It seems to me that true nothingness has only one way to be. Whereas something has an infinite ways to be.

[@CreationTribe]

Jinx! I just upped a video on exactly this. Why is there something rather than nothing? I've hypothesized that there is nothing - that we don't actually exist; which, of course, sounds crazy ... but when you take into account consciousness, qualia, quantum probabilities, quantum randomness and Bell's Theorem; there is actually some sense that can be made from it all.

[@zebonautsmith1541]

Quantum Fluctuation gave rise to Energy; Energy is equivalent to Matter. Matter is just "frozen" energy. "Nothing" is not a natural state; even though to humans it's perceived as the absence of matter.

[@gmotionedc5412]

Did I hear an answer??🤔

[@richardmooney383]

If you start with, "in any possible world", you are assuming the existence of a world, which is certainly not "nothing".

[@heinrichv6578]

exactly!

[@votingcitizen]

The question is inherently problematic because of the "why" - as illustrated by Richard Feynman. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2LPfWCejbRlbbM The issue rests on objective reality. They acknowledge the answer at the 17:17 point but immediately reject it based on perceived values that conflict with an equal weight of all probabilities. Who would decide the "weighting" of all probable states? What would the criteria be for any such weighting?

[@kimsahl8555]

Nothing is an existing elements of Nature.

[@radhakrishnannambiar8405]

Truth is neither existence nor non-existence. It is not existence and non existence at the same time. It is not, at the same time not- existence and not-non existence either. It is unexplainable, smaller than the smallest, at the same time greater than the greatest. It cannot be grasped by senses, mind, intellect and ego. It is beyond time and space. It is transcendental. Nothing exists in it. At the same time every thing exists in it. It is one without a second at the same time. It is eternal without a beginning and end. It is yet existence-knowldege-bliss. That thou art. Does this Indian thought make any sense to you?

[@ianmckay3535]

Is it too simple an explanation that "it is inevitable?" It doesn't have to be our universe or any alternate universe we can imagine, but given the infinity of nothingness, left alone for all of time (arguably without the existence of time at all) something, anything at all, will arise out of the shear "space" that is available. Because nothing is there, the first "thing" of substance, however small, however inconceivable and simple, merely filled the void because "nothing" else was. It did not have to have direction or competence or any form of willpower, but given the two options of "nothing" and "something," and given enough time (or the infinite/timeless expanse of nothingness), something existed simply because "it could." I hate this answer myself, but it necessitates itself. I am arguing, however, not for a "god" or a "conscious/omnipotent being," but the emergence of the simplest form of substance [un]imaginable. Much like freshly washed hands, over time bacteria emerge to cover their surface. What kind? That seems trivial; the answer being the ones that *could* settle there. If there is potential, something will fill it. The religious would delight at this concept at first, arguing that if there is the potential for god, there will be a god, and therefore is a god (as the concept of god transcends space and time); I personally, would argue that there is no potential for god, as that would necessitate the existence of forces or matter we do not seem to have within our known universe. But that is another dilemma altogether. The existence of "something" does not necessitate the existence of "everything." Something exists simply because it can. If it could not, then it would be something else that could, which would then become that "something" instead. Otherwise there would be "nothing." This is a dissatisfying answer and almost seems dismissive, but it actually holds a universe (haha) of potential when you really think about it.

[@ianmckay3535]

Of course it brings us to the next set of questions: Why is there potential? Why are the only two options "nothing" or "something?" And many others, of varying semantic arguments. And, unfortunately, my only answer to the first is "because it could be" and my weak answer to the second is that by definition the two are in direct opposition to each other. Also, who posts a mini-essay in the KZbin comments? And then replies to his own comment? Life can be absurd at times.

[@sprightlyrandom1550]

In terms of consciousness we can have ‘nothing’. Every night I go to sleep it would seem I go through 8 or so hours of nothing, at least there’s no memories of any experience I had, excluding dreams of course. And I know that there are people who are unconscious right now, people who’s reality is nothing, yet I’m still aware that there is something. What does this mean? Well perhaps it has to with solipsism, I got no clue but those are some of my ideas, I think the subject of consciousness is worth considering when thinking about this question, ‘why is there anything at all?’

[@glennbalck752]

Question: Why is there anything at all? Answer: Because you can never know nothing. Simply put, No no.

[@chriskeith5742]

"Because I am driven to get closer to truth".......What is truth? That's what Pilate asked Jesus. Ironically, he failed to realize that Jesus is the very embodiment of truth. Keep searching, you will ultimately come to the truth of Jesus, and the truth shall set you free.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Moses asks God that very question ! God answers : ' If there WAS Nothing you'd still complain ! '

[@delaney5721]

It seems like it would be much more rational to say nothing exists rather than something but this could be my limited human thinking

[@felipedanielsouzadaniel9552]

How definite some infinity?

[@TheMahayanist]

What's the argument that there's anything? P1) Everything that exists is constitutive of parts. P2) Everything is in principle infinitely divisible. C) There is no thing.

[@jeffwilliams6681]

We need Wittgenstein to come help all these flies out of the bottle.

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Nobody knows.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

I've already seen these interviews. Is CTT re-uploading everything?

[@blakebunch4485]

There is no "nothing" If there was something that could be defined as "nothing" then there would be no observer to define or describe this "nothing" Might as well be asking how long would it take a one legged grasshopper to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle. I'm just a country boy, but I clearly get the premise. However it doesn't require me to beat my head against the wall to accept there is no way to know "nothing"

[@rp3703]

This dude needs to try DMT - the answers you seek are there.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Next time you're using DMT and have the answer please write it down on a piece of paper. ? I guarantee it won't make any sense next morning !! The Beatles tried it ! !

[@rp3703]

@@2msvalkyrie529 Sometimes words fail.

[@Mrm1985100]

This clearly points to God

[@therick363]

Not to me