John Hawthorne - Why is there "Something" rather than "Nothing"?

[@JamesWarrior]

I am not an academic. There invariably comes a point in all your discussions where I fail to understand something and scratch my head. But I'm so glad I've found this channel. I always end up with a smile on my face when you guys have finished talking. Thank you.

[@anxious_robot]

I was riding my bike in the dark last night and had like...a religious experience. I looked up at the dark sky whizzing down the path 20mph, and I thought, "because there is something instead of nothing, something good is going on here even though I have no clue what it is." I don't know why, but that makes sense to me. And it's kinda comforting 'cause when I die something else cool probably happens. I think the odds of death being eternal darkness are like close to 0 'cause if that was the point of all this wouldn't it be easier to make eternal darkness right from the start? Like there's no point of making life and light and then eternal darkness afterwards in death because the creator of this already had that state before making life and light. So the fact there's something means it doesn't end here. I'm kinda 100% sure of it.

[@HarryWolf]

Nicely put - and therefore the Universe and the life it brought forth has meaning.

[@Dion_Mustard]

i used to think life and the universe was meaningless but the more i think about - with a logical mind set - there HAS to be a purpose, it cannot possibly be just utterly pointless random existence - AND THEN one day I had an out of body experience and lucid dream, in which i experienced an alternate reality - an alternate lucidity - an alternate level of consciousness and it dawned on me that our existence is totally MEANINGFUL.

[@rons5319]

I think you are correct, and somehow we just know it. My thought is the creators would never be so cruel as to not allow us to see our loved ones who have died, again somewhere else. So there must be a next phase after this, and maybe there was one before we came to this place.

[@rons5319]

@@Dion_Mustard What did you see there?

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@rons5319 I saw many things during my out of body state - which by the way - I never used to believe could happen to someone.and yet I had two OBEs and lucid dreams. I saw two uncles who died a few years ago and they stood before me clearer than this moment I am writing to you.its hard to explain unless it happens to you. But I came round thinking gosh there really is more to come after death ! It has something to do with the universal force out there, and to do with consciousness being non-local. I'd suggest reading A FANTASTIC book called Journeys out of the Body by Robert Monroe. True story. He documented his OBEs and it's the most amazing book ever.

[@justa_dude]

This channel always makes me think deep af. Thank you for the solid thinking content

[@youaresomeone3413]

We're already in hell earth is a simulation prison hell through eternal incarnation called eternal recurrence

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(8:50) *JH: **_"It feels like, I mean, I'm not saying it's totally obvious, but it seems quite natural and intuitive to me to think that insofar as you're going to believe there are claims, then you should think that they exist necessarily."_* ... This rather confusing statement is what happens whenever someone tries to isolate one side of a dichotomy. The question _"Why is there something instead of nothing?"_ is a non sequitur because *something* is the opposite of *nothing,* and we cannot have one without the other. ... We must have both to comprehend what either represents! *Example:* If we asked, _"Why is there positive and not negative?"_ this would seem silly because one is merely the opposite of the other. If positive did not exist, then negative wouldn't be negative because there's nothing to offer clarity as to what negative represents. Likewise, if negative did not exist, then positive wouldn't be positive for the same reason. The best example is what we call "up" and "down" along with "left" and "right." Without these oppositional pairings there is no movement. *Example:* If the only direction available was "up" then there is no upward movement. There wouldn't be anything below you to move up from. Likewise, if the only direction that existed was "left," then there would be no leftward movement because there wouldn't be anything to the right of wherever you currently are. ... You would just be locked wherever you are. *Existence and Nonexistence* represent the fundamental dichotomy to which all other dichotomies have emerged. This first archetypal dichotomy is as low as conceivability will allow you to regress while still adhering to logic.

[@runningray]

I think what Robert is trying to ask is not "this or that". The fact that we have existence means that "we had to have" existence. That seems to mean that God didn't have a choice about the matter.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@runningray *"That seems to mean that God didn't have a choice about the matter."* ... No choice? What is this existence-necessitating power that even theism's God must yield to?

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

@@runningray The problem here is the wrong dichotomy, because God is the Life itself, organizing, transforming, realizing itself! For that we are something like "living building bricks".

[@ManiBalajiC]

@@neffetSnnamremmiZ i am not sure why people want to belive that Life would be ulimate goal of the universe or existence. even after millions of years there would still be questions unanswered cause it violates our logic of what we learnt....

[@fivish]

So no idea.

[@brianstevens3858]

I think the puddle analogy kind of gives us a clue on this one, for us to say the puddle fits us at all there has to be a puddle first. The possibility of nothing is a possibility, but not as soon as there is someone to ask the question.

[@strideman1680]

The more deeply I think about it, the more logical it seems that there should be nothing. Therefore, reality is inherently illogical, and that is the ultimate paradox.

[@abelincoln8885]

The Universe is a thermodynamic System. All thermodynamic systems ... are functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING SYSTEM which must provide "everything" to exist & to function. Nothing is completely illogical and nonsense.

[@redmed10]

I think this paradox goes even beyond the god debate. Existence just makes no sense. Its wonderful and you should take advantage of it as much as you can. But ultimately it makes no sense. And if you think about it, it can't. No matter how much we develop technologically even over trillions of years our descendants if they survive will still not have any answer to this paradox.

[@devarmont87]

@@redmed10 it makes perfect sense when you add mysticism into the equation. Like Hindu or azatothism.. To say that this is all a dream of a vast conscious being. And that you are simply a perspective inside the dream. When you read into that, you'll land at the same conclusion you do now, with no proof, just a perspective. And I agree, perhaps we'll never know. But existence makes sense to me perfectly. But what makes no sense to me, is why am I having this unique experience and not yours? Why is my consciousness happening now, and not 1000yrs ago or beginning tomorrow as a giraffe? It is entirely odd and spectacular that I am experiencing me and not you. I have contemplated that since I was young

[@hckytwn3192]

Nothingness is impossible as there would be nothing to stop everything from happening.

[@devarmont87]

@@hckytwn3192 woah, that made a lot of sense to me.

[@HarryWolf]

Fascinating. I feel that the Universe is not a thing, a noun - it is a verb, an action or process. I am that I am.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

True, good point.

[@omp199]

I think you misunderstand what the words "noun" and "verb" mean. The knowledge of whether a word is a noun or a verb tells you the role that the word plays in a phrase or sentence, not any fact about what the word refers to. In English, if you can put an article such as "a" or "the" in front of a word, then it is a noun. By referring to "the universe", you are showing that "universe" is a noun. If it were a verb, you would have to use the word differently, and you would have to conjugate it: "I universe; you universe; he, she, or it universes."

[@HarryWolf]

@@omp199 No, you've completely misunderstood my point.

[@omp199]

@@HarryWolf You didn't have a point. But if you can take on board what I have just taught you about grammar, you might be able to make a point in the future.

[@HarryWolf]

@@omp199 😂🤣😂 You taught me nothing, you patronising buffoon. Please don't embarrass yourself any further and go find some cute cat videos. You're out of your depth here.

[@richardvannoy1198]

If the universe is finite, does that mean “nothing exists” outside its boundaries? And if there is nothing, then there is a “place” where nothing is a possibility.

[@gwenelbro3719]

When we sleep at night, there are dreams, but also there is part of sleep where there is no experience at all. Dreams can be vert real, so perhaps what we think is life is just another dream. We always seem to be aware much of the time and Consciousness or a sense of consciousness, seems to be always present.

[@abelincoln8885]

The Universe & Life are natural Thermodynamic Systems. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions with set purpose, form, design & properties ... and originate from the SURROUND SYSTEM which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature to exist & to function. Only an intelligence ( like Man ) makes Functions. A natural intelligence with free will & a Nature ... was made by ... an UNNATURAL intelligence with free will & a Nature. Consciousness & free will are functions of the MIND of an entity.

[@vulcanus30]

How do you know theres no experience?

[@thomasbruner854]

I literally think about this every day. Life is just so incongruous in and of itself!

[@Dion_Mustard]

me too

[@mobiustrip1400]

You must read all of Douglas Adams' books!

[@TheQuranExplainsItself]

Those who don’t are brain dead.

[@abelincoln8885]

Why? The Universe is a thermodynamic System. All thermodynamic systems originate from the SURROUNDING system which must provide everything to exist. Stop philosophizing about an irrefutable fact

[@benji.B-side]

I think, therefore I am.

[@sharonhearne5014]

Let us say we’re are essentially non-physical beings but we are capable of pulling up the illusion of the physical in order to experiment with possibilities.

[@durosempre4470]

If that's true (and it might be), how is the illusion of physicality different from the "reality" of physicality? I tend to think that everything is generated by immaterial consciousness, but that doesn't make things less "real" when they're in a material state. My desk might be an illusion, but it still does a nice job of holding up my (also illusory) computer.

[@durosempre4470]

@@ROForeverMan actually, it makes less difference than you imagine.

[@durosempre4470]

@@ROForeverMan It's genuinely unsettling when someone's search for **The Truth** excludes any ideas that don't fit their conjectures. Sounds like you think you already know what **The Truth** is, and you're merely seeking acclimation from sheep. Good luck with that.

[@donespiritu1345]

Because something exists then it must be absolutely metaphysically true that the possibility of something to exist has always existed.

[@runningray]

Even if nothing exists, the possibility for something to exists still exists (because here we are). Existence it seems is much deeper than just what we see and experience or can comprehend. The bubble of reality we see and live in is just that. A bubble. There is more.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Ramblín Evidence that something existe aren evidence in math and phichs Theory give up that it not applies in " something". Impossible speculation.

[@HarryWolf]

"Even if nothing exists . . ." is an oxymoron 😁

[@InnerLuminosity]

After my recent dmt breakthrough I agree...there is definitely alot more to reality 😉

[@METAL1ON]

How do you prove there is more?

[@absentiambient]

I've read too much metaphysics and i've lost my mind

[@gsr4535]

Appreciate Mr Kuhn's series. 👍

[@gsr4535]

@@ROForeverMan As opposed to mumbo jumbo theists? 🤔

[@treasurepoem]

If there's nothing can there be darkness? If there's nothing can there be something invisible? If there's nothing can there be something outside of nothing?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Why is it that some questions are meaningful and some questions, even though they are grammatically correct, are not?

[@Avenged7Xsick]

This is my best guest - I believe the incorrect assumption you're making which makes it appear that there is a paradox, is that there is only one universe or only one reality. Assuming the universe could have had nothing in it, that leaves us with at least 2 possible universes, (our universe, and a nothing universe) which causes us confusion why its one over the other. The universe doesn't have a choosing mechanism, the only logical conclusion is that there is only one possible universe, one where all possible things exist while all self contradicting things don't exist. Of course we then find ourselves in the branch which has matter, energy, life, consciousness, and has us. This also solves the "fine tuning problem." This is also in line with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. When there are multiple possible states, they each are equally real. The most fundamental law of physics is that paradoxes don't exist, all laws then follow from that, including the law of all possibilities.

[@hckytwn3192]

8:06 this is actually the key to it all right here (funny how they stumbled into it). Possibility is only defined by the constraints placed on it. No constraints means infinite possibility, which yields everything.

[@StallionFernando]

nothingness means voidness, even concepts don't exist in the universe before the big bang, the only logical conclusion is an external powerful force/being creating everything.

[@hckytwn3192]

@@StallionFernando If there's "an external powerful force", then you don't have nothingness. So that conclusion isn't logical at all as you still have an infinite regress (i.e. where did the force come from?).

[@hckytwn3192]

@@ROForeverMan I’m eternal too bro.

[@hckytwn3192]

@@ROForeverMan you don’t need to tell yourself that man, you already know

[@hckytwn3192]

@@ROForeverMan If we are the same, the universal “I am” then you’re literally talking to yourself here. As am I.

[@TheMollycat]

What a lovely discussion really enjoyed watching, would love to watch more. thank you

[@irnbrubhoy]

That discussion solved nothing.

[@theliamofella]

It's not supposed to solve anything, because it's not solvable, it's just food for thought

[@irnbrubhoy]

@@theliamofella I don’t think you got the gist of my comment. Have another read-

[@theliamofella]

@@irnbrubhoy oh 🤦‍♂️, the amount of stuff that goes over my head is scary, and I can only imagine how much stuff that I’ll never get put right lol, It shouldn’t have because my older brother and my recently passed father both would say little remarks like that constantly 😅

[@theliamofella]

There is nothing inside my skull it seems

[@mismass7859]

Existence, what does it mean, something that has been manifested in our 3+1 dimension, if it’s not manifested it doesn’t exist. Why is there something instead of nothing? What if something only exists in 8D, or in a completely different realm, does it exist or not? The question should be rephrased, why is there something in 3+1D instead of nothing?

[@andreyusin3689]

Remember that other show about nothing? Which one did you like better?

[@tedetienne7639]

I don’t see why people insist that “from nothing, nothing comes.” We know so little about nothingness, and that state is so remote from our experience that we couldn’t trust our common sense about nothingness. When we ponder quantum theory or the speed of light, reality becomes counterintuitive. True nothingness, and what can come from it, might be as incomprehensible to us.

[@durosempre4470]

I think because the ultimate definition of nothing (that we can grasp) is "absence/antithesis of anything." It's circular, but I think it's the best that humans at our stage of development can do. You're right about things at the quantum level being counterintuitive. But in that sense, we're still talking about things that exist, only so small that they can't be measured (yet).

[@PaulHoward108]

According to the Vedas, most of the time there are no particles in the universe. Viṣṇu's glance penetrates from outside the universe to produce the possibility of objects.

[@jayaram5127]

The moment you ask a question why is there something, you are already admitting to alternatives of something or nothing.

[@heartfeltteaching]

No. Either something (like the universe) exists or nothing (not anything) exists. Any alternative would fall into the category of something.

[@young1939]

@Jayaram Or you may be thinking "I am nothing so there is nothing."

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@young1939 Lol if you’re in a position to say ‘I am nothing,’ then you are saying something. But to say something, you must first exist, which entails that you are definitively not nothing

[@abelincoln8885]

wrong. This is really a question about God. You would be correct if the question asks why do we have a Natural physical existence. The Universe is a thermodynamic System. All thermodynamic systems ... are functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING SYSTEM which must provide "everything" to exist & to function. The Universe ... is a Natural System that originates from & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL system which must provide "everything" to exist & function. See. This question about something is all about God ... especially when Atheists insist there is nothing or the Universe is infinite & always existed. This is as credible an answer as Christians say God is eternal & always existed. The Universe is inside an UNNATURAL SYSTEM ... which is obviously something because it is needed for existence.

[@young1939]

@HeartfeltTeacing 😉 My tounge was in my cheek.

[@showmethewater3980]

How can you ask a question if there is nothing?

[@zebonautsmith1541]

Everything you see IS nothing; but in a temporary state that seems like something.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Everything you see IS nothing; but in a temporary state that seems like something."* ... Then why does this temporary state exist? ... And how does it exist?

[@TH-nx9vf]

This question is framed in a dualistic manner - drawing a line between 'something' and 'nothing', yet philosophies such as buddhism speak of the non-duality of nothingness and form, such that any given thing's real essence is actually nothingness however it appears. So in this case the answer to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing' is 'there isn't'.

[@HarryWolf]

This sort of chimes with my own thoughts - that there's both nothing and something. I made a comment earlier that the Universe is not a thing (a noun), rather it is an action (a verb). My brain hurts 😁

[@HarryWolf]

@@ROForeverMan The Universe cannot be a 'thing' because it is 'everything'.

[@HarryWolf]

@@ROForeverMan We all learnt the truth at an early age: Row, row, row your boat Gently down the stream Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Life is but a dream . . .

[@starry2006]

God made an appearance right at the end. And really the idea of a God feels like it's hampered us in understanding reality but has helped in giving a stable outlook for our minds. We need to feel we are at the centre of things, whether via a God or human omnipotence. The reality seems to be that we weren't inevitable. If you start from that it's not so far to ask whether anything was inevitable. But if reality was inevitable then perhaps everything is, if we believe in the idea of infinite worlds for example. But whether nothing could have existed or not, the reality is that something does. And inevitably people will ask why, as if there had to be a purpose. If there was no purpose then we have to create our own purpose, but can we even do that? Many people now believe reality as we know it will go on long after humans cease existing.

[@heartfeltteaching]

Theists are not wrong to try to answer this question. It is not a question that can be countenanced by natural science.

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@ROForeverMan Um, no. This isn’t about the right to ask questions. It’s about whether particular fields of knowledge are capable of answering certain questions. Science is restricted to the study of the physical world, which includes how it came to be. But questions pertaining to value, meaning, and spirit are properly outside the bounds of science.

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@ROForeverMan Sure Jan 🙄😆

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@ROForeverMan We’re in it, talking to each other. You don’t deserve to be taken seriously mate 😆

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@ROForeverMan Yes, we're living in your magnificent dream. Sod off mate lol

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@ROForeverMan Why are you insane? 😆

[@josef9733]

I ask myself: What would exist even if noting existed? A (theoretical) circle? Therefore the (theoretical) endless number Pi? Maybe other theoretical circles, points and shapes that interact with each other mathematically? Could this be enough to spawn the whole universe? Maybe the universe and time is the number PI trying to resolve itself?

[@hckytwn3192]

If there was nothing, none of that could exist-including math, laws, logic, truths or constraints. But if you really think on this then you realize, from that nothingness, everything that can happen must.

[@Dylan-ub7ux]

how do you go from theoretical circles to anything remotely physical (atoms, energy, space, time)

[@josef9733]

@@hckytwn3192 I think, if there was nothing, math would still exist. Also e.g. Pi would even be the same in universes with different laws of nature.

[@hckytwn3192]

@@josef9733 nope, pi changes with curved space time… and what is pi exactly? We don’t know. Pi doesn’t even actually exist here, in this universe. It’s just a crude approximation. Finally, read up on Godel and Tarskis Theorems. Math will never be complete and consistent, can never be validated as true. 😉

[@edwardmeradith2419]

Why does ‘awesome’ have positive connotations while ‘awful’ has negative connotations?

[@durosempre4470]

Good question. I've asked the same thing about "terrific" and "terrible." Same root, very different connotations.

[@edwardmeradith2419]

@@durosempre4470 great example!

[@TheSpeedOfC]

What I want to know is if the universe is infinite or simply so big that there are billions of indentical copies of myself - if every atom down to the last quark is identical then why am I only aware of and experience this particular instance?

[@durosempre4470]

Be patient. Consciousness -- at least in this part of the cosmos -- is still in its infancy. As it expands, your awareness of everything (including your "clones" or doppelgangers in other realms) will expand too.

[@rotorblade9508]

I think the survival of personal identity is an illusion and it only survives for a fraction of a second. Every identity is unique in space and time so if you make a perfect copy it would still have it’s own identity. The brain creates an instance of consciousness that survives a fraction of a second then it dies a new one is born based on what’s currently in the brain. I think this hypothesis can solve those paradoxes.

[@durosempre4470]

@@rotorblade9508 Interesting hypothesis. But I don't think we know nearly enough about the brain or consciousness to pronounce it right. Or wrong, for that matter.

[@durosempre4470]

@@ROForeverMan Sometimes perception and reality are one and the same. I'm not disputing that brains (and everything else in the material world) may emerge from -- and ultimately return to -- pure consciousness, in the same way that waves arise from the ocean. But while in the form of a brain, that brain definitely does *exist*. But perhaps in an infinitely more complicated way than science can ever grasp. Similarly, I believe the "characters" and objects in my dreams also *exist*, at least during the duration of the dream. Afterwards, they melt back into the nether regions of consciousness from which they emerged.

[@durosempre4470]

@@ROForeverMan By the way, how do you define "exist"? I want to make sure we're talking about the same concept here.

[@EvangelistDonClark]

Just one question. What did you guys say?

[@carlito8003]

I think that logically,we can say that there is something rather than nothing, because we exist,if we don't exist we wouldn't say nor think that there is something,no one even bother to think nothing, because it is nothing

[@AllahHuAkbar-r8r]

I don't know about others but I had such question multiple times in my life once when I was sitting on the chair and I had nothing to do then I felt something extremely weird I had an existential level of feeling and I had a question why is life so random then I had a question that from where is this existence comming from and then I had this last question that why do this whole existence exist this is also possible that there was nothing to exist at all

[@Ekam-Sat]

A simple answer. It’s not good for man to be alone. 👍

[@luckyluckydog123]

it was a good and deep discussion. It seems to me that it's very difficult to arrive at any firm conclusion on such fondamental questions, science is not yet ready for them.

[@Dion_Mustard]

Maybe existence has always existed, so to speak! Perhaps there was no beginning and no end..i.e eternity. Eternal amount of universes..no starting point and no end point. The key word is consciousness.

[@HarryWolf]

@@ROForeverMan And maybe that is why when Moses asked God as the burning bush who it was, it replied: "I am that I am."

[@andrewferg8737]

"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me" (Billy Preston 1997)

[@andrewferg8737]

@@ROForeverMan "No-thing = Every-thing" ------ 0 ≠ 1

[@ronaldkemp3952]

Basically put, the reason why there is something rather than nothing is because energy and matter can be created but cannot be destroyed.

[@andreyusin3689]

I wish I had that power - to create energy and matter from nothing - I'd be Bitcoin mining like crazy and stocking up on my gold supplies.

[@donespiritu1345]

Has anyone ever questioned Kuhn on the whole contradiction of his dream. He will often say "As a child he had a dream that nothing could have existed..." How can Kuhn be fearful of a nothing universe when he could not possibly witness it. If Kuhn existed in a nothing universe, then that universe would by definition have something.

[@codyjones6378]

"let me just work up the plane of existence." Like it's a a Saturday :)

[@seanl6885]

The possibility of creation is infinite. The possibility of non-creation is also infinite. We exist as part of the creation, hence not capable of looking into the infinite void.

[@METAL1ON]

Nothing is something that is not contemplatable and given the way our brains work we cannot contemplate what nothing is ever. It is as unexplainable as what was before the great expansion.

[@Homunculas]

"nothing" simply isn't. All existence is a reaction to the abominable idea of "nothing".

[@durosempre4470]

@@ROForeverMan Can you elaborate? How is "no" thing "every" thing?

[@cosmichappening1712]

If I have 'nothing' but 'something', and the 'something' was 'nothing', would that then mean that 'nothing' is 'something' and that 'something' is 'nothing'? I have nothing more to say, and that's saying something.

[@abduazirhi2678]

we cannot not think of something called 'nothing' simply because nothing is not a thing.

[@sinisasmiljanic5903]

Yes iT s

[@JohnHowshall]

A lot of incoherent questions and statements in this one but otherwise a good discussion. The statement “there could have been nothing” makes no sense because “nothing” is not a state of being. A better way to phrase it would be to ask, “why is there existence?” We can’t talk about non existence as if it’s real. The fact that spacetime exists at all is quite an impossibility in my opinion. -John

[@MBarberfan4life]

It's logically possible that nothing existed (e.g. not a contradiction). Why should that bother me?

[@margaretpepper3550]

The real question is where does information come from...??

[@Dion_Mustard]

or where does consciousness come from...

[@r2c3]

informaton begins with the existence of the most elementary dimension of the Universe... from this point of view, information becomes both a necessity and an emerging complex phenomenon... I think, information is a complex concept 🤔

[@abelincoln8885]

We know were information comes from ... and its not nature or natural processes. This question is really about God & a supernatural existence, and is immediately answered with a Law of Physics. The Universe & Life are NATURAL thermodynamic Systems. All thermodynamic systems ... are functions with set purpose, form, processes, properties & design ... and "originate" from the SURROUNDING SYSTEM which must provide "everything" to exist & to function. There has always been something ... and for the Universe & Life ... is the SURROUNDING Unnatural System that must provide everything for a thermodynamic system to exist & to function. And only an intelligence ( like Man, God & angels/demons) makes abstract & physical Functions ... and thermodynamic Systems Science proves there must be a God. Christianity identified the God.

[@platykurtic5510]

Shannon information?

[@aug2890]

No clear answer.

[@JonRobert]

Kurt Vonnegut said the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" signifies only neurosis.

[@rons5319]

Defining "nothing" seems impossible. It's like defining time -- impossible.

[@josef9733]

Time = Change of some state. Thats it. If nothing changes (maybe impossible), no time passes.

[@Swampzoid]

Maybe consciousness always existed and somehow it created time and all that is physical.

[@richardsylvanus2717]

Seinfeld was a show about nothing.

[@InnerLuminosity]

Plot twist: You are both NOTHING and EVERYTHING 😉

[@InnerLuminosity]

@@ROForeverMan let that spiritual ego go my friend. Enjoy the dream 😉😇😁 I love you 😇

[@brigham2250]

I have been posting for several years on Kuhn's videos that you can't have nothing, that it is not possible, because if you try to describe it, then it is something. This video marks the first time that Kuhn ever mentions this to one of his interviewees (at least that I am aware of), and I feel pretty sure it is because he read my comment one or more times. And Hawthorne had no real answer to this that made any sense. How can there not be space? And can there be space without time. I say yes. If the space has absolutely nothing happening in any way, a true vacuum with just empty space, then there is no change and therefore there is no time. Time is measured against change. In fact, my argument that there can't be nothing because of what I explained above, was picked up by a well-known atheist debater on KZbin. I'm pretty certain that he also got the idea from me because I never heard him say it until I started posting it. Our universe may have had a beginning, but in the same way that a mother gives birth to a child. If our universe had a beginning then it came from something else. There was always something and there will always be something, even if that something is empty space. And if you say that a god created everything then still there was always something.... the god that created everything. So no matter how you slice it, there was always something. It is just a brute fact that there must always be something. For there to be nothing, that is illogical. For the record, I don't believe in any gods, at least none that I have heard about. The universe and all in it is a mystery but I believe there are non-supernatural reasons for its existence.

[@rotorblade9508]

I agree that there was never a time when there was nothing at all because that state would never evolve. But you say you can’t have nothing because if you try to describe it you have something. That doesn’t make sense. If there was nothing there was nothing to describe.

[@brigham2250]

@@rotorblade9508 -- I appreciate the feedback but disagree with your point.

[@donespiritu1345]

I think if you ask Kuhn "What are the properties of nothing?" He'll say it's the absence of matter, forces, and continue on with everything he can think of. Is it appropriate to describe something by everything that it is not? Example: What is that thing labeled "spoon"? Well, it's not a fork, or a knife, or a baseball or a liquid.....ad finium.

[@markpmar0356]

If there was nothing, how would you know?

[@conordevery2306]

Figuring out how there is "something" rather than "nothing" should be the aim. Let the why come after.

[@kos-mos1127]

How there is something? does not have an answer because thingness is and nothing is not. Nothing also borrows it’s meaning from something so nothing exists as a showdown of something. The question gets flipped to how there is nothing?

[@abelincoln8885]

The Universe is a thermodynamic System. All thermodynamic systems ... are functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING SYSTEM which must provide "everything" to exist & to function. This has always been a nonsensical question because the UNNATURAL SURROUNDING SYSTEM has been known since we knew the Universe is a thermodynamic systems with increasing entropy. The real question is .... why is there no mention in origin theories of a SURROUNDING system to provide everything for a thermodynamic System to exist & function? Some folk are hell bent on avoiding any evidence that proves ... God & creation.

[@conordevery2306]

@@abelincoln8885 The universe is a self-contained, isolated thermodynamic system. There is no requirement for anything external to the universe for the universe to function.

[@abelincoln8885]

@@conordevery2306 Get out of here with your fake science. All thermodynamic Systems ... originate from the SURROUNDING Systems which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Physics to exist & to funciton. A can of soup is closed thermodynamic systems with increasing entropy ... and originates from ... the surrounding SYSTEMS which must provide everything that a thermodynamic system needs to exist & to function. Everybody knows the Universe is a thermodynamic system with increasing entropy and finite matter & energy. And yet there is not ONE origin theory that has a Natural System ... that began & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL System. And the reason why is because this Two Systems model supports Creation ... as does the machine Analogy. You all either ignore any evidence that supports God & Creation, or make up some BS argument to "debunk." You can not debunk a Law of physics or a natural phenomena. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes abstract & physical Functions with clear purpose, form, design & properties. Anything that has clear purpose, processes, form, properties & DESIGN ... can only be made by an intelligence ( like Man).

[@conordevery2306]

@@abelincoln8885 Fake science - science and/or anything that goes against my imaginary friend and creation. Real science - tracts of nonsense about "unnatural" systems and cans of soup.

[@williamburts5495]

If reality is the totality of all existences and is infinite then something must always exist.

[@salmonesque]

If there was nothing it would only be nothing for zero time so it's immaterial. Absolutely nothing wouldn't last for any length of time whatsoever. Something is the only state with time.

[@salmonesque]

Nothing exists for no time until there's something.

[@scottpitner4298]

The real question is Could there have been content in this video rather than what we see here which is a bunch of nothing hahaha

[@fraser_mr2009]

You'd need something divine if absolutely nothing were possible.

[@JamesMyddelton]

Excellent discussion

[@travellingmac2177]

Excuse my ignorance but how the truth and claims are necessary? Human existence is not necessary. If there were no humans around ever or any other intelligent beings, who then would think about truths and claims? Am I wrong?

[@adrianandreica]

Existence and nonexistence, something and nothing are just concepts. We have to transcend these, then we touch the nature of reality.

[@adrianandreica]

@@ROForeverMan Better said, we are OUR reality. Based on our biological and mental limitation. It doesn't mean is the ultimate reality.

[@r2c3]

how do we provide proof of both capacity and opportunity of conceptualizing a particular scenario, in this case "nothing", when the way we process information requires something to begin our thought process... 🤔 maybe it's easier to start with the possibility of existence of the most elementary units of reality rather then more complex ideas that stem from such units...

[@r2c3]

@@ROForeverMan a medium is required to realize either one or the other next consecutive alternative :) ...

[@andreyusin3689]

The greater nothing would have to exclude all other possible universes, would it not? Interesting, considering that they should be irrelevant anyway since no information exchange is ever possible?

[@onestepaway3232]

You cannot have particles without space or time. That is not logical unless particles you define as eternal.

[@onestepaway3232]

@@ROForeverMan they existed before humans so an observer is required for anything exist if your point is true

[@onestepaway3232]

@@ROForeverMan well, then we are at in impasse. It is not rational or logical to think otherwise.

[@onestepaway3232]

@@ROForeverMan you need matter and energy. Consciousness is not all there is.

[@onestepaway3232]

@@ROForeverMan you can’t have consciousness without matter and energy.

[@onestepaway3232]

@@ROForeverMan lol, neither does gravity. Take care

[@natureiscrazy]

When I look at my bank account...

[@Rhimeson]

Annoying that the guest kept interupting but fascinating discussion nonetheless. Thanks.

[@damienroberts934]

I agree with Advaita Vedanta (Brahman) - consciousness is the ground of all being... brains and bodies are merely instuments that tune into that ocean. Intuitively true.

[@damienroberts934]

@@ROForeverMan No. I think they are 'real'. They are just subordinate to the ground of consciousness, upon which they depend. Who can observe one's own body without consciousness? The materialists have it backwards IMO.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

@@ROForeverMan..or abstractions of the mind

[@damienroberts934]

@@neffetSnnamremmiZ Why do they need to be abstractions? Why can't they be real? In your opinion?

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

@@damienroberts934 ..these are no real entities, even the opposites like mind vs. body are abstracts, nothing is mind or body..its just abstractions (shortenings) for self-intervention for reason of self transformation and realization..

[@kos-mos1127]

Consciousness cannot be the ground of being because the problem of how does something purely mental interact with something physical. Fundamentally reality is material.

[@Beevreeter]

So in terms of answering the question this conversation got us precisely nowhere.

[@Beevreeter]

@@ROForeverMan That may be so, but also has nothing to do with the question.

[@mjaworsky2010]

Beautiful. I can sleep at night now!

[@njeyasreedharan]

Nothing is poorly defined to-date. Nothing is not void of potential. Talking of something is also ill-defined.

[@tedgrant2]

Why is there something rather than nothing ? Why does the world keep on turning ? Why do the stars keep on shining ? Don't they know it's the end of the world ?

[@Nodalthree]

Change is universal and constant. To have change there must be something to change. Existence is dynamic even change changes. Any entity relatively changes with any alteration of a perspective point. “Nothing”, is just that, nothing, the concept of change has no relationship to it, but the existence of nothing allows change. Therefore, “Nothing” exists because it has an effect. In this, the infinite and nothing are beyond our comprehension.

[@gistfilm]

Yes but why does anything exist? A scientist can't tell you why. A theist can't tell you why (why god exists).

[@kos-mos1127]

@@gistfilm A theist cannot why things exist either they just do a lot of hand waving.

[@abelincoln8885]

It's really a question about God & the supernatural existence. The Universe & Life are NATURAL thermodynamic Systems. All thermodynamic systems ... are functions with set purpose, form, processes, properties & design ... and "originate" from the SURROUNDING SYSTEM which must provide "everything" to exist & to function. There has always been something ... and for the Universe & Life ... is the SURROUNDING Unnatural System that must provide everything for a thermodynamic system to exist & to function. Only an intelligence ( like Man & God) makes abstract & physical Functions ... and thermodynamic Systems

[@kos-mos1127]

@@abelincoln8885 The Universe is an isolated system because there is no surroundings for the universe to exchange energy with. Thermodynamic systems are not functions they are physical processes. The Universe is everywhere. An intelligence making something as the universe is an unverified claim. The Universe is not a thing it is the whole of reality.

[@gistfilm]

@@abelincoln8885 But what makes the intelligent system?

[@Jinxed007]

Somethingness creates nothingness and never the other way round.

[@Robinson8491]

All possibilities necessarily manifest in reality according to Feynmans path integral in the one current reality, and if your high level possibility (like a chair or a purple swan) is not manifested than it never really was a possibility on the Feynman level. And therefore the current world is the best of all possible worlds a la Leibniz, because it's necessarily the world. If you feel like agreeing with his colleague that everything that currently exists exists necessarily

[@jamesdolan4042]

Why is there "something" rather than "nothing"? Is the question today irrelevant, or academic, or is it our ability to ask the question that makes it relevant.

[@grixessedraxis7267]

I get obsessed with the very fabric of reality to the brink of madness 🤔

[@tedetienne7639]

If truths and claims exist as Hawthorne states, then we must be able to create them. Concepts like democracy, private property, friendship, value - these weren’t possible until humans conceived of them. So Plato’s world of essences must be affected by the physical world and vice versa. This suggests that existence is monistic - an integrated whole - not dualistic between the physical and ideal.

[@omp199]

I think he is saying the opposite of that. I think he is saying that at least some of what he calls "truths" exist necessarily, regardless of whether concrete objects exist or not. That would mean that nobody needs to create them, or indeed _can_ create them. Something that exists _necessarily_ can be neither created nor destroyed.

[@omp199]

@@ROForeverMan That's not what he said. That might be your personal view, but we are discussing John Hawthorne's view.

[@omp199]

@@ROForeverMan The original comment begins, "If truths and claims exist as Hawthorne states..." So it is clearly an attempt to see what follows from Hawthorne's propositions. If you are not interested in doing that, and instead want to talk about your own personal views, then this thread is not for you. By all means go and start a new thread to discuss your views.

[@TBoneZone]

Because Something was more Compact.

[@JungleJargon]

The existence of matter demands a Creator. Object credit giving has always been called into question. It’s called idolatry, ascribing attributes to physical things that they do not have. Information is not something physical things are able to produce. When you see information that has meaning and purpose, you know that it is not the product of the physical universe. The credit goes to a higher order than the universe since the universe cannot make or direct itself.

[@chiknsld3856]

where did you learn that? good job!

[@fivish]

A creator is infinite in time and space so creating a universe does not remove the first cause.

[@JungleJargon]

@@chiknsld3856 I spend time with other creationists on KZbin. We work through the many problems of naturalism.

[@JungleJargon]

@@fivish Yes the Creator is infinite and not limited by time or distance.

[@chiknsld3856]

@@JungleJargon Keep it up, you're on the right track!

[@TheDerisavi]

The maximum nothing exist when thing will be at it's minimum. It's like shadow and light or matter and antimatter. I'm I right?! I don't know!

[@Mark-mk5pr]

Great last question Robert

[@paulrharmer]

It’s still nothing! We just get how it looks behind our eyes, but it’s really nothing! Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

[@strideman1680]

'Why' is such a meaningless question, but in his defense, that's not what he's really intending to ask. What he's actually trying to get at is 'how'?

[@omp199]

What would it mean to ask, "How is there something?" It seems to me that "how" questions are about processes by which things are achieved. "How do I do this?" "Well, first you do this, and then you do this..." The question seems to presuppose that something already exists: a framework within which things happen. That would beg the question. I think when he says "why", he is seeking an explanation, whereas if he had asked "how", he would be seeking a mechanism.

[@patrickjenkins2788]

Nothing is still something, as in zero is recognized numerically, like 1 + 0 = 1.

[@andreyusin3689]

The irony of course being - in relation to this series at least - that the "Nothing" question has still got to be by far more scientific, substantial, and fundamental than the frivolous "God" hypothesis.

[@jacovawernett3077]

The God hypothesis is not trivial. You are trivialyzing. I asked God His name. He answered, Fundamentally E. I answered, Energy of consciousness that suffuses everything. Every proton, neutron, electron, quark, spark of light and black hole. He answered, don't forget the science. Now you tell me when you can tell something prescient months or years ahead of time that have global implications.

[@travellingmac2177]

It can never be scientific. It will always be philosophical or metaphysical. Science can never answer this question because it's not a scientific question. Science explores what we observe.

[@jacovawernett3077]

God is not an hypothesis. People make Him such. Consider Him an alien. Here, I'll be cute. Call Him Klaatu 1..after the film The Day The Earth Stood Still. L'chaim ..many people have a hard time understanding each other. It's not shocking that people don't understand God.

[@jacovawernett3077]

@@ROForeverMan Then tell me what you spoke to my right ear from Heaven. Easter 2016 at St. Thomas Church. Let me know what text sent said right after. My Covenant with God aka Elohim Adonai Hashem is to make Israel one. What does it mean.? What does it mean to be Rain, Anchor, everygreen and God's light.

[@jacovawernett3077]

@@ROForeverMan I am of God. His first words to my ear were, I'm sorry you are the one. Please explain. When I lifted my arms to the sky and said, it's time for a rainbow I was astounded that the double Rainbow appeared. I even went to Judy Garlands crypt on Christmas Eve day 2021. Christmas Day we had a rainbow over DTLA. It was the 4th time.

[@andrewferg8737]

The much touted "problem of evil" is an error resulting directly from the false premise of a philosophy of nothing.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@ROForeverMan "There are positive qualia and there are negative qualia" ---- Darkness is the absence of light, cold of heat. These conditions describe privations. In other words, what you have termed "negative qualia" are not substantive. One cannot posit negation without presupposing unconditioned existence in and of itself.

[@eternalme6077]

There is no such thing as nothing! No such thing as empty Space, this nothing is actually Something. So where does nothing come from, is there a beginning? Maybe by seeking the answer I'm already starting on the wrong foot.....but if that's the case, what to do........ 🎸💚

[@richardnelson4112]

Well the question can easily be answered. The reason there is something rather than nothing is that it has to be one of them. In order for any of the 2 to be true, an opposite condition must exist which is a complement of each other only in theory but not both at the same time in reality. And since it is something that exist rather than nothing that means that something has always had to existed since something CANNOT come from nothing. It could of been the other way, but it JUST wasn't. The creation of the universe has nothing to do with having been responsible for the existence of what made it possible for it to be able to exist in anywhere at any time. Within the "field"of existence, anything else can have a beginning and an end, but existence itself CANNOT. The field of existence provides anything that is necessary for creation, more specifically, the materials. In other words space, time, matter, and energy have ALWAYS EXISTED within the "field" of existence, and the use of the word "within" doesn't imply that there are any boundaries at all since space and time are infinite and eternal. The use of the word "within" only means that existence (space, time, matter and energy) must exist before and after they can exist. The universe and any other structure can then come into being as well as disappear, and cycle through an infinite number of creations as has been the case forever. For humans it's very very hard if not almost impossible to understand or imagine anything without a beginning even more so than without an end, and the reason is no secret since everything they experience does have a beginning. And scientist and cosmologists are a perfect example of what I'm saying

[@andreyusin3689]

Ha, so Brad Pitt has recurring nightmares about being stabbed to death, and Rob loses sleep over nothing? So based!

[@gr33nDestiny]

So it’s like if something is possible then you can philosophise about it but not if it’s impossible, or something like that lol

[@infiniteuniverse123]

Why is the something rather than nothing? That is the eternal question Georges Lamaitre caused us to ask. The universe itself doesn't think like that, only religion does. Our universe has no concept of time or size. Only humans do. Everything was already here 13.8 billion years ago. Why has nobody ever thought that? Our universe slammed two objects together and turned itself into a particle collider with two already existing objects. The galaxies are shrapnel from this event. Isn't that the only thing that could have been? What else could it have been? Why create questions that will never end? What is scientific about that?

[@arifabd]

Objective truths are part of a fundamental framework that God endowed the Universe with.

[@rotorblade9508]

what you believe is true doesn’t mean is true. so if you have a definition of the truth based on your assumptions it doesn’t mean it’s a correct definition

[@arifabd]

@@rotorblade9508 Nevertheless, it is a hypothesis that can explain everything. A hypothesis that can be independently arrived at, by contingency.

[@fess749]

At some point there has to be a base reality. That base reality is binary. There is either nothing or something. There happens to be stuff. It’s just the way it is.