Martin Rees - Why Is There Anything At All?

Follow us on X for news, fascinating articles, and discussions with other followers: shorturl.at/imHY9
Why is there a world, a cosmos, something, anything instead of absolutely nothing at all? If nothing existed, there would be, well, ‘nothing’ to explain. To have anything existing demands some kind of explanation. Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why anything? Why not nothing? What can we learn from the absence of nothing?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995 and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge from 2004 to 2012. He was President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen: shorturl.at/hwGP3
Watch more videos on the mystery of existence: shorturl.at/dvxAN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@ToddDunning]

I think we haven’t advanced to the point where we can understand existence, that’s how I deal with the extreme discomfort. Very glad to have found this channel.

[@karlschmied6218]

Why do you feel extreme discomfort not to know? Does it have something to do with the fear of losing control and the fear of death? By the way, I like your art!

[@samnavona]

It was always something, nothing doesn’t exist.

[@danielscheff7384]

Correct. It can't

[@forsdykemontague1017]

Matter + Antimatter = Nothing and so Nothing - Antimatter = Matter !

[@ProLaytonxPhoenix]

Yeah. While I'm not 100% sure as I can't prove it, I agree with your statement.

[@billcook7483]

Yes it can, I've just checked my bank balance !

[@danielscheff7384]

@@billcook7483 well played

[@karlschmied6218]

At the beginning, Kuhn says: "The question of why there is anything at all ... frightened me so, I tried everything to put it out of my mind." And it still chills him. This fear causes many people to (mostly unconsciously) accept a divine being who is (under certain conditions) inclined towards them as an "explanation" - as a kind of painkiller. Rees does not have this fear of not understanding, of losing control. I think that is a good prerequisite for being a good scientist because your thinking is not disturbed by fear but motivated be the wonderful feeling of not knowing and pleasure of exploring.

[@kutya9407]

No one has no fear of that which he doesn’t know. Whether he shows it or not, matters not.

[@karlschmied6218]

@kutya9407 Your statement only shows that you are projecting your own fear onto everyone else.

[@NafeDev-yo4lo]

The fact that it's impossible for nothingness to exist makes sense but it's just so deeply terrifying. Eternity gives rise to all manner of things you could possibly imagine (and can't imagine). Our conscious existence, either experiencing this life over and over infinitely or experiencing your worst nightmare over and over. We are forced to exist (and suffer) against our will, such is the nature of eternity and infinity.

[@sven888]

Actually he is wrong. Nothingness and everythingness are just meaningless words. THAT WHICH IS ALWAYS IS. YES. YOU!!!

[@billkotas9049]

Actually it is uncertain whether nothingness or everything ness are meaningless or are meaningful @@sven888

[@sven888]

@@billkotas9049 So why is there differentiation within oneness? PS: Un-certain means One-certain. Latin....

[@TorgerVedeler]

The humility here is refreshing. Not just what happened, but can we understand it?

[@mabaker]

Rees has an amazing series titled "What we still don't know" - still worth a watch.

[@Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done]

I have a hunch it's way above our pay grade.

[@sven888]

Yes on the latter. Un means one. Hence One Understanding. Awake from the dream!

[@sven888]

@@mabaker No thank you.

[@billkotas9049]

@@sven888 at least give waking from the dream a chance....

[@Diana_L.]

To start with: Aren't the concept of "nothing" and the concept of "being" contradictions? How can there be nothing? If there were nothing, then there would be something, namely that nothing. Wouldn't there?

[@PaulRezaei]

I think it’s interesting when people say we can’t know, but seem so confident in knowing that.

[@simonhibbs887]

Well, there are things we can prove logically that are unknowable. For example Gödel's incompleteness theorems establish limits to what is logically provable. In fact those theorems are part of the foundation of proposals on the limits of what can be known scientifically.

[@PaulRezaei]

Knowing something and proving something are two different things. For example, we can know the laws of logic but can’t necessarily prove them.

[@grantdillon3420]

Yeah I mean I can see what you're saying that, in a technical sense, it's a bit of an overreach. If they wanted to communicate exactly what they mean they probably should say something more like: "according to our current knowledge and our current abilities, there doesn't appear to be a realistic way, in the near future, to acquire any knowledge about this."

[@sven888]

What is your question? We are one! Yet we are many in life for love!!!

[@No-xw3jl]

@@sven888 the question is why? do you know the answer?

[@oeokosko]

It's a wonder that those who ponder questions such as this every day as their work don't go stark raving loopy.

[@isaacnovinger3566]

Some have

[@sven888]

We have.... we all have.... those who act normal... are actually not.

[@sven888]

@@isaacnovinger3566 Cheers brother. I salute our madness.

[@billkotas9049]

@@isaacnovinger3566 They do but what else can they do but ponder and go crazy ?? Blessed are those who have gone crazy seeking the truth

[@tarekabdelrahman2194]

The question of who created the creator in an infinite regression is typically modeled by Russell paradox in logical science. The paradox resolution by logicians applies Godel incompleteness theories 1 and 2 on our whole universe to deduce that an external axiom to our universe exists. Because science is continuous, that external axiom is metaphysical and is the cause of the universe creation. This analysis is completely scientific and defines the existence of a creator.

[@r2c3]

this question is well beyond physics... how can we even test it 🤔

[@chetsenior7253]

We can’t. There’s no need to either.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

it's in realm of metaphysics. Maybe at death, answers will be given.

[@pueraeternum]

If we really want to understand then we first have to understand how thinking alone is a limitation, that it does not express the actual. It is more like a reflection in a mirror or a lens of concepts, ideas and mental images that we perceive through, but never the actual experience. The direct experience, like feeling/knowing is where we perceive the true revelations, without a doubt realizations.

[@Slo-ryde]

Physics cannot answer it…. Because the process was a supernatural ( triggered without any antecedent) event…. How or “ why “ it happened brings in the idea of “ intent”.

[@r2c3]

​@@chetsenior7253i the question itself is aiming for an answer/reason/purpose of existence from our perspective... but from where other than existence itself can such purpose derive from 🤔

[@billkotas9049]

The fact that contemplating the possibility of nothingness terrifies and gives him chills is a blessing in disguise...

[@larryslemp9698]

And why is that, might I ask?

[@cdprince768]

I can get my mind around a quantum field that erupts into a universe after certain astronomically unlikely conditions are met, because -- after all -- we're talking about infinity, and given an infinite amount of time, a lot of unlikely things can happen. But I can't get my mind around the idea that at some point we went from literally nothing to literally something.

[@randomeyes]

Magic 😊

[@stefanblue660]

There is no nothing. One of the greatest, if not the greatest insights of quantum physics.

[@catherinemoore9534]

This question is better approached either philosophically or spiritually because, as I suspect, it comes from a need to understand our human condition rather than the science in which it is framed. Science may be able to answer part of that question but even if it does, it is unlikely to help us answer the meaning or meaninglessness of our human condition. Ultimately, it is the human condition which has to be explained in order for us to know why there's a universe fit to contain us and our questions.

[@Paine137]

Just as the puddle pretends the pothole was designed with it in mind.

[@catherinemoore9534]

@@Paine137 I sense that this little image, neat and fun, is what you pretend to be enough of an answer?

[@Paine137]

@@catherinemoore9534 We’re emergent in the same way all species are evolutionarily emergent. Meaning itself is an idea of our own making.

[@No-xw3jl]

we're here to find the meaning of life, & i found it

[@Paine137]

@@No-xw3jl Meaning isn’t objective. It’s relative to each person. There’s nothing to find.

[@shephusted2714]

there are more breakthroughs now than ever before - so of course we can go further in understanding

[@billkotas9049]

There are wondrous breakthroughs but they always slam against a brick wall of the brute facts of existence itself

[@Roscoe0494]

I fully agree with importance of this question because I believe most of us have had the same mind blowing experience in trying to conceptualize nothingness. I had that when I was ten. Why do we all have the same vision as youngsters? As we grow up learning about the cosmos we are awed by its expanse and at the same time shocked by the idea of its absence.

[@DavidLawlor-ci8wz]

Life always finds a way to live, in any form. That is something and everything you need to know.

[@davidredinger5938]

Nothing is defined differently by physicist and by philosophers. Important point!!

[@S3RAVA3LM]

except for 'nothing' itself. Philosopher's acknowledge the subject, physicists choose only to acknowledge the objective. Philosopher's know there's no difference between metaphysics and physics. The physicists posit they're completely different.

[@mtshasta4195]

But do we really know what nothing is?

[@MrJPI]

If there was nothing at all, then there wasn't any rule preventing of something becoming existent.

[@futurehistory2110]

In my opinion, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' may turn out to be the most profound and mysterious question of all. Perhaps even more so than 'What is consciousness?'. It could turn out that something is inevitable for reason X (i.e. nothing is impossible - which funnily enough has a double meaning, bringing into question whether our words or minds can be ask the right questions!) but whether we'll ever know or understand reason X is yet to be seen by humanity. Of course, if space and time exist all at once that might get us a little closer to understanding the ultimate philosophical question.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Let me point out that your ultimate philosophical question is stated in language. You will never get to an answer unless you understand language.

[@starparik]

Marin has one of the most interesting faces I’ve ever seen. I can listen to him talk for hours.

[@bozo5632]

Cheech?

[@joseespinoza6283]

I totally agree. He looks like a very intelligent vampire who can´t leave that old room

[@pequod4557]

He looks very 18th century

[@theartoffighting879]

Reminds me a bit of the Star Trek character. Data.

[@sven888]

Maybe you should ask him on a date.

[@ifthen1526]

There is something because, like everything, there has to be

[@davidw4987]

I have also always asked the question, "why is there anything at all?", but then with the follow up question, "then, why this?".

[@christroy7289]

The answer is there was no beginning. The human mind works in linear concepts and can’t comprehend something that doesn’t have a beginning. The fact is, the universe has always been here, we just can’t comprehend how. God has always been as has the universe, it’s all about energy, things moving, even at a sub atomic level and things coalescing. This universe was probably spawned from others. Time is the biggest obstacle when it comes to understanding the universe as we know it. Leave time out of it. Energy is the key, time is simply a tool. I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night😊

[@commentarytalk1446]

It looks like science can establish a link all the way back to the big bang. But also our own growth in knowledge can develop in the opposite direction into the future with greater understanding possible: Each person can try to understand the world as it is to humans both as individuals and collaboratively collecting knowledge cumulatively; and shape the future accordingly at our point in time. One example of this is to understand the biosphere and improve it's integrity which would be beneficial not just as knowledge but as experience also.

[@nedo68]

Sir thanks for this video, one day you have to talk about this with Prof. Harald Lesch, a few years ago he tackles a philosophical question in an unusual way: Why does the universe exist at all? How can nothing become something why is not nothing?

[@walterdaems57]

Because the state of nothingness is unsustainable

[@danalbert5785]

What? Nothing is no energy and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, there has always been something. Why????? ??????????????????????????

[@ronalddrost3844]

Nothing is full of energy because of quantum fluctuations. Nothing does not exist.

[@sven888]

We are one. Don't let them fool you with words. We are one. I love you hence for good reason.

[@No-xw3jl]

"Why?" was not answered, but there is a reason as to why is there anything at all.

[@sven888]

@@No-xw3jl You know it brother.

[@bandini22221]

It noble for men to ponder these questions of which we've already answered so many over the years. Of course, now that politics has polluted science, that trend will no longer continue and, even if it does, eventually all life on this tiny blue dot will flicker out and return to the dark, icy cold from whence it came. No one will even know we were ever here and there will be no way to hit the collective "save" button to retain all the knowledge we amassed. Nor will there be anyone to read it if we did. At that point, the age old philosophy question (what is the meaning of life) will finally be answered. There was none.

[@No-xw3jl]

I already know what the meaning of life is, it is finally here

[@lawnjames562]

You seem to have confused the question 'why is there anything rather than nothing?' with the question 'Is there really anything rather than nothing?'. If you had not mixed them up, why did you say you scared a lot by this question? Only when what you have in mind is the second question, it is scaring; if it is the first, it is just about the ultimate reason behind the fact that there is something, nothing scaring, just deep, and even perhaps interesting and intriguing. Another thing: this scholar's speech appears to contain some contradiction. When he quoted Wittgenstein's famous dictum, he was expressing agnosticism, because 'cannot speak' of course represents impossibility of understanding. But when he mentioned Newton's ignorance of how our Solar System formed and our now having known the answer, he was trying to say that we are making and can make much progress in answering further questions whose answer we now do not know, which is diametrically opposed to agnosticism.

[@genemiller9198]

It crosses my mind (others below likely make this point) that if there was nothing, then not only can the question not be asked, but also there is no 'asker.' Nothing-: that's the rude glory of nothing. The question, in other words, is its own answer.

[@No-xw3jl]

there has always been "something", it's all around & within us but only i know what it is (oh, & it's not love)

[@maxhagenauer24]

The thing with this question is thst it almost seems unanswerable because whatever answer you come up with that was the reason everything exists, you could just ask the same question about that.

[@wmpx34]

Hello infinite regress my old friend

[@stefanblue660]

Aristoteles explained, that it is logically impossible to find the first cause without leaving the system.

[@maxhagenauer24]

@stefanblue660 Well it's probably impossible to find the first cause while in the causation system, that's the thing.

[@randomeyes]

​@@stefanblue660so there's higher dimensions which will provide answers about lower dimensions.. Our brain is not capable of working infinite dimensions.. impossible.. i may have typed a load of nonsense there but I'm just saying what's in my little brain 😊

[@brunoheggli2888]

Because of me!

[@cifey]

I think Seinfeld made a whole series about this. He determined that the 2nd law of thermodynamics more or less precludes the phyiscal structure of our universe to collapse into stasis within our observable dimension set.

[@erdtreeseal]

it's certainly a fun exercise in contemplation, but the question always bothers me fundamentally because what exactly is "nothing"? Just because we have a concept doesn't mean it exists outside of our heads.

[@AlFresco3442]

Yes, you can't really describe 'nothing' without quantifying it in some way or at least imbuing it with some properties...and if it has properties then it's not nothing, it's something. That way lies madness.

[@ManiBalajiC]

​@@AlFresco3442it's just an absence of matter , and space time for it to exist.

[@digitalfootballer9032]

It's impossible to quantify, because if there was completely nothing, then nobody would be there to analyze it.

[@erdtreeseal]

@@ManiBalajiC but there is no evidence of any absence of both matter and spacetime

[@AnuragGupta-ms8vj]

There will always be something , when you move in any direction tending to infinity you will find something , even if we find nothing and nothing tends to infinity , even then you will find something Something will always be there !!!!

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

In my opinion, all those scientific questions Mr. Rees mentions are irrelevant to the question we are focused on.

[@johnsgarage6622]

Agreed, too much discussion about what we know already.

[@sven888]

@@johnsgarage6622 Bread and games...

[@dangermann7460]

I thought that too. Doesn’t really address the question.

[@Jalcolm1]

You cannot get outside the system and so you cannot have the view from outside. We are bound within and must be clear what viewpoints we cannot adopt.

[@Jadranas]

Because, if there wasn't anything, there would be no one to ask such a question.

[@beam5655]

Clever, but not a valid answer. You are just sidestepping the question. The universe existed before life, and the question was just as valid then as it is now.

[@lordbunbury]

@@beam5655The question is a very human one. Without humans the question wouldn’t exist. We experience the universe in a limited human way. For the universe, the universe just is, and makes perfect ‘sense’, and is bound by, and free of, all kinds of rules we can’t even imagine because we’re limited by being human.

[@keesdevos4816]

The beginning of misunderstanding is not to ackknowledge that electrons do the same "calculations" that we can derive. Than one should begin to understand that the universe could be programmed if every electron is capable of executing any operation. The "program", allthough immense is such that we are bound to get conscient off (since one particle governs all there is); only to conclude that nothing is to change about it. Embracing that (Spinosa) was possible without physics. It is remarkeble, that the "conscious" minds on public media never philosophy about this obvious insight. And so the beginning of this universe is only to be understood if the right people in the right future learn to live a full life of understanding and motivation. Anyway, who is expecting an end of our world. The fuller one's life now, delivers a lot of necessairy patience and future prospects. If on board with these principles, more people should be able to emcompass maximal personal responsibility. For me it was the reason to become the first man behind a child carriedge; in hindsight a very good choice almost 60 years ago and it saved me a lot of unnecessairy "half knowledge".

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

'Why is there anything at all?' Is that the same as 'The universe is contingent, just like everything else in the universe, so what effect brought about the universe?' Does the question 'Why is there anything at all?' presuppose `nothing' or 'nothingness' as a primary?

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

One billionth of a second is to fast for us to experience, so I guess it’s fair to say that in that amount of time time we are not conscious. Matter and atoms move a distance that is so small, that we are not conscious while they are covering that tiny distance. The time frame we are conscious of is made up of time frames where we are not conscious, so how can we be conscious at all. Now let’s imagine that we are forever looking at a screen that never change’s colour. That screen would continuously be in the present, or would it. You see, our consciousness involves time, like a moving environment or clock. We get a personal sense of how long we’ve been staring at this unchanging screen, and our thoughts are changing. So now this is the opposite as mentioned above. Our consciousness is moving forward in time, but the screen we are staring at is unchanging, nonetheless the screen has to be moving forward in time because our consciousness is. We also need to visualise a colour to be a conscious being, whether we look at or imagine it. Now let’s say this screen we are looking at is what we are imagining and there’s no physical thing we are looking at. If so, then this screen we are imagining becomes the physical thing we are looking at. If for the whole time we are looking at this unchanging screen we were not conscious, it would seem to us that the screen would change to another colour in the blink of an eye, because we don’t have any memory of being unconscious (such as in a billionth of a second). If a group or infinite amount of people were zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one. But would everyone agree with what colour the numbers are, or how far away they are. For numbers to exist, you need a three dimensional space between your vision and the numbers, you need colour, and you need gaps or boundaries in between the numbers. All numbers are made of the same digit one, but the gaps and boundaries in between numbers truly are different from the digit ones that make numbers. Now, because every one is now one point, does that mean every one is now agreeing with the same number. Let’s say five points from that group saw the numbers as a different colour, does that mean they will form a different point of the same colour consciousness. They say during the Big Bang, different forces made one single force. Would it be possible for a colour conscious point, number conscious point, distance conscious point, to make one single point. Why does an hour seem like an hour to us and not one second or one year. If one week was like one second to an infinitely long falling line of dominos, would it feel like it’s acting at its own free will. Imagine if you kept mixing pinballs together forever that are the same size, and you still end up with one pinball exactly the same size. That’s what would happen if you kept on mixing zero dimensional points together, you would still end up with one single zero dimensional point without any dimensions. Let’s say 20 zero dimensional points are mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point, and one individual zero dimensional point mixes in, it would still be like two individual points mixing together. This individual zero dimensional point that has mixed in with the zero dimensional point made of 20 individual points, would make the point made of 20 points half as different, then after having done that, it would be meaningless because it would now be mixed in with the other 20 points and be part of one single point. Or would this individual point devour the 20 others, so the 20 others would become as meaningless as one individual point mixed in, followed by this individual point that devoured the 20 others becoming meaningless as it to would be one point mixed in with the rest. If a number of points are mixed together to make one single point, would all the points agree with what number they are looking at. If you were part of another point because you disagree with the other points on what colour the number is in the point you’re in, you would be in two seperate points at once. When we’re not conscious (such as in a billionth of a second), we don’t exist. If we’re in two points at once, it’s faster than our consciousness, because it’s the same as shifting between two points of consciousness infinitely fast. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so does that mean we’re each a seperate zero dimensional point. When we don’t have a sense of being such as in a billionth of a second, we are nothing, so we can’t be a zero dimensional point. If we’re in one point we are conscious but we are mixed in with the other points to make one single point, so we exist but don’t exist. All numbers are just the digit one that is a certain length up the number line. What makes four four or nine nine. Four is made of two twos so are you looking at four or two. Nine is made of three threes so are you looking at three or nine. When we look at two or three things we know there is two or three without counting them. When we have to count something we are not conscious of how many a there, a bit like like not being conscious of what happens at a billionth of a second (if we were we would experience time going a lot slower). If all numbers are the same digit one, do we get an illusion of how far up the number line they are. We need two different colours for numbers to exist. Like numbers could all colours be the same digit one but we just have a dilution of how far up the number line they are. If we are zero dimensional points mixed in with a heap of other zero dimensional points, we would all agree with the other points on what number we are focusing our attention on because we would all be one point. But if we disagreed on what colour the numbers or background was, would we form our own seperate point. If we swapped the numbers we are focusing on for the colours the numbers and background are, would that do anything. What if the point was made of 20 individual points, then split to form 20 individual points. You are now theorising the existence of 20 individual points, so now you yourself are an individual point with a consciousness of 20, so by looking at these 20 scattered points you are looking at yourself. If there are multiple other points mixed in with you they all to would get the illusion they are seeing 20 scattered points. If one point consisted of multiple points, it wouldn’t consist of a number of points because there would be no order. You could keep mixing an infinite number of zero dimensional points points together forever and still end up with one single zero dimensional point. If there were different points scattered around because every point had different opinions of what colour the numbers were, and we don’t know how many individual points are scattered around, we theorising this would be an individual point with a consciousness of infinity or nothing. If only two multi point points exist, one good way to leave the point we’re in and enter the other multi point point would be to disagree with the other points we’re mixed with on what number we are focusing on, or forget what number we are focusing on. If you have say five different things, even though they are different things what makes them the same is they are in the same category of being a different thing. To escape this to truly get not just a different thing but a different category, is if we look at the gaps or boundaries in between numbers because they are different to the digit ones that are either side of them. If we have a red square on the left and blue square on the right, and they switch places infinitely fast, what happens is the blue square is on the left infinitely fast then on the left continuously. Could the two squares remain in their spaces, then remain there infinitely fast followed by continuously, without leaving their spaces in the first place. You can’t see what space is made of because the blocks or material the make space would not contain space. Imagine a nut and jellybean made one. You can’t see what the jellybean and nut are made from because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut, and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. What if the jellybean and nut was overall space, not mattering if they were both next to each other, or miles or light years apart, because they both make up overall space. Just as the building blocks that make space wouldn’t contain space (making you blind towards them), you can’t see what both the jellybean and nut are made from, because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. Think of a tank filled with jellybeans and nuts. The jellybeans and nuts would be the cause of the stuff inside the tank to exist, at the same time the jellybeans and nuts (being overall space) could be outside the tank, each having their own seperate causes of existence by the stuff that makes them. So if time stops, the cause doesn’t stop. A domino that is falling over will cause the one next to it to fall over, followed by the one next to it. But if time stops, so everything freezes, the cause of something doesn’t stop, because what something is made of causes it to exist.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

Imagine how a prediction isn’t real but the neurons are real and reflect that potential. Now imagine a simulation and it’s the same. Built on reality but not real in the full spectrum. That’s why we imagine the details between and expand our understanding and knowledge so that we can imagine the paths to those things and we alter our current to align. Like lining reality up with the potential and then revealing it in reality because of the pieces. If the pieces are what make something real then what about all potentials and how they aren’t current, the only thing real would be now but shifting currently which makes all real.

[@fjorir_official]

That was a very lengthy way of saying I don't know. It's like being asked why there are cars and responding with telling you we will get there with technicalities about spark plugs and cam belts.

[@radiobill4082]

Micro versus macro. Are they one system? Does quantum theory apply here? 🤔

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

If there’s a red square on the left and blue square on the right, and both squares switch places infinitely fast, both squares would be on opposite sides infinitely fast before being on opposite sides continuously. Would it be possible for the squares to stay on the sides they are on, then suddenly be on the sides they are on infinitely fast without switching sides in the first place. If they did that it would be like they had suddenly switched sides even though they haven’t, like a sort of lie.

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@JSBallard]

Doesn’t matter. This is our lot. You are born, experience existence, then who knows. Something beautiful in not knowing.

[@fred_2021]

There are fruitful ways to spend one's brief sojourn in this world; IMO, attempting, sometimes with significant angst, to answer this question via verbal reasoning, isn't one of them. Referred to by M.R. @ 3:25 : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. Search result: "This profound statement is attributed to the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. It appears in his work “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”, where he explores the limits of language and the boundaries of meaningful expression. Wittgenstein suggests that there are aspects of reality that cannot be adequately captured or communicated through language. When faced with such ineffable subjects, silence becomes the most fitting response. In this concise aphorism, Wittgenstein invites us to recognize the limitations of our linguistic tools and to appreciate the mysteries that lie beyond them. Sometimes, silence speaks more eloquently than words ever could".

[@mitseraffej5812]

There must have always been something, but not necessarily something we could ever understand.

[@gmonorail]

are time and matter coincidental? did both come into being together?

[@No-xw3jl]

time has always been in existence - infinitely, it's just that we've picked up on what it is. It was always here before us & will continue to exist after us.

[@fre2025]

Time is a characteristic of our universe. Time might not have existed before the Big Bang.

[@user-gr3oo5ux9x]

The strong insight here is that nothing exist.how? Nobody can answer that question

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

So there is never nothing but it can look like nothing to us since we are specific something. Once we edit the body way more and can see more of “reality” then we can predict more but also see the differences in between and where there was nothing, we see something.

[@AnuragGupta-ms8vj]

Law of commonsense - there will always be something , even when nothing tends to infinity, nothing is also something

[@jingye88]

How can we know our existence is real? What if we are imagining it, while the truth is we are just a process and we came from nothingness and end up in the same void.

[@jasonz9902]

Obviously Nothingness can not exist for we are here to say otherwise. So why something and not nothing well it is because nothingness cannot exist and this is as far as I can get.

[@ManiBalajiC]

For something to forever exist can only be an illogical answer.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Existence exists. Ayn Rand

[@digitalfootballer9032]

Asking why anything exists rather than nothing is like asking why males have nipples. They just do, and it just does. There really isn't an answer for either 😂

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@digitalfootballer9032 In my understanding, men have nipples because it is easier, more economical, to let nipples survive in a vestigial form than to edit them out of the male embryo developmental process. Question: Is there a mammal where the males do not have vestigial nipples?

[@NafeDev-yo4lo]

Less illogical than nothingness since its the truth of existence

[@vivianwiseJUSTUS]

how can we discern and question about "nothing"? Where does this information to question anything, come from?

[@pezz8266]

The anthropic principle, no one is asking this question in the infinite universes that don't exist

[@producerjc2941]

I think he's simply evading the question because the simple answer is, it's impossible to answer and science can't get there. It's intriguing watching minds in the construct trying to comprehend it but don't realize we're not designed to fully understand. The human mind can't grasp certain things. The wave function collapse, the logical problems regarding infinity. What came before the Universe and what came before that and so on. Who designed the Universe if it was designed and who designed them or that mind? There's an I finite regress problem that originates in the mind no matter which way you try to examine it.

[@gandrade27]

"Something" and "nothing" are abstract linguistic concepts born of human cognition. So are the words in these sentences. The question and all attempts to answer it share that same origin. Hence, the question is moot. When you ask or attempt to answer it, you're not saying anything that relates necessarily to a "reality" at all, much less one that is independent of our own cognition. Even if you later come to believe, through scientific inquiry, empirical evidence, logic or reason that you've arrived at an answer, you will still be trapped within that same linguistic, conceptual, cognitive domain. So, you will not have arrived at anything meaningful or objectively true in the sense that motivates the question. Realizing this, and being able to embrace and accept it, liberates you from any fear or anxiety that the question induces.

[@user-bk6qo3gp7h]

The question " why is there anything at all?" Is seeking purpose. if i understood what Rees said, Rees is trying to explain what existed at the time of the generally accepted Big Bang theory and our continuous search back in time, if indeed time existed, but not purpose.

[@larrycarter3765]

Because if there was Nothing he wouldn't be there to ask the question.

[@srb20012001]

Begs the further quantum physics philosophical question, "Why are there observers in the Universe?" Without observers would there be collapse of the wave function from superposition? Would that state constitute Existence, given it being a potential of sorts?

[@DarkSkay]

Nothingness would be a place without rules. A property shared with the most rigorous notion of randomness. Such places have never been found. Neither nothingness nor randomness have ever been found. Moreover, how would it be possible for places without rules, like nothingness or randomness, not to stay undetectable by definition? By the way, mathematical formulas can only create sequences called "pseudo-random" which satisfy certain statistical criteria. "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" (Wittgenstein) can also be understood as a paradox, perhaps a humourous one, since the sentence makes a statement, directly speaks about the exact thing claimed impossible to speak about. The observation above reminds me about what Roger Penrose said about Schödinger's Cat. He thinks the original intention was to illustrate the absurdity: a cat can't be dead and alive at the same time.

[@PhatLvis]

Asking WHY is almost an evasion, since that question might be meaningless (and indeed would Have to be meaningless, from a purely materialist perspective - the dominant fashion in science). In any event, it will always, perforce, require conjecture. The harder, more vexing question - since in principle it's answerable - is HOW is there anything.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Your HOW put the universe in time, as opposed to time being in the universe. Besides which I would say, How has meaning in relation to things in the universe, not in relation to the universe per se. Still, How is much more concrete than Why.

[@jungletiger1900]

All the great minds on planet earth will be humbled when God reveals himself, for he will not allow man to carry on destroying his earth.

[@watgaz518]

Everything began in a vast blank canvas of nothingness. An incomprehensible environment which exponential primordial forces somehow? began. Through eons, they eventually massed as one. This ‘one’ was our creator. Through trial and error he built an enigmatic universe and put in it, intelligent beings, to savour the magnificence of his efforts.

[@quakers200]

There is something rather than nothing so we can watch KZbin videos ask the question why is there nothing rather than something worth watching. I used to ask the question where was I before I was born. The answer was I was nowhere because I was nothing. Then I wondered did anything exist before I was born. Perhaps everything I saw was as new as it appeared to me. There were my older brothers and sisters and mom assuring me that there was a past before I was born. Then as I grew up it seemed that at least I could be sure that my life had a past. Then I realized that I did not remember being a baby. Perhaps that was not real either. Time seemed to be missing all over the place. The last seemed more real than the future but then there were times I felt that I had been here and now before. There was even a word for it. Deja Vu. Sometimes dreams were so real to me I had to check it out. Had I opened that Christmas present, no it was still wrapped up. Was the old dog dead 1 or was it a dream. Just a dream wonderful! I would see a teacher in a store or getting a haircut and it felt so strange. People keep existing when you are not with them. A lot to keep up at night wondering and even now the answers don't quite get rid of that feeling.

[@No-xw3jl]

he answered "what" happened but not "why" it happened, so the title is misleading

[@rodneyjones8998]

I feel like Martin is making light of the question by ignoring it. I'm aware no one can definitively answer the question, but why this is, why this question is disregarded by materialists? would perhaps be as fascinating to explore as the question itself.

[@No-xw3jl]

i can answer it & i am someone, so your statement that no one can definitively answer the question is incorrect & shallow. Just because you don't know who has the answer doesn't mean there isn't 1.

[@stevefaure415]

There has been no progress made in this question. The question does not correlate with our understanding (or, quite possibly, our misunderstanding) of the universe's origins. It's the same dead-end that science always leads us down. You see that big "Why?" road sign and you have to take an immediate U-turn back, to employ further metaphors of progress. There is no why gravity or why inflation. Scientists absolutely abhor these questions.

[@ashwinwriter]

I bet Robert is quite disappointed with this interview. I'm glad he kept it short.

[@cthoadmin7458]

Was nothing the antecedent state to something? And what is this nothing? No space, no time, no matter, no quantum field, no laws of nature... nothing, nada, zip. Could such a state ever have existed, if that's not a contradiction in terms. Perhaps the question is the wrong one to ask.

[@digitalfootballer9032]

Agreed. Complete and utter nothingness is just simply not a possible state. If it was we wouldn't be here to question it. Even if we ourselves are an illusion or a simulation or something of the kind, that still rules out nothingness because something must be making it all happen.

[@davidchamberlain5425]

Our tiny brains cannot deal with infinity and GOD.Does not matter who you are 🤔 This world is just a fleeting show For mans illusion given🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@glidingforward]

Because like in mathematics, there is no difference between existence and logical consistency.

[@n00dle10]

We exist in a sub-set of The Everything. There has always been The Everything. Because The Everything IS everything, we must exist.

[@ERiCDrAyViN]

It's like Zero is not a real number, where there has to be a value above 'nothing'. The universe appears to be mathematical, so can you have math, if you have no numbers?

[@7sonero7]

Unfortunately, none of us alive today will know for sure the answer....in 100 or 200 or 300 years maybe.

[@ndowroccus4168]

Why? Because reality demanded it. Basically, there was no other way.

[@srb20012001]

Wittgenstein was right, Existence is a brute fact, and one must leave it at that.

[@billcook7483]

You were right to disagree with him, it is a very valid question. He just tried to fob you off with a stupid answer. If you'd asked Brian Greene he'd have given a sensible answer , not a fob off !

[@Nesmaniac]

All that matter packed into a small space why would it have not been a black hole of super massive proportions? How could the energy all expand unless there was no gravity at the beginning. I'm thinking there was no space so there was no gravity maybe I answered my own question.

[@timrichmond5226]

All of the laws of physics can be broken down into a fundamental law - The only potential with a zero chance of occurrence is nothing.

[@SheeplessShepherd]

It's even more mind blowing imo, everything didn't come from nothing, it has always been here 🤯 🙌

[@johnhowshall8709]

The cause of the universe cannot be explained by anything that is confined to our universe. This cause must transcend our universe. It must transcend space and time.

[@simonhibbs887]

And presumably that cause must then itself have a cause that transcends it, etc.

[@johnhowshall8709]

@@simonhibbs887 Not in the slightest. The “who created God” argument is only put forth through a misunderstanding of cause and effect. Cause and effect only exist in a temporal reality. It’s only a stack of turtles if the turtles exist within time. I’m not talking about that at all. I was saying that the cause for our universe of space and time must exist outside of space and time. Our existence is moment by moment in a temporal lineage. We focus so much on this that we can’t even fathom any other state of existence. Is it hard to imagine a cause for the universe that exists not as we do but in a non temporal state? What would a non temporal state look like? Picture a creating cause that exists not from the beginning of time to the end of time but rather outside of time all together.

[@digitalfootballer9032]

​@@johnhowshall8709To me, your explanation is the only logical one, as our universe and spacetime just forming out of another only compounds the problem of infinite regression. Something must exist beyond our spacetime that isn't subject to the rules of it.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@digitalfootballer9032 We can use another word than causation for atemporal relationships if you like, how about necessitation? In fact there is a theory along these lines in physics called the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal which lead to a series of related proposals. They are solutions to the equations of quantum mechanics describing the hypothetical conditions at the formation of the universe that lead to the Big Bang. They show how a Minkowski four dimensional spacetime with a non-zero vacuum energy might emerge from a three dimensional space, without a time dimension, which resolves from a quantum structure called an instanton. The Hawking-Turok solution describes how such a condition might arise with zero initial energy. In effect it describes a universe emerging with no pre-existing physical state according to the equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics. In these proposals we get a universe from nothing in the sense that they do not emerge from anything physical, and time emerges as a consequence of the theory. As you say, we can’t explain this in terms of temporal causation, but rather we might say the outcome is necessitated by the principles of quantum mechanics. The above is a very brief and therefore incomplete and approximate summary, if you’re curious there’s a great write up on the “Centre for Theoretical Cosmology” under “Quantum Origins”. The point is, if these proposals are correct, there is something that is necessary for this process, which is the principles of quantum mechanics. These cause the result, but atemporally.

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

If a number of people were zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be all one zero dimensional point. No one could have a different opinion. Imagine if you keep mixing an infinite number of pinballs that are the same size forever, and you still end up with one pinball that is the same size. That’s what it would be like if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together, you would still end up with one zero dimensional point without any dimensions. These zero dimensional points may not be in any space, or separated by any space, but be separated by time. One way to leave the point that you and the other points are part of and enter the other multi point point would be to disagree with the other points you’re mixed with on what number you are looking at. Or another way would be to just forget the number. If one individual point mixed in with another point composed of a number of points, it would still be like two individual points mixing together, so this individual point would make the multi point point its mixing into half as different then the individual point would become meaningless because it would now be part of one point. Or could this individual point completely take over the multi point point so the multi point point becomes as meaningless as one point mixed in with a multi point point, following by the individual point that is taking over (as it to is now part of a multi point point. What makes four four or what makes nine nine. Four is made of two twos, so are you looking at four or two. Nine is made of three threes so are you looking at nine or three. All numbers are really just the digit one that is a certain length up the number line. What if all colours were the digit one a certain way up the colour line. If every point in the multi point point agreed on a number, but switched the number for the colours of the number and background. If a zero dimensional point made of 20 individual zero dimensional points split you would end up with 20 scattered individual points. You are now theorising there are 20 scattered points, so now you might be an individual point with a consciousness of 20. So by looking at these imaginary scattered points you are looking at yourself. What if you were mixed in with say 97 other individual points, and the 97 other points also thought they were the ones theorising 20 scattered points. You and the 97 other points that form the multi point point don’t make 98 individual points because you all make one point. Our sense of being zero dimensional, so could we theoretically be zero dimensional points. Would we be one individual point. Or would we be a number of points scattered around mixed in with other points and separated at the same time. We can not experience a billionth of a second, so during this short time frame we don’t exist. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, wether we are imagining it or looking at it physically. If we were not focusing on a colour, or did not have a sense of being for 100 years, the 100 years would go by like a flash, because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being (such as a billionth of a second). If you had say 9 different thing, the reason they would not be different is because they would all be in the same category of being a different thing. To escape this and get something that is a different category, you have to look at the gaps or boundaries in between numbers, the are different than the digit ones each side of them that make numbers. Could we just have two multi point points, one being a digit one, and the other being a boundary in between numbers. Could you really count boundaries in between numbers, could we develop a new kind of logic based on boundaries in between numbers. You can’t see what space is made of because the blocks or material the make space would not contain space. Imagine a nut and jellybean made one. You can’t see what the jellybean and nut are made from because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut, and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. What if the jellybean and nut was overall space, not mattering them both being next to each other, or miles or light years apart. Just as the building blocks that make space wouldn’t contain space (making you blind towards them), you can’t see what both the jellybean and nut are made from, because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. Think of a tank filled with jellybeans and nuts. The jellybeans and nuts would be the cause of the stuff inside the tank to exist, at the same time the jellybeans and nuts (being overall space) could be outside the tank, each ones existence being caused by what ever they are made out of. So if time stops, and every thing freezes, the cause of something doesn’t stop because the existence of things is caused by whatever they are made out of. Imagine if you keep mixing hundreds or an infinite amount of pinballs together that are exactly the same size, and you still end up with one pinball the same size. That is what would happen if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so would it be theoretically possible to all be mixed together not physically, but as zero dimensional points. Say you have one zero dimensional point composed of a large number of zero dimensional points which is still one point , and one individual point is mixed in. That individual point would make that group of points half as different, and then be countless as it is now mixed in with the group of points. Or would this one point devour the group of points making them twice as different and take over so the group of points become countless along with the individual point. If these two points were the only two colours that existed, they would have to each become twice as different to turn into each other, and have to both become half as different to turn into two colours that don’t exist. If there’s a red square on the left and blue square on the right, and both squares switch places infinitely fast, both squares would be on opposite sides infinitely fast before being on opposite sides continuously. Would it be possible for the squares to stay on the sides they are on, then suddenly be on the sides they are on infinitely fast without switching sides in the first place. If they did that it would be like they had suddenly switched sides even though they haven’t, like a sort of lie. If a number of individual people were zero dimensional points mixed together, would they all agree with what number they are looking at, would one second be like one second, or would everyone have the same memories. One billionth of a second is to fast for us to experience, so in that time frame we are basically not conscious. If the length of time that goes by until we are aware is like a page in a cartoon book you flip through, if you pull the jellybean and nut close enough so they are both on the same page, a long amount of time will be shorter than the length of time that goes past until we become conscious, and the page will flip over in such a way that we are not seeing time go by as steps. If one week is like one second to a falling line of dominos, would the falling line of dominos feel like it’s acting at its own free will.

[@DH-rj2kv]

Why not? If there was nothing, no one would ever know anyway.

[@gmonorail]

nothing-turtles all the way down

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

'Why is there anything at all?' That is a question. None the less, there are implicit claims in that question. The way you answer the question is to make those claims explicit.

[@theantinatalismzone3982]

Martin is in Rocky Horror

[@maxpower252]

Because I wanted to

[@buttegowda]

There is something rather than nothing … due to senses, brain and intellect that we posses. Try to ask a rock or a dead body this question and see what answer you get. Upanishads explain this well

[@CellarDoorCS]

If you were born in the middle ages - a typical human only had a tiny fraction of the knowledge we currently have. Their entire existence derived from a worldview so basic by today's standards, with much shorter lives as well. Now imagine finding meaning in that life and asking the same questions back then.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

I can imagine myself relying on Hawking's Model Dependent reality and believing that the supernatural was the origin and context for the natural.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

Why Is There Anything At All? Because nothing is impossible

[@brendangreeves3775]

The state of absolute nothingness is impossible. The dynamical relative state is fundamental. All truth is relative.

[@Truthwelltoldtr]

I kind of understand the question which intrinsicly stems from the matter vs anti-matter imbalance. Well I look at it this way: To me this concept of “Nothing” is a made up concept in the first place. There’s and there was and there will be always something. I’ll make a simplification to state my case. From maths we know that the number lines stretch from minus to plus infinity (and that there are greater and lesser infinities) so why not just accept and come to terms with the fact that whatever is out there and we are made up of is boundless and devoid of the term nothing. If there’s a nothing in this universe that’s just the concept of nothing itself.

[@godmode3611]

Theists loves questions that make no sense like who created us or why do anything exist. Questions that assume a truth that needs a response. From what we know there is no creator nor a logical need for it. And there is no reason or a need for it. The Universe just is.

[@joegibbskins]

Everywhere we look there’s something. Even the vacuum of space is filled with quantum fluctuations. I think it’s time we accepted that it’s just easier for there to be something rather than nothing.

[@utube7930]

I think it would be "easier" if there was nothing then you wouldn't have to explain anything

[@joegibbskins]

@@utube7930 but there isn’t nothing. Things that are radically unlikely exist (like you and me, for instance) because of how vast the universe is, which leads me to believe that it is more like for material things to exist rather than not exist, or at least that should be our starting position

[@maxhagenauer24]

But WHY is there something rather than nothing? Probably the most important question ever.

[@maxhagenauer24]

​@utube7930 I agree, it would seem more logical for there to be nothing as we wouldn't run into these paradoxes and problems in logic with causation and reason and unanswerable questions. That's what arries the question even more.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@joegibbskins The only thing we can conclude for sure about the universe is that it must be possible. How likely it was to exist, or if other worlds are also possible, or also exist, and therefore how 'easy' our universe's existence might be would seem to be unanswerable questions.

[@clayz1]

Why is there anything at all? That is really the only question we can ask, and it is the only tool we have, and it leads exactly nowhere. Life is to be lived, that is all. Try to make something of our selves at least.

[@sven888]

Martin Rees - Why Is There Anything At All? Genesis 101 - Because it is not good to be alone!

[@mobiustrip1400]

Who is asking the question? Who is this asking? Who is curious?