Richard Swinburne - Why is There 'Something' Rather Than 'Nothing'?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.พ. 2024
- Access Closer to Truth's library of 5,000+ videos for free: bit.ly/376lkKN
Here’s the ultimate question: what if it were true that everything always and forever had been ‘nothing’? Imagine that not a single thing ever existed-not emptiness, not blankness, not even the existence of emptiness, or the meaning of blankness. If you can image that, now ask yourself: why is there anything at all?
Watch more videos on the mystery of existence: shorturl.at/bexMQ
Shop Closer To Truth merch on Bonfire: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He is a former Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford and is currently Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion.
For free subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: bit.ly/3He94Ns
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.
I love going to the place in my head where I ponder this every now and again. Contemplating it doesn't panic me at all. Quite the opposite.
These big questions can sometimes make me depressed, if I think about it too much. Yet I can't stop pondering
Just keep pondering.
I’ve had that same question for many years. And a mild panic sets in whenever I think about it. No answer will suffice.
Why won't God suffice?
@@o2xbBecause, why is there God instead of nothing?
Also, importantly, and yet to be shown, is there even a god?
@@bozo5632Maybe the nothingness is God. No limits. No time. Just infinite possibilities and potential for existence. It/God is the basis for existence. Everything including us is literally of it.
@@ronhudson3730 Maybe cheesecake is feathers.
@@ronhudson3730You can apply that to the Cosmos.
Whether one believes in a God or not, isn't it interesting that either way, the answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" becomes pointless past a certain point, for the same reasons.
Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the sleep and this question pops up in my mind and it is a bewilderingly mysterious feeling!
Just the fact we are here and for such a limited short time is bewildering and mysterious. Think about your entire life up to this point and the fact that it could at any moment and eventually will end abruptly in one moment. Almost like we were never here, yet we were.
@@Resmith18SRjust wait for 4800000 and you have a chance to be reborn in the same universe if it exists else if there is a multiverse you live forever
@@ManiBalajiC Ok, I believe you. 🤣😆🤣
I spent 3 months trying to think or imagine my way to nothing. I also read several books about “nothing.” They didn’t offer much help. In the end I’ve concluded a pure nothing isn’t a possible state of existence. Existence requires properties that can exist. Why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing isn’t a possible state of existence.
@@drewj4297 I guess sometimes we have to admit the fact that we don't have answers to certain questions now. May be we will have answers in the future.
Anyone else tune in to these shows and think... "THIS time! He's gonna SOLVE it!" ?
Keep searching Robert sir, I love your work x
What I don't understand is why people assume that nothingness is possible.
Something has to come from something, but there must have been a beginning to something which came from nothing. A contradiction but how else can it be?
@@tweedx7772 I would look at reality and what humanity has experienced throughout its history.
Reality has not shown a single example of creating something from nothing.
All that humans notice is that things transform from already existing things.
Even a human is just the transformation of the sexual cells of his parents.
On the other hand, there is a mistake in interpreting that someone could distinguish nothingness or that there would be proof of its "existence."
I don't think anyone is assuming that. Certainly neither RLK nor Swinburne assumed that, and nor have any of the other interviewees I've seen asked this question.
@@tweedx7772The Big Bang gets around that by saying space and time emerges during the expansion of the Cosmos.
@@simonhibbs887 Ah! Is it just a rhetorical question? Do they already know the answer?
MUCH better sound quality!! thank you!
My view is that some questions cannot be answered simply because we don't have enough knowledge and will never have enough knowledge. Any guess we make will not just be wrong but would be very wrong and we would be fooling ourselves as to its correctness. It is enough to simply marvel at the properties the universe does have. That is not to say that such a question should not be asked. I enjoy these philosophical questions. An alternative phrasing would be 'why does the universe exist at all?' To that we do not have an answer. We have logic and reason but that is insufficient to get an answer.
A lot of questions can be solved when we look from a different angle, but that does not mean we will be able to proof them. Somethings can not be proven.
@@blijebijgreat, but logic can’t help with the whys. Only the hows.
@@dr_shrinker true ^^
Attributing the existence of the universe to god(s) leave me feeling emptier than the vast spaces between galaxies.
God is just a term...it means nothing, what or who created the universe is a question no mind could ever answer...it is beyond the comprehension of mind..
Because if there was nothing we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
Robert looking into the camera and breaking the third wall , well done sir!
Fourth
@@drzecelectric4302 you’re correct
This is a serious and real question. Probably the most important and deepest question ever. Its "why is there something rather than nothing?" and "what is the purpose of all of this?". What is the purpose of there being something at all? When you think of it through just logic, it would actually seem to make more sense that there would be nothing because there wouldn't need to be a reason that there is nothing or a cause or anything. But if you have something then you would have an eternal un caused causer or an infinite regression or no matter what it is, it all is crazy to comprehend, almost like its illogical, yet here we are with something instead of nothing.
If there was nothing there would be nobody to ponder the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?'. The question would not be asked.
@noelwass4738 The question would still exist, there doesn't need to be someone to ask it. Before any life forms existed to ask the question, the universe and everything in it still existed instead of nothing, there is a reason for it. Even if that did somehow matter then if there was nothing then there wouldn't need to be anyone to question it so it makes perfect sense.
a similar question is: what is the purpose of existence... but since existence cannot possibly emerge from nothing then the purpose of existing seems to be more of an oxymoron/paradox... other variations can be considered, such as, why this vs that type or form of existence and the role of the rules or laws binding it all together...
*"a similar question is: what is the purpose of existence"*
... The purpose of "Existence" is to expand its understanding of what constitutes existence. This is facilitated through the acquisition of *new information.* Anything that presents itself within reality is challenging "Nonexistence" as to its justification for existing.
Existence "exists" to justify its own existence, and it will keep expanding its internal database of information until it achieves that justification.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLChello again 1... "..expand its understanding..."
this has been your main argument on the topic for quite a while now and only an allergic reaction to your coment space could have possibly overlooked :)
"..to justify its own existence.."
my take is that, no such action (justification) is necessarily attributing additional value and therefore violating the parsimonious principle... unless such principle doesn't hold true, that is 🤔
@@r2c3 *"my take is that, no such action (justification) is necessarily attributing additional value and therefore violating the parsimonious principle... unless such principle doesn't hold true, that is"*
... Well, my take is based on the "principle of sufficient reason" which argues that all actions/moves/changes require *justification* since the simplest move is to make no move at all.
*Example:* If you got up out of a chair, then there would need to be a *sufficient reason* for you to do that. The simplest move would be to simply remain in the chair.
Since there are all kinds of movement, actions and changes taking place in the universe, the parsimonious principle would not apply.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCI can agree with "all action/moves/changes require justification" but "the simplest move is to make no move" sounds a bit contradictory...
"since there are all kinds of actions, the parsimonious principle would not apply"
you have all the right to question it's validity under the prerogative of perplexity... but since the true nature of existence is beyond my current capability to process then the only option available, to me, is to fall back to the very few concepts/rules/principles that have been empirically validated over time... a quote goes like "if the rules are bended then they can definitely be broken" so, a reaction is justified, by an action but not the other way around...
@@r2c3 *""if the rules are bended then they can definitely be broken" so, a reaction is justified, by an action but not the other way around."*
... I'm not arguing over the justification of a subsequent "reaction." I'm arguing that the action that precipitated the reaction must be justified. Every action is predicated on necessity.
*"but "the simplest move is to make no move" sounds a bit contradictory..."*
... It was a figurative statement. A non-move is obviously not a move. However, remaining stationary is a state, so to no longer remain stationary requires some type of movement ... and that movement must be justified because the alternative is simply to remain stationary.
Just because we have a question doesn’t mean it has to have an answer that is meaningful . What does silence sound like ?
0:18 I understand your feelings sir.
Yes and it gives panick attack or just makes me lunatic😂.
Define what is Something and Nothing then proceed with the discussion. Without knowing what is nothing we can't know what is becoming something. It is being and becoming.
"Our bodies are given life from the midst of nothingness. Existing where there is nothing, is the meaning of the phrase "Form is emptiness". That all thing are provided for by nothingness, is the meaning of the phrase "Emptiness is form". One should not think that these are two separate things." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
In the final analysis, it may be determined that reality is infinite, and the finite cannot comprehend the infinite due to the confines of limitation. Regardless of which model we choose, Creationism or Darwinian, something has always been in existence, and that something is the essence of the universe.
There is no stopping point. Infinity.
As a Muslim I love that this question haunts him.
Well, if there were "nothing", then they wouldn't be seemingly endless videos talking about essentially nothing...
lol good one
Eternity is a long time without a proper Show
Asking why questions in science make no sense..
Only question that makes sense in science ...
IMO, there's only one answer we'll ever know... the universe exists, and that's all there is to it. There is no why. There is no how. The universe exists and that's that.
I don’t know the answer but my thinking does have a direction. Firstly I can’t see the notion of gods we can’t explain being the answer to a universe we can’t explain. Secondly I think it’s a trap to lump matter with spacetime as a whole that needs an origin. I’m reasonably comfortable with spacetime being infinite and without an origin. My problem is how can matter emerge out of spacetime ?
Matter does not emerge out of spacetime it defines spacetime.
According to ChatGPT: Flat spacetime is indeed possible without matter. In regions where there is an absence or negligible amount of matter and energy, the curvature of spacetime approaches a flat geometry as described by special relativity. So, while spacetime is influenced by matter, there are scenarios where it can be essentially flat in the absence of significant gravitational effects from matter.
As I said - “how can matter emerge out of spacetime ?” - Curved spacetime appears to be an emergent consequence of matter - is it possible that the relationship is bi-directional ?.
@@user-mc3zz4rn3bYes. Spacetime tells matter how to move while matter tells spacetime how to bend.
This reminds me of some of Philomena Cunk's best work.
Why there is " why " ? Because mind is everything. The reason why there is --questions-- is everything , consciouness is everything.
This trades one problem for an even worse problem. Mind cannot create and maintain physics. The Universe is everything and everywhere.
"Tiptoe through the tulips with me"
It would be rather boring if there was nothing rather than something.
Notrhingness is a concept within the mind.
The answer to this question is in another question - how?
Nothing is the cause of something. Everything happens FOR -> "no reason"
could mathematics bridge gap from infinitesimal zero point time to infinite time?
The answer is “if there were nothing, you would not be sitting here to ask questions.“
I think of the universe like the ultimate artist
were even the smallest particles know what they are doing and creating the most beautiful creations of art beyond our limited thinking at present, why do nothing when can create beauty..💙💫🙏
Are all human regular brain structure identical, if we compare regular brain with unregular brain owner, are they see and experience same universe...or not?
An un regular brain would experience a different universe.
@@kos-mos1127 yeah thats what I'm talking about. That why Universe shape like brain cells structure simulation....yeah😎 understand what I mean guys. Look like same but each of us living within our own universe.
@@User-xyxklyntrw The Universe is vast emptiness dotted with point of light.
I have actually found the answer to this question
See below for a full description
Comments are welcome:
There might be an infinite backward chain of explanations without an end.
However, then one can step outside this infinite chain and ask the question why this infinite chain of explanations exists.
But then that cause must have an explanation and so on..
So one will get an infinite number of more abstract causes explaining the totality of everything in the previous step..
It somehow starts to remind me of the mathematical fact that the set of all sets is not a set and some sort of generalizations of Gödels theorem.
I am also starting to think that "nothing" is just a human abstraction. "Nothing" is not really an option for existence.
One tricky issue is that things can 'exist' in completely different senses. An apple exists, but not in the same sense that the atoms composing it exist. When the apple is eaten the atoms are still around. The concept of apples exists. The concept of that particular apple exists, even after the apple itself doesn't. So in what sense does the universe exist, is it in the same sense as apples, or this apple, or atoms, or energy? Are there an infinite, recursive regression of senses in which things can exist?
I agree, there's something quirky about the nature of logic and mathematics, and it has to do with recursion. The set of all sets is recursive, and so are Gödel statements. Also consciousness is a recursive state of self awareness. I'm convinced that the mysterious nature of recursion is essential to an understanding of the mysterious nature of consciousness, and possibly of existence itself.
The Universe exits in the same sense as matter and energy.
@@kos-mos1127 As a physicalist I think that's most likely the case. I think energy, space and time, and thus everything that is, are all probably different manifestations of a single underlying phenomenon.
Nevertheless it seems as though the universe had a creation and therefore may conceivably be finite, at least into the past. If so there must be some cause more fundamental that the universe itself, and in what sense does or did that exist?
If you think that Nothing doesnt manifest, look at your own experience and realize that what is beyond your phenomenological state is Nothing itself.
For example, when you are in your bedroom, you are not in the store, that store itself is Nothing, we are aways surrounded by Nothing, like a person alone in a dark cave with a torch, it illuminates the place around them, but he is still surrounded by darkness.
@@simonhibbs887 It does not seem as though the universe has a creation. The Big Bang Theory is not a theory of creation it explains how the Cosmos evolved from a dense state with no structure to a less dense state with structure.
can u talk more about death? pls
Ever read 'Seth Speaks?' This book makes more sense than the bible ever could.
😂@@JustReed
@@jibijacob0001
Exactly. The bible is laughable.
@@JustReed yeah Because u r a joker
@@jibijacob0001
The bible is laughable because I'm a joker? Sorry, I can't take that credit the bible is laughable. The creators of this story/bible can take the credit.
Go from nothing to something/go from something to nothing - and decide what is going on.
WHY NOT?
"What is the purpose of life?...To be the eyes and ears and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool!"
Kurt Vonnegut, _Breakfast of Champions_
Even if it is a cyclical universe, there had to have been a start somehow. Hydrogen gas forming stars but what formed the hydrogen, and was the vacuum of space infinite or does it stretch where needed? Is there an edge to the universe? Arghh too much sensory overload!!
The vacuum of space is infinite. The Universe has no edge it extends infinitely in all directions.
What if the universe is like a Mandelbrot set?
The Universe is the set of all sets.
@@kos-mos1127 The omniverse, is the infinite set of all sets of sets of all sets.
@@David.C.Velasquez Omniverse is fiction.
@@kos-mos1127 You are fiction.
@@David.C.Velasquez Fictional entities are unable to interact because they lack the force to do so. So the claim that a fictional is false.
Its a bit pointless addressing the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' with the aim of establishing causes and effects. We assume that the universe operates in the way that we experience it as human beings, as a linear flow of time. Where as, time is as malleable as space and 'prior' to the big bang no more existed than the space did.
As human beings we can struggle with this sort of question but likely have no more evolved the capacity to answer it than an ant has evolved the capacity to create poetry.
Read the Rig Veda and Upanishads. The answer has been around for 3600 years. The intellect is not built to apprehend the infinite or eternally self evident. That which is of time and space cannot fathom that which is beyond it.
❤😊
"Why is there a physical Universe?" The 'simplest explanation' is not God - but the possibility that it has always existed.
This leads you to infinity of the matter...
that means literally nothing lmao
@@typedef_ Google "Past Eternal Universe".
@@richardlaiche8303 sure
*"Why is there a physical Universe?" The 'simplest explanation' is not God - but the possibility that it has always existed."*
... You're just playing kick-the-can with the question. If you argue that the universe has always existed, then you end up stuck trying to explain how matter and energy is formed. You must explain how something can exist without coming into existence (like everything else we observe). The answer "It just does!" is merely _avoiding_ or _giving up_ on the question.
Similar question, what's the north of north pole
At 1:50 - "Why is there anything at all, rather than a total blank, no space, no time, no laws, no god, no nothing."
Is a true vacuum, in the remotest depths of empty space, without laws? How can there be laws, in the absence of anything to draw on them? *This* suggests a phenomenology for virtual particles.
At 2:55 - "Why that stopping point is bound to be unanswerable..."
Perhaps we should think more in terms of a *starting* point. The tiniest starting point possible, where the laws of classical physics break down entirely, because of cube-root scaling. An object so small that classical physics cannot touch it. A domain characterized not by sterile, roll-of-dice randomness, but by possibility yearning to manifest.
At 3:08 - "Some would claim it's the laws of physics."
How about the laws of nothing? Can the purest nothingness have laws? How about the laws of possibility? The Feynman diagrams, with reference to virtual particles, with symmetries cascading from the void, seem to suggest as much. What are the laws of possibility? I suggest they're semiotic, and it can be helpful, in this regard, to become familiar with CS Peirce... his categories of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness resonate with primals that I can see applying to the subatomic domain.
The answer, at least to "why something rather than nothing", is suggested in the creative void. Whether or not God has a hand in any of this, our first priority is to establish what took place before God. Surely the void precedes God. Or is that blasphemy?
Mr. Robert, let's be serious, it would be ridiculous to things just pop into existence out of nothing...the existence its a state that can't be quantized.. we can't comprehend it because we think in 'start' and 'end'...maybe the true nature of existence is that it has to be real..no beginning, no end..anyway..if you ask me, this question makes life worth living, knowing that you make part of something so misterious and unimaginable
Reality doesn't care what you find ridiculous. I find it ridiculous that pandas exist. I find it ridiculous that people get tattoos. "But it do". 😂
@@mihair2854 its a saying dude, chill
Neither guy is comprehending the reason the question is stupid. He was asking a "why" question. That presumes a purpose (the "reason why"). But if there is purpose then there exists something, even if only pure abstraction, namely "purpose". But then you're off to the races, since once there is such abstraction there are a whole cloud of associated concepts that are unavoidable by logical necessity. You then put away such childish questions (not all childish questions are profound, some are just stupid and adults don't know how to express why they're stupid), you become an adult, roll up your sleeves, and help other people get thorough life's struggle and hopefully grow a little spiritually along the way.
Because.
Why does all this 'Something' mean 'Nothing'.
It's a bizarre question to keep coming back to. Not bizarre in the asking of it, that's very much the inevitable place you end up both in physics and philosophy. There is no bigger ask. The bizarre part is in the obvious paradox that arises in the asking. There is something and, so, there has to be an answer, you have to check some box according to your science or your beliefs. And even saying it's not a question that can be asked is an answer. But there obviously is no answer at the same time. Every answer will be wrong. Go figure.
If time starts in the middle with a big bang and proceeds both forwards and backwards from there, then everything can have a cause without any infinities or causality problems.
In Swinburne's analogy of a chain people holding each other up: there are new people being added in the past as the past expands backwards in time. So there is no end of the chain and there never will be an end, even though time is finite. Finite but growing.
Physics equations work equally well going forward or backward in time. So one man's causes are another man's effects, depending on which direction they're moving in time.
Would it be backwards, things would still be growing out of the Bang, you can not go beyond what has happened and experience it backwards. most likely Time only flows in one direction. If you can move around faster than light you can see events from the past but you would have to wait for that amount of Time to elapse before you could get back to your starting point.
I can't see time flowing backwards being possible. If time flows in two directions it would need to be four dimensional, if everything started, there was a time before everything started. Like a T the stem being the Original Time ↑ and the top ← → being forwards and backwards.
@@streamofconsciousness5826 Imagine the time before the big bang is "still" getting longer. Which gradually explains everything as it goes - how everything got where it is.
No one is really moving backwards in time, except in relation to the other one. They're really both moving forwards, away from each other. So either one would see the other universe weirdly moving backwards - but only if they could see back in time before the big bang.
That other universe isn't anywhere now - it's in the increasingly distant past. And that's what they would say about us too.
It's just a layman's pet theory, but it's no weirder than most other theories and it has some nice advantages. There are no infinities. It doesn't violate known physics or require new physics. It doesn't violate causality, or require new metaphysics, like uncaused causes or prime movers. And it's agnostic about whether the big bang was created by gods or simulation engineers or natural forces or the dreams of a cosmic mushroom or whatever you like.
I either figured out the explanation or I am extremely close to getting it, will be very superficial here because I am still thinking about it.
There is a reason for it to exist, by the union of the two most fundamental principles, LogoS, which cannot contradict each other and cannot be explained by something else: total afirmation and total negation.
Existence is manifestation of Nature, which is an expression of the LogoS and it determines what is methaphysically possible, the principles of logic might come from the causal regularity, and the LogoS is immanent to the Cosmic Consciousness, which is the One pure Being supreme and only true self.
What I have yet to think about it is what is existence and inexistence? I define one as the opposite of the other, as the two fundamental blocks of all Existence, but I wonder if they can be better defined.
Nonetheless, the conclusion you make from all that is: Nature is a work of art. There arent objectives to be pursued neither real imperatives, blessing is in itself. There is an inherent purpose to Existence. There is Truth. All Existence corresponds to the LogoS. Existence is inherently perfect, since everything in it necessarily follow the work of art of Nature. Nature is inherently good and beautiful, and al its manifestation succeeds from that.
Properly awnsering this question already spiritually "saves" us.
Existence means to be so existence has too exists. Nature is the behavior of existences. Logos is means logical reasoning. Logic requires the ability to bind symbols to objects and for that it needs existence.
Existence is not a predicate it's what everything else is predicated on.
@@kos-mos1127 I define Nature as a representation of Existence (capitalized means "everything that exists", the World in the broadest sense of the term, so it doesnt mean an ontological state).
I define LogoS as the spell, which is the union of the two fundamental principles, which is immanent, and which conserves existence to Existence, it what makes Existence be. Since LogoS is in itself logical and logic come from Existence, then LogoS is inseparable from Existence, and which is why it is immanent.
I find logic to be inherently abstrate, not symbolic, everyone is born with an innate concept of logic, which is unfolded by our environment, like language (although language could have gone first, something for me to think about), a guide for us to orient ourselves. Differently from math, which comes from logic, but it is also a representation, a system of symbols.
Sounds like this guy Swinburne has spent a lot of time at the pub swilling Guinness
Yeah, I'm sure you have a better answer because we all know utube comment sections are usually full of smarter people than the ones in the actual video 🤡
Sensible chap!
🗣We are smaller than subatomic ⚛ particles on a universal 🔭 scale. We are in the last few seconds⌛of the life on Earth timeline and we wake and sleep 😴 as the sun🌞demands we do. And yet we have the gall to make claims as if this spectacle is about “us” or our perceptions. 🪐“The universe is not only stranger than we imagine; but stranger than we CAN imagine.” ~ J. B. S. Haldane
Nice. It's depressing how many people think the cosmos, all of time and space and everything in it is all because of or for them. I suppose it's one way to cope.
@@simonhibbs887 🥂 Yes! Our "feelings" distort reality.
Once he mentioned god, he made a mistake because there's no evidence for a god and even if there was one how did this entity came to be and the answer saying there it's infinity or timeless is the explanation that makes less sense.
The question why is there something rather than nothing is a nonsensical question.
Theists: "Science doesn't know, so God because faith." 🙄
Which of the following explanations of the origin of the physical universe is simpler: It was created by a loving god, or it was created by a narcissistic, con artist god?
Why is a God even needed? We have no evidence that "nothing" is even possible, "something existing is the only evidence we know of. Why presume the answer?
@@richardlaiche8303 : Your reply doesn't answer my question.
@@TheAstraeuss : Your reply doesn't answer my question.
@@richardlaiche8303 : Your "summer versus country" analogy is an "apples to oranges" bad comparison. That's unlike the comparison in my question, which I asked because even if Swinburne is right that a creator is the simplest way to explain the existence of the universe, the properties of the "simplest" creator aren't clearly defined. In particular, that explanation doesn't imply the creator is worthy of our worship, love, trust or obedience. If it really wants or expects us to behave that way despite all the suffering in the world, that seems more consistent with a narcissistic, sadistic creator than a loving creator, which seems to make the former a simpler explanation than the latter.
Not one of them because they both have characteristics like loving and narcissistic.
The simplest explanation would then be the naturalistic one as there is no baggage that comes along, it's just a natural process.
Somethings don't need explanation. We sometimes ask the silliest questions simply because we can, and that's the answer to the question. 'Why did my parents have me?' They didn't create YOU, they created a baby that turned out to be YOU. The end. We ask, 'Why is there something, rather than nothing.' We ask these questions because we can and will never get a real answer. Now, why is my Ex-Wife such an evil... lol
The only irreducible thing is logic. You can take away matter, space, time, quantum mechanics, everything. But you can't take away logic. Logic, being comprised of the principles of logic and math. 2+2 would be 4 regardless if the universe existed or not. All bachelors would be unmarried regardless if anything existed or not. But, there exists a proof that besides the principles of logic and math, theres another fundamental part of logic - consciousness.
We can define consciousness as "that which knows by bridging sensed substances with qualitative meaning." This definition emphasizes the role of consciousness in connecting sensory impressions (sensed substances) with meaningful thoughts (qualitative meaning). It posits that knowledge is the bridge between observed substances and qualitative meaning, and this process of knowing is fundamental to the nature of consciousness.
Reality can be defined as "the sum of all that is real, as opposed to absolutely nothing". However, this definition of reality presupposes consciousness because it relies on the concept of knowing or being aware. The criteria for reality, as defined, requires a conscious entity capable of distinguishing between what is real and what is not (absolute nothingness). Without consciousness, reality essentially wouldn't be able to be real.
Thus, we can conclude that logic is actually comprised of THREE fundamental parts, each required in order for reality to even work at all. These are the principles of logic, mathematics and consciousness. They are self-necessary and NOT contingent. What would this mean? That logic itself is a conscious entity capable of knowing and freely choosing which universe to create. So, why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing itself presupposes a conscious entity which is the equivalent of logic, and you can't remove logic from reality even if there is "nothing". And, that conscious entity simply so wanted to create this specific universe as opposed to any other one.
The Universe in it's entirety poses a remarkable phenomenon, probably an unexplainable conundrum, but to simply attribute it to a man-made-god is taking the easy way out !😐
Pure absolute "nothing" would not have ANY characteristics whatsoever. There would literally be nothing to talk about. A vacuum, empty space, or quantum fluctuations are NOT "nothing", it counts as "something", because we can describe it. Pure absolute "nothing" does not exist, thus the natural state of things would be "something-ness".
Since there's something, it means there could not be nothing. The error is thinking it could have been otherwise. Nothing is simply not a credible alternative. And conciousness had to emerge in order to make matter "exist" because matter without conciousness is like no matter at all. And conciousness needs matter as well in order to have an object that makes it focus towards the outside of itself.
I think we can say that our universe is definitely possible, and so a state of affairs in which it were not possible could not pertain.
I don't see why consciousness had to emerge though. From what we can tell the universe had a long history before our planet even formed, with no reason to think there was any consciousness or even life in it for much of that history. It seems to have got on just fine without us. Suppose Earth had been destroyed and life never evolved here, would the universe still exist? It seems like it would.
The tricky thing is you can destroy all matter, energy, space and time and the universe will still exist.
@@kos-mos1127 I'm not sure. Something might exist, but it might not be 'the universe' in any sense we would recognise or could reason about. Interesting idea though, like it.
@@simonhibbs887 I didn't say matter don't exist without conciousness. I say that without at least one conciousness looking at it, there's no purpose for matter to exist... Could as well not exist. But since it does, it needs a conciousness looking at it. Matter without conciousness is exactly akin to no matter. It's like conciousness purpose is to actualize matter's existence. Plus you assume we are the only source of conciousness in the universe. Who says there were no other living beings in the universe before we appeared ?
The universe is a spectacle. A show. So it needed an audience. And an audience needs a show in order to be entertained.
@@kos-mos1127 I don't know. How do you destroy matter, energy, space and time ? Plus, we now know that quantum particles spontaneously emerge from the void and almost immediately disappear. How do you "destroy" that ?
So there is something and at the most Places nothing, but what is cannot be nothing, no matter if matter, or light or just quarks, or the holy grail dark matter and maybe the last element - a black hole.
Only GOD can answer this Question this is the most mesterious question i have ever faced in my life .
We are here and the Universe exists and isn't that alone not only interesting but also fantastic and wonderous?
Some-thing must exist for no-thing to exist and the state of no-thing is unsustainable
Is it really necessary to include the opinions of theologians in a serious discussion of the origins of the universe? Science is the study of that which is true. If religion turns out to be true then it will become science. I always roll my eyes at the theological chapters of Closer to Truth. It’s akin to interviewing a crystal healer in a documentary on minerals. I chalk it up to the American tendency to pander to religion.
Why is there something rather than nothing? It is pretty dead simple. Why is there an attachment rather than detachment? God is movement and rest.
You are everything.
"Because God" is a less satisfying answer than no answer at all. If you just call the questions you can't answer "God," then you've only shifted the unanswerable questions into one, "why is there a God?" God answers no questions anyway so why bother invoking him at all?
I think it's an attractive idea because it's defined as the answer. I think it's a similar issue with dualism or idealism, we just define them as correct, that way we don't need to explain how or why it's correct. With atheism we must do the hard work of figuring out what it's all about, what moral actions are, the purpose of life, and we have to take responsibility for our choices. With theism somebody just writes the answers in a book and defines them as correct. With physicalism we must do the hard work of figuring out how consciousness arises from physical processes. With dualism and panpsychism we just define consciousness as fundamental, job done, pass the beer.
God is an easy and quick answer because it requires no effort.
Our brain is not made to understand that.
There is nothing at all.
Before I was born, there was absolutely nothing. When I die, there will be absolutely nothing once again.
The question is not answerable because nothing and something exist simultaneously. If there is no you, there is nothing, but once you exist, there is everything. They are interdependent on each other.
I don't know what Swinburne is talking about. For classical theists, God's existence is not a 'brute fact'.
Well, yes it is, frankly. Swinburne is a classical theist, he can list a whole list of arguments why it is rational to believe that god exists. I've seen him do it. However reasons for believing in the existence of god are not the same as reasons why god actually exists. It's a subtle distinction, but these are different questions, and Swinburne realises this. He's one of the theist philosophers I most respect, even if I do think he's wrong.
Hundred and one tales
I got it!
Turtles all the way down.
💡The hypothesis that I have towards this question is that as an initial/eternal condition there is "total randomness (entropy)". I mean why would a "philosophical nothing" make any better sense as a real "nothing"? 🤔The fact is that we have "something" and maybe that could come from a localised anomaly in total randomness, maybe even give rise to systematic laws that just steer that phenomena to stabilise back towards total randomness. That would also fit in with the Copenhagen interpretation and entropic time, right? Anyone else think this way? Or is there something in reality that totally contradicts this thinking?🤷♂
@@halcyon2864 You misunderstood my point. I'm talking about something much more profound than that, not dodging the question. I'm talking about the basic underlying structure of the universe, its probabilistic nature, and how we for example see the universe evolving to higher entropy state.
(edit: I rephrased the original comment a bit, maybe it's more clear now. It's hard to find which words to use for these things. 😅)
No one can define or imagine what Nothing really is. Existence or Ultimate Reality could be a brute fact which has always existed. Not all questions human beings ask can be answered.
Instead of asking Question "Why something rather than nothing?" Let us put in different way " Why the Universe is the way it is? Why it's not stable?". I am 100 percent sure no one will be able to answer it logically except one answer which also is the reality -----
Existence and it's knowledge goes together. One cannot be without another. The only way this Principle can be in reality is through eternal cyclic movement with division of subject and object in it.
Thanks 😊
Because the god of Israel was bored with eternal bliss.
Richard’s voice is like nails on a chalkboard.
Has Richard ever heard the term, "Axiom"? All systems of inference start with axioms, which are taken as true without any further reasoning. If God created everything at all, then God is the axiom on which the entire Creation is derived. So it is fair to say that there is no proof of God, because God is the axiom of reality which does not have any further proof.
That's basically what Swinburn is saying, but as he points out we can't say why this axiom or that axiom. I think he's correct, but it seems to me we should assume as little as possible. God seems to me to be the most complex axiom imaginable, yet also has lots of very specific arbitrary traits. It's an awful lot to assume.
*"All systems of inference start with axioms, which are taken as true without any further reasoning."*
... I agree that whenever you regress as far as conceivably allows, you're going to run into axioms. However, axioms can be detrimental as much as they can be beneficial to interpolating reality. In this case, the axiom is that "existence is logically necessary" and NOT necessarily that it must be at the hands of an almighty God.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I think it's also fine to say that there are some things we just can't know. On that I'm actually with Swinburne.
@@simonhibbs887 *"I think it's also fine to say that there are some things we just can't know. On that I'm actually with Swinburne."*
... Maybe so, but many times we can fill in the missing data with other data that is already known and reach a high degree of probability. *Example:* A police detective might not know for sure who the killer was, but s/he can narrow down a list of subjects to the few who demonstrate the highest degree of probability.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Oh sure, otherwise i wouldn't be able to dismiss the idea of a complex, messy, concept like god.
Question is already answered on FBP (F stands for Face , B stands for Book, P stands for Page ) "Why something rather than nothing? "
Answer is -----
Existence and it's knowledge goes together. One cannot be without another. The only way this Principle can be in reality is through eternal cyclic movement with division of subject and object in it. Thanks 😊
😊 Hope you understand
I am the Most Hidden One. I wanted to be known, so I created creatures -Hadist
Why does this video have no real content rather than something.
Hahahahaha
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing isn’t a possible state of existence
he answers the question with a non-answer/brute fact... provides no evidence...
Scientists are more truthful than spiritualists . 🎉
Not spiritualists. Religious fundamentalists. Spiritualists only ask/seek the questions science refuses to ask and seek. Religious people are just 😵. lol
Theists: "Science doesn't know, so God because faith." 🙄
@@SamoaVsEverybody814
Peter had as little of faith to as walk on water. Why don't Christians have as much little faith to do the same or more? I've always wondered that. They say they have faith, but where is it? Just wondering.
Everything in science is most likely false because nobody actually knows even the most basic truth except spiritualists.
Cogito ergo sum.
Nothing has ever been proven in Science. All discoveries are just subjective interpretations based on a group of people called the scientific consensus
The answer is quite easy. There is not nothing, because there is something. If there would be only nothing, even the question would not exist. So the reason, why there is something rather then nothing is: Because nothing can't exist without something.
You mean anthropic principle.
@@dr_shrinker No, i mean "nothing"..😉
If there is no such thing as nothing, then how can something exist. Your argument is flawed
@@gehteuchnixan9027you described the Anthropic principle.
@T-Bone_Frank I didnt say, there is no nothing. I said: Nothing is only there, because of something. So the question: Why is there somthing rather than nothing makes no sense.
Human beings, particularly those still clinging to primitive religious myths, like to think in 'opposites', the religious person talks of 'good & evil' & 'darkness & light', neither of which have ever existed, they exist only as words, as ideas in the imagination. There is no 'nothing', there is no 'beginning', there is no 'end' & for human beings with our limited knowledge there is only what we experience, be it first or second hand.
When you look at how miniscule, how inconsequential, how utterly irrelevant the Earth is in the scale of the known universe, any human made idea, including the painfully pathetic & sad notion of an all powerful 'God' ( who made us in his image no less! ) is less relevant still.
We shall probably never get to the 'bottom' of it all & even if we did, how would it benefit us? This is a question the religious rarely ask, how would you or the World change if the God you believed in was apparent & he provided you with a how & why? Like as not it would change nothing, people would continue to act selfishly, stupidly & shortsightedly as they always have. Just look at those claiming to believe in God, are they 'good' people, has their faith 'improved' them? The answer is NO.
We can't explain the existence of the universe either since God would still be God if he had not decided to create the universe.
We can explain the existence of the universe without God.
@kos-mos1127 No one has been able to do that, so your statement would be on faith.
@@shostycellist Science already explains the existence of the universe within God.
Do people understand the mind - it's stated by the Wisemen to be very difficult to overcome.
"Why is there something rather than nothing"
^ the title here, reveals the condition and proplem of mind. Mind doesn't see, rather is a filter over That which does see, conditioning everything in dual terms.
Is true seeing in terms of duality?
The minds construct is dependent on the sense perception organs, the faculties of, the activites of.. Seeing through the senses, as like a filter, conditions our very thoughts of and any further question or inquiry.
There's glimpses here.. the mind, like a house, its curtains covering the windows obscuring the illumination,.. the faculty within, the Intellect, the Spirit in man akin to the Sun, penetrates this cocoon from within, jabs pencil sized holes into the curtains, illumination now coming in, uniting with That light in man, although latent, is now realized, and to be enkindled. Something far more true and beyond the dualities of mind.
Should one seek to remove all the curtains?
What would happen?
I think we agree that the world as we perceive it is not the world as it is, it's an illusion. We construct a mental model of the world from our senses. We can tell that this isn't the actual world as it is, because it often varies from it in the form or misperceptions, optical illusions, and systematic flaws such as our optical blind spots and such. We are able to determine that these are incorrect through testing. Physical action in the world enables us to test our perceptions.
I think this is one reason some people come to deny that there is a 'real world', because they come to suspect that the world they perceive is 'fake' but they still conflate it with the 'real world'. However I think realising that the world as we perceive it is an illusion paradoxically proves that a 'real world' does exist, because if it didn't there wouldn't be anything for our perceptions to vary from. There wouldn't be a world in which we can act to correct our perceptions. So at a minimum we can infer the existence of our perceptual world, which is ephemeral, and the world in which we take action which is persistent.
One removes the mind and all the curtains. One would detect the world around them as a pure computational structure and be another structure of reality. Essentially without a mind one would be Maxwells' demon.
Why here is something rather than nothing? Because nobody could ask anything, if here is nothing.
Or Nothingness is the Real, correct state of the universe.
Something may be just a one-time event that never happened before and will never happen again…!
…and that this Something will quickly return back to the Correct and permanent state of Nothing…
That's no reason.
There doesn't need to be people or any conscious species to ask if there is something rather than nothing. before any species existed to ask the question, the universe still existed for some reason.
@@ItsEverythingElse
The first human being who claimed to know the purpose of the universe also invented religion.
@@maxhagenauer24
Our universe has a trend: the tendency to become more and more complex. We know a bit about how, but we don't know why. The concept of purpose also refers to the subjective experience (rather than a specific mechanism) between events.