Christopher Isham - Why There is 'Something' Rather Than 'Nothing'?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มี.ค. 2022
- We know that there is not Nothing. There is Something. It is not the case that there is no world, nothing at all, a blank. It is the case that there is a world. Nothing did not obtain. But why? Why hasn't Nothing obtained? Is this 'ultimate question' a legitimate question? What can science contribute? What can philosophy?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on why anything exists: bit.ly/3tKdSSZ
Christopher Isham, usually cited as Chris J. Isham, is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
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 honestly think Chris Isham is one of the most intelligent and wise minds in the world today. He is demonstrably open-minded. That's what differentiates him from other phycisists.
Questions like this are made intractable by living in a universe that experiences "time" and perceiving the problem as a series of events. When the answer could well lie beyond the universe and outside of Time. It's not that we don't understand it, it's that we are not capable of understanding it.
Yeah, I think our brains have limit to ever understand ultimate truth of everything what exists and how!?
@ There is limit what we can see because light speed and Universe expanding forever.
@@BobbyFischer0000 The origin of this universe would have to lie beyond itself and therefore beyond space and time which are characteristics of it. When I say that the human species not only don't understand a question like 'why is there something rather than nothing' (in that it seems paradoxical) but also they may not be capable of understanding it I mean that they are not equipped for the question in the way a dog isn't equipped to understand what the 'strong nuclear force' is. The capacity just doesn't exist. If ultimate reality involves dimensions beyond the temporal and 3 spacial, time and sequences of events may transform as a 2D world transforms when height is introduced as a dimension. But who knows, we possibly never will.
That's where death comes in. It's the next level of understanding, if i'm not wrong.
"Questions like this are made intractable" ----
It is simply incoherent to posit existence itself to "not be".
God is existence in and of Himself.
The essence of existence is Love.
God is Love.
Christ is God made manifest.
“Why?” questions always lead to infinite regress. Think of the child who asks his parent a question and each answer is followed with, “But why?”
Truly... the question why suggests agency, and could only be answered by an existent god. If no god, then only how is valid as the "ultimate question"
Absolutely one of the best back n forth sessions I've ever observed on CTT. Rob got his brain picked this time...and responded admirably. Isham is a new fan fav for me.
“Man cannot grasp either the concept of absolute nothingness or that of the genesis of something out of nothing.”
I have been born out of nothingness. I mean my conciousness where was it before my birth?
Something or Nothing it is only words games means Nothing. It looks like they are talking about unicorn hilarious ridiculus.
*“Man cannot grasp either the concept of absolute nothingness or that of the genesis of something out of nothing.”*
... That is because "nothingness" requires the presence of "somethingness" in order to conceive whatever _nothingness_ represents. Likewise, "somethingness" requires the presence of "nothingness" in order to conceive whatever _somethingness_ represents. As a result, an eternal juxtaposition of *Existence* and *Nonexistence* is as far back as anyone can go while still adhering to logic.
@@kipponi *"I have been born out of nothingness. I mean my conciousness where was it before my birth?"*
... Existence is information. Consciousness is information. Before you were born, you were "raw information" waiting to be enhanced within a self-aware lifeform.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Okay I understand. Where my information goes when I die? Waiting somewhere to born again? I know life is one way function.
Isham is absolutely right to clarify the difference between why the world exists, and how it exists.
He was also my supervisor at one point when I was in the same research group. My memory is sitting in his office, and telling him I had a block and he asked what did I do to address it. I said I went running for miles in the park. And he said, "But aren't you running away from something?" Then another day I told him watching Henry V starring Kenneth Bragnagh refreshed me. And he replied "Opera does that for me. "
He asked me what motivated me to do physics. I replied that it was a spiritual experience. I asked if it wasn't the same for everyone. And replied no. I said, "Surely not just competition and Nobel prizes etc?" And he replied, "I'm afraid that is pretty much the motivation for most. "
It turns out like his PhD supervisor, Abdus Salam, a devout Muslim, Isham is a practising Christian.
I learned differential geometry, especially twisted fibre bundles, from him. That was a masterful exposition.
Great conversation! It's a question that bugs people and even a child can ask it, but it leads nowhere. If we ever get an answer, I wonder how many people could understand it. It's a very good question that was asked: "what would a satisfactory answer look like?".
Exactly.. even answering "what would satisfy you" means you have already define a box that the answer must fit... I dont think this question has an answer, but if it did, like you said, could we even understand it
I think people could understand it but a lot wouldnt like the answer as it takes a great mystery away and would normalize it. See now we still feel like pioneers. Then we would feel like a train that arives at its last station. Not all would like that ;)
@@blijebij Do you have what you think is the answer? I would like to hear it.
@@BodyRibbonz ^
@@BodyRibbonz The question should be rephrased in to 'Why is there something?'. If you find that interesting ill explain that in more detail.
These are really great. I listen to these as a companion to my own journey through philosophy and metaphysics. I tend to side with the theologians and have grown weary of the the scientific worldview. Which is why it’s important to hear from scientists on these topics, to challenge my bias.
whose science of what?
An answer I like: there's only one form nothing can take but an infinite number of ways for there to be something, so statistically it's inevitable that there will be something rather than nothing
is not an answer because the "something" logically need a causation...a complex "something" even more ...
Interesting, thanks. However, I think that’s complementary to an idea I have come to agree with. Namely, can “nothing” really ever exist? I think there has to be some “pressure” in whatever reality is - beyond even nature abhors a vacuum, that makes the actual nonexistence of everything impossible.
@@innertubez nothingNESS never existed since it's obvious that there is something. But since is the ONLY alternative to "something" it's natural to ask "why there is something rather than nothingness"
"statistically it's inevitable that there will be something rather than nothing" ----
You have presupposed "is". Is, is the axiom from which all else is derived. Is, is that to which the term "God" refers in classical theology: ipsum esse subsistens.
Meaning strides forward with a purpose towards a higher entropy state. Knowledge pool objects (like these videos) joined by time segments of motion, as a participatory knowledge availability. A different kind of movement, a dilation of awareness in a matching of inside person/outside that person "knowledge pools" also called understanding. Thanks team!
I thought about this question a few years back and it's one that twists my brain in knots. This is one of those unanswerable questions. With causality we get infinite regression, which makes no sense but neither does a primal cause.
There's a superficial way of looking at it, which I think is where the physicist is at, and the deeper way of seeing it which is where the interviewer is at. Not that one or the other is better, but when you really dig into the question it gives you this odd "feeling" that's inexplicable, but I can see it in the face of the interviewer that he's hit that point.
Existence is a paradox. Logically there shouldn't be anything at all, but there is and where did it come from? There's no way humans will ever come even close to understand this mindblowing paradox.
I think logically something has to exist. It's like the empty set in mathematics. Empty of what exactly? The concept itself doesn't hold any meaning if there is no potential for something to be in it. The idea of nothing contradicts itself unless something exists.
@@HolyMith but when did it start? And if it has a start what was before that? It could only be nothing, but nothing can start out of nothing. If it didn't have a start, it has allways been here. But how?
@@laurasfar18 My guess is that we probably live in a multiverse that is connected by an extremely homogeneous "structure" that has no difference between two points in time or space, thus making them irrelevant concepts. But it does have quantum fluctuations that occur based on the premise I mentioned earlier of nothing being a self-contradiction unless the potential for something exists. This is expressed via quantum fluctuations which fracture the homogeneous quantum "fluctuation force" into derivative forces that are locally inhomogeneous (thus giving time and space meaning) and we call these things universes. However, due to inflation they eventually stretch (in time and space) so much that they again become identical to the original homogeneous structure. What would be interesting would be to do a calculation to see if a new universe fluctuation can occur within a universe before it has again inflated back to homogeneity itself.
@@HolyMith but what was the first universe before the multiverse? Was it allways a multiverse? If Yes, where did it come from?
Questions are like directions that we head into enquiry, perhaps certain questions lead us away from a realization. Is this question 'why is there something rather than nothing' proper. Seems there always had to have been this presence or essence. The first part "why is there something" I think we should focus on this, only exercising the thought of "nothing" to bring greater contrast to what is.
It's actually kind of terrifying when you really think about it.
This is a strange existence and we may never fully understand it.
Indeed. Existence is fundamental. It just is.
At the very most fundamental level of everything is an Underlying and Permeating Field of Information.
Thinking about "Nothingness" is still creating Information / "The Information of Nothingness".
Even if at some point in Time "Nothing" existed, that Information of Nothingness was still "Something". The Something being the Information.
Therefor it is a Paradox. All things exist simultaneously with No things existing.
The Field of Information generates all of Existence.
The thought of doing something always occurs before the act of doing it. So,
Action follows Thought. Thought follows Consciousness.
Consciousness = the Infinite, Permeating and Underlying Field of Quantum Information which generates All Existence while Existence resides within the Field while having a bit of the Field inside of anything created by the Field.
That "bit of Field" is individual Consciousness. But never forget it is only a piece of the Infinite Consciousness.
All existence is an Excitation on a Field.
You, Me, Dog, Cat, Car, Truck, Building, Dirt, Mud, Grass, Soda, Water, Earth, Universe, Brains, Toys, Burgers, Good, Evil, Love, Hate, Hot, Cold, Happy, Sad etc- Are all individualized, personified emanations from the Field/Source.
Each of us were made by Source. Exist within Source. & have Source within us. But none of us ARE the Source.
The Source = Eternal Consciousness/God/Akash.
All other gods in existence, all angels and fallen angels, demons, monsters, cute things, nasty things, are all individual excitations within the Field. Everything is a Personalized, Individualized Emanation of and from the Field.
Even me typing this comment started as a Thought within my Mind before becoming a physical manifestation on a screen so that my internal thoughts can be seen by others.
The Thoughts originate within Consciousness.
Consciousness exists outside the boundaries of Spacetime while also existing within Spacetime, creating our 3rd density hologram reality, which is nothing more than excitations within an Eternal Field of Consciousness.
is there a "we"?
@@vhawk1951kl ^_~
I love how Isham started mentioning Hegel and Kant straight away 😂 These conversations always start with a simple question to a complex problem and yet imagining a complex answer you only get to leave with a simple answer: we just don’t know and that’s ok. Considering that even the ideas of beginning and end could just be human concepts, words, human made perceptions of time. How can we assume that something or someone created the universe when It could be that It’s always been there all along? Even though that seems incomprehensible, It doesn’t need to be understood, It doesn’t need explanation or justification. After all It could just be that our own experience of the universe is just the universe understanding itself. I think philosophy of existentialism nailed these problems over and over again to the point of “whatever idea you come with after those cats It must be pie in the sky”.
"we just don’t know" ----
Indeed, there are many things of which we are ignorant, but that existence itself "is" is not one of them. It is incoherent to posit existence itself to "not be".
To get an answer to the questions posed herein, I highly recommend the book, “The Temple of Man” by R. A. Shwaller de Lubicz, perhaps the most advanced metaphysician / Ancient Egyptian Philosopher of the 20th century. The issue with Greek Philosophy (aka Dialectics) is that it is based on a mental analytical / logical or syllogistic process of perception, which prevents ‘cognition’ or intuitive knowing.
Philosophy YOU was mencioned in the modern philosophy Wittigeinste papers show new possibilities left behind those archaic philosophy.
To say I am nothing is humility, but i know i am something and everything****
This channel is a good way to fuck up your mind and all your pre conceived notions. And also great material to watch while being high.
We don't have any explanation elements to use in answering why existence that do not have existence imbedded in.
Existence is fundamental to our experience and therefore ability to understand and explain phenomena of the world by arranging those phenomena in causal chains. This activity of understanding and explaining is completely happening withing the realm of what exists and therefore cannot use concepts outside of the realm of existence to explain existence.
Time infers motion, and motion implies something is moving. An arithmetical calculation, say 1+1=2, also infers time. The plus sign itself signifies an action taken, for which we use the word, 'and.' These are all somethings or indicate somethings.
Because if there was nothing we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
Has anyone observed the property of nothing in the physical world? The answer is, no. Nothing is a concept that can be imagined but never discovered by sentient life.
Very correct
How does it make sense to discover something (la nada) that ,by its definition , doesn’t exist? Perhaps empty space should never have been confused with “nothing” because how could it have the number 3 dimensions associated.
I had this thought when I was around 5 or 6. Freaked me out too.
I did too! Even at that age, I was never satisfied with the God always existed claim. I'd lay in my bed at that age and contemplate, how does that even make sense!
@@clineezwood7942 God is not an answer to anything. God is pompous humans pretending to have an answer.
I LOVE THIS VIDEO. Christopher Isham FINALLY makes some progress in this irrational question that Kuhn wastes the time of so many brilliant scientists. This "ultimate question" is not a scientific question. This question is very vague and poorly defined. Secondly this "ultimate question" is not a question that science can possibly answer because science assumes that something exists. The "Why" aspect must lead to an infinite regress and when Isham asks Kuhn "what sort of answer would satisfy you?". Then Kuhn talks about something called "self existence". I'm not sure what that is. Perhaps Kuhn should write a book about "self existence" and "brute facts" and explain their similarities and differences. Isham correctly pointed out that Kuhn answer was just one step away from an infinite regress and when Kuhn tried to say "well I'm defining it as an end point", and Isham holds his ground. Kuhn has to admit that he could be wrong but it would mean we'd have to live with the fact that there was no answer. Showed Kuhn slightly irrational side. Kuhn can be a bit of a bully sometimes and will make snide remarks and try and belittle counter arguments. In this video Isham destroyed all of Kuhn tricks.
I was thinking along the same lines. For several years I have come to this channel attracted by the names of the best scientists Kuhn has managed to interview. However, from the first video, I have been confused by the interviewer's ways, or intentions, or goals, or point. In this video, he is pushed to his last retrenchments. He becomes vaguer and vaguer, slightly agitated and even defensive. I have always been interested in the comments though. I would like to think that people not otherwise interested in science could get so through such conversations.
@@Mnimosa Kuhn IMO gets angry that he can't ruffle Isham. Kuhn even goes to the point of saying, If you can't answer my question and give me an answer that involves "self existence" then there is no answer AND WE"LL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE FACT that there is permanently no answer. To which Isham comments to the effect "Well, life's that way isn't it". And Kuhn finally angrily admits that if Isham is right then he, Kuhn, will never be satisfied.
To answer this, one might ask: since there IS something, what might the simplest form of something be? Well, how about the concept of "something" itself; like a reflection in a mirror, as it were. One could then postulate one reflection or just one. One is a state of information and implies the possibility of zero which is additional state of information. If one accepts the former then it follows, without any further modifications, that an infinite number of information states exist between one and zero.
my weird answer is that , if there is nothing at all - then there is no time - then what we imagine as an infinite amount of time of nothing, is an instant. then something can be and it is the same if it waited infinites amounts of times, since there was no time before, it just came to be instantaneously
@@vulturom I think Kuhn's question is irrational and that even Kuhn couldn't explain "self-existence".
"since there IS something, what might the simplest form of something be?" ---
One must make a number of presuppositions when positing that "something is". In classical theology this is phrased as ipsum esse subsistens: existence in and of itself. This is that to which the term "God" refers; the God who reveals Himself to Moses by the simplest of names "is" --- I AM.
@@dreyestud123 "self-existence" ----
Ipsum esse subsistens. Existence in and of itself is "is". It is incoherent to posit existence to "not be".
@@andrewferg8737 Tell that to Kuhn.
It's a beautiful complex question. I find myself believing that "you can't have something without nothing " and all categories and degree of freedom would emerge from this necessity.
You can't imagine black without white. If I have one, there's also the negation of one = zero, the opposite of one, the sum (finite/infinite) of ones, the multiple of sums of one ecc...
Also by definition I don't think that nothingness can be placed before or after the creation of the universe because time is just an emergent property of our currente existence and experience.
In some ways I would say that nothingness always exist and never exist because we have this ontological necessity due to the recognition that there is something.
Sorry for my bad english XD
"you can't have something without nothing" ---
This is a simple error in logic. Nothing always presupposes something. It is incoherent to posit Being itself to "not be" and equally incoherent to posit that "nothing is".
Most mystics are saying that space and time are properties of our minds and filter and arrange the raw cosmos into this universe..in that sense mathematics are also part of the code within our minds..if you write the lines of code of a virtual reality game in a paper and leave it out in the nature somewhere,what is the influence it has on the outside world..accordingly space and time arrange the universe for us but have no meaning without us ,neither thinking derived from this "code" can explain anything outside its own closed system that is Us..linear questions always create a before the before or layers of scales that simply cant be addressed without singularities or infinities..mystics say that if you want answers you have to completely drop the langauage in which you are asking the questions and shift your perceptions outside its current tuning..after all the years that the human kind cant move an inch on the fundamental questions and resolves to the same admissions of a singularity or infinity/eternity or god ,i think that maybe this proposal has more credibility than a dog chasing its tail like linear cosmological approach!
I think like a lot of questions like this, it comes down to the way we use language. Because we have a word for "nothing", we assume that its a possible reality. But the way we use the word is different to how its being used in this video. When we say, for example, "there is nothing in the box, it is empty", its not really true - what we mean is, there is nothing "of interest" in the box. This happens with a lot of words, and we need to remember the assumptions these words carry. So my answer to this question would be, simply that "nothingness" isn't something that can ever happen, its just a concept that we imagine to be possible. The question you can then ask is, what is the closet state to nothingness? Then you can ask, why does that exist? And I would say that Robert is right when he says existence would be intrinsic to it, as in, it is impossible for it not to exist, and that it is ultimately responsible for everything that does exist. Almost as if it is a basic state of existence which also acts as a probability generator.
Here is a key insight (credit to Swami Sarvapriyananda); the reason why you cannot keep asking “why, why, why”, endlessly, is because a “why” is a causation question. Causation, or creation is in time or space. Just like “where” is a location question, and “when” is a time question. A location question presumes space. Therefore, “what is outside space” is an erroneous question. If you’re positing an outside, then you’ve already supposed space. If there isn’t a space there, then there is not a location there either. Therefore, what is outside space is a “wrong question”.
Similarly, what was before time is a wrong question, since the “before” concept depends on the reality of time. Take away time, and there is no sequence of occurrence. There is no occurrence without time.
What follows is my read of the Vedanta and Buddhism. To many, it’ll be Mumbo Jumbo.
God is the first and final cause. Hence, “why God” is a wrong question.
God’s intrinsic attributes are existence, consciousness, and endlessness. Endless existence and endless consciousness. Conscious existence.
God is outside time. God is the great “IS”. It is always present tense in God land.
God is beyond space. It is at once everywhere and right here with God
God is above causes. God is the final cause.
Our consciousness, our “I’ness”, the subjective experience is because of God. Everything that exists has two attributes. It’s thingness and it’s existence. The thingness is related to its name, form, and function. The existence is borrowed from God. All things that perish, return to God. All things created arise from God.
Fantastically articulated!
Agree
Something can only happen now.
If you schedule something for next week, it doesn't happen until next week is now.
If you observe a supernova from eons ago, it was now when it happened.
I think the answer is that at a fundamental level there is no difference between 'something' and 'nothing' - those very concepts are emergent from a deeper reality. Something cant come from nothing - that is a paradox which just points to a fundamental misunderstanding at a very deep level.
Yes. Basically the Big Bang Theory… However we are meant to blindly accept that as the best scientific narrative to the origins of the universe.
"no difference between 'something' and 'nothing'" ----- except that one "is" and the other is not.
It is incoherent to posit being to "not be" and equally incoherent to posit that "nothing is".
Brilliant discussion. Two people keep asking and answering instantly without any trouble clarifying what the other means. It shows that they found the same issue and don't know how to solve. Sometimes, you talk to another just to find him being stuck the same as you, lol
Little impresses me more about Kuhn than his facility with all of these topics. Irrespective how abtuse an interviewee's hypothesis, Kuhn is wholly comprehending.
After many many years of pondering, I have an answer to this question that satisfies me; along the lines of self-existence as the answer's axiomatic nature. However, I've utterly failed to explain it to anyone whenever I've tried. As entry-points only, consider the question of whether 'nothing' is itself a class within the set of 'things', and something about a simple-yet-fractal-yet-circular-logic.
Nothing is not part of class of "things".
@@nguyenkhanhhung91 so the empty set is not a set? Zero is not an integer? etc
@@Juttutin I would say nothing is more like the complement of set of things. The wording makes it tricky
In Vedanta, the Brahman which is the ultimate ground of Reality is described as Sat-Chit-Ananda. Translated into English, it means Existence-Consciiusness-Bliss.
6.36 If there were a law of causality, it might be put in the following way: There are laws of nature.
But of course that cannot be said: it makes itself manifest.
6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words.
The riddle does not exist.
If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
-Ludwig Wittgenstein, from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
One may keep asking why and why and why but the short answer is : we want it ! Something to see , something to hear, something to feel some solid ground to jog and leap some mountains to climb some partying and some studying... . The cosmos , the entire thing, is a huge manufactured playground to live a good life designed according to the best of intentions. So don't spoil it.
In mathematics or logic, when we prove the existence of something we don't distinguish between it being possible or it being actual. Proving that there exists a natural number larger than n is simply showing that n+1 is a natural number. But it seems to me that you're just demonstrating its possibility, for example in the sense that you can imagine it. It is possible to find a natural number larger than n. So it seems to me that when it comes to such abstract ideas, their possibility is equivalent to their existence. Basically, if it can exist it does exist.
(4:50) *CI: **_"But the question of why the world exists is a something completely different."_* ... People think that by studying the most miniscule elements of existence (reductionism) that this will shed light on "why" everything exists. True, science can reduce everything down to fundamental particles, but to what end? Speculative science goes one step further by postulating _String Theory_ with even smaller elements of existence. However, no matter how far science tries to reduce everything, ... *_Existence still remains present!_*
The truth is that if your rewind the universe all the way back to a point even before the T=0 point of Big Bang, you will still find "Existence." You will ... because "Existence" represents _data_ even at its most rudimentary state (i.e., "self-data"):
*Existence* = _Data_
*Nonexistence* = _Non-data_
There is no point where data (Existence) emerged from non-data (Nonexistence) because an eternal juxtaposition of Existence and Nonexistence is as far as logic can take you using reductionism. It is literally *inconceivable* for there to only be Nonexistence (or Existence) as one is required to offer *conceivability* to the other.
Juxtaposition: I had to look it up.
If nothing else, I learned something today.
Thanks.
@@eardwulf785 *"Juxtaposition: I had to look it up. If nothing else, I learned something today. Thanks."*
... There was an orchestral song we had to play in high school band called "Juxtaposition." I played trumpet and hated this song! Little did I know that 43 years later the meaning of this word would serve as the inspiration for my book.
Existence is a crazy ride!
I was hoping you would chime in here. I'm about halfway through your book and this discussion seems virtually identical in some respects to the core ideas your book explores.
@@Practicality01 *"I was hoping you would chime in here. I'm about halfway through your book and this discussion seems virtually identical in some respects to the core ideas your book explores."*
... You are the very first person in any comment thread that has stated they have read, or are currently reading my book.
*THANK YOU!*
I believe this to be the most logical and accurate explanation for why anything exists at all. I may lose your favor at the end of the 4th Recursion, but everything I've written in that chapter follows the same "simplicity to complexity" pattern.
Post a review on Google books (favorable or unfavorable) and I'll send you a signed "special edition" copy.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I will be more than happy to write a review when I finish. My wife has been getting partial reviews as I work through it ;)
Oh Robert. I know exactly how you feel. I get the "you are not going to be satisfied with the answer" -answer, all the time. It seems that is our fate to be unsatisfied. But I'm with you. My brain refuses to accept that we "can't know how it started because we live in it". It's wrong logic, but I don't know how I know its wrong.
"our fate to be unsatisfied" ----
God is existence in and of Himself.
The essence of existence is Love.
God is Love.
Christ is God made manifest.
My personal speculation is that fundamental reality is an infinite ocean of exotic particles that clash together creating a certain univers/dimension depending on how these particles/waves interact. Why does this ocean exist? Because absolute nothingness is unstable, there is simply too many possibilities for exotic particles to exist. For this reason i also believe that after death there is automatically a new dimension that takes the place of the old one, and every time you will have the impression that this dimension is unique. If you are not convinced by this theory then Robert you have to create your own speculation with the knowledge you already have. I'm sure you will feel better once your personal instinct and knowledge tells you something that seems logical to you! ;) Great subject matter by the way, asking this kind of question. Thank you for hosting such a great show!
"fundamental reality" ----
God is existence in and of Himself.
The essence of existence is Love.
God is Love.
Christ is God made manifest.
Hey Robert! Let me answer your question: Questions starting with "Why" suppose the existence of time. Suppose causality. If something happens because of something, you may ask the question "Why ....". However here is the good news. Time does not exist! Time is just an illusion, time is just a feeling. Time is a label attached to all frames of our life and consciousness that we experience as life. It is just an attribute like colours, smells, pain. etc. Questions missing time dimension should omit the word "Why". Hence you don't ask questions like "Why 2+2=4". Hope it makes sense.
The conclusion: we cannot answer why with certainty. We can only explain "how" with science.
Science only has by gosh and by gosham……make up some child’s fairy tale…..then call it a scientific LAW!!!
Science cannot answer “How”! How did the first living cell arrive? How did new specified instructions to create different animal parts arrive/enter a cell? How did plants, animals and life enter earth at the same time (symbiosis) - the odds are impossible. How did the universe arrive? All the fine tuning arrive?
@@johncastino2730 Exactly why I believe in the afterlife and a god
@@johncastino2730 God. People look for alllll these reasons why. God. Simple. He created us to experience this world and life.
@@WhiteUnicorn72 exactly
It is helpful to ask the 'meta problem': Why do we humans think that 'nothing' existing is a logical possibility?
I think there are two reasons we mistakenly contemplate the possibility that the universe didn't exist:
- We live in a universe with matter and lots of empty space between. We (mistakenly) equate the empty space with nothing. But the space is actually something.
- We experience the universe as evolving through time, with past/present/future events causally related. But if you agree with Einstein/Minkowski, then the flow of time is an illusion, and the universe is 'tenseless' and unchanging (i.e. the 'block universe'). There is no sense talking about 'before' the universe began, because the universe didn't begin (nor will it end).
I concur. Nothingness is a fiction created by the human mind, no more real than Spider-Man. Nothing doesn't exist, cannot exist. So here we are. Existence is the only possibility.
We can only know "why" there is something when we traverse the confines of the Universe. The reason i say this, is because we are part of which the "why" question is being asked. It is like being inside a balloon that is being inflated. You see it being inflated but you dont know why. You can only know why when the balloon "pops". At that point you will see the totality without infinite regression.
When will the balloon pop and who will be there to see it pop ?
@@Jarell1661 No one, therefore we can never know...only speculate.
@@Jarell1661 the inflating balloon represents the expanding Universe and we reside within. The Universe (balloon) does not truly pop, it keeps expanding. We are the ones who will all "pop" out of this existence, and if there is a gateway outside into a dimension beyond this universe, then we might get to know the whole shindig. Otherwise, as Don says, we can never know as long as we remain insiders.
At the very most fundamental level of everything is an Underlying and Permeating Field of Information.
Thinking about "Nothingness" is still creating Information / "The Information of Nothingness".
Even if at some point in Time "Nothing" existed, that Information of Nothingness was still "Something". The Something being the Information.
Therefor it is a Paradox. All things exist simultaneously with No things existing.
The Field of Information generates all of Existence.
The thought of doing something always occurs before the act of doing it. So,
Action follows Thought. Thought follows Consciousness.
Consciousness = the Infinite, Permeating and Underlying Field of Quantum Information which generates All Existence while Existence resides within the Field while having a bit of the Field inside of anything created by the Field.
That "bit of Field" is individual Consciousness. But never forget it is only a piece of the Infinite Consciousness.
All existence is an Excitation on a Field.
You, Me, Dog, Cat, Car, Truck, Building, Dirt, Mud, Grass, Soda, Water, Earth, Universe, Brains, Toys, Burgers, Good, Evil, Love, Hate, Hot, Cold, Happy, Sad etc- Are all individualized, personified emanations from the Field/Source.
Each of us were made by Source. Exist within Source. & have Source within us. But none of us ARE the Source.
The Source = Eternal Consciousness/God/Akash.
All other gods in existence, all angels and fallen angels, demons, monsters, cute things, nasty things, are all individual excitations within the Field. Everything is a Personalized, Individualized Emanation of and from the Field.
Even me typing this comment started as a Thought within my Mind before becoming a physical manifestation on a screen so that my internal thoughts can be seen by others.
The Thoughts originate within Consciousness.
Consciousness exists outside the boundaries of Spacetime while also existing within Spacetime, creating our 3rd density hologram reality, which is nothing more than excitations within an Eternal Field of Consciousness.
It might be that Robert Kuhn will never be satisfied (as he says) because the ultimate answer is not meant to satisfy the mind in the first place. Perhaps there is an answer, but it is not an intellectual kind of answer which can satiate our mind. There are in facts states of being (if I recall correctly it was Nietzsche who said that) where our intellectual needs extinguish, such as moments of complete joy or bliss we experience in our lifetime.
I have always pondered this! In my pondering, I think is not nothing rather than something, simpler? Well, it's fascinating because of years of contemplating this in my undergraduate studies whilst studying mathematics for a bachelor's degree in the field at the University of Glasgow, we studied the nature of this.
And me and fellow undergraduates at the time came to a very *ucking fascinating af realization. We realized that nothing does not exist.
When we look all around we see some things and not no things. Fast forward to near graduation year, whilst studying fractals and using software we had created to simulate fractals as the Mandelbrot set; we came to the conclusion that fractals are intrinsic in nature!!!!! So, maths is natural and physicists with their fancy equations aren't just bringing that maths from their behinds, no. Instead, they are studying the Universe and that is what the Universe replies to. In other words, maths is the language of the Universe.
One aspect of human hubris is that humans face 'being' exclusively through reason, while desperately guarding themselves from being hit by the reality of being wondrous.
This tendency is manifest especially in the rationalists in science and in philosophy. We even don't know yet what the most common stuff like water or air is.
Is it that difficult to accept the biblical proclamation that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"? Doesn't the brute fact that the world of being defies rationalist approach--not rational approach--confirms the sensibleness of being open to the biblical claim?
The question „Why there exists something” may not be a good question, because it leads to a infinite regression. A better question may be “How is it possible, that something exists” or “What are possible rules, which make it possible that something exists”. The only fact I know for sure is, that I (my mind) exist right now: cogito ergo sum. How is this possible, based on my knowledge of quantum physics?
I think, the world is a superposition of many universes living in a huge Hilbertspace. Superposition of all possibilities is the most natural state of a system, about which I have no information. In the very moment when I become aware of something (I measure it with my senses), the something becomes real. The something becomes a projection from Hilbert space to real space. Many other properties of the something remain necesssarily uncertain (or synonymously remain in superposition). The system evolves further according to Schrödinger’s (or Dirac’s) exquation in Hilbertspace and is permanently projected (continously measured) by my attention. The continous measurements provide continous random results. Therefore the evolution of the universe as I see it, is open.
You (my dear Wigner’s friend) may see other random results in your universe, because your attention looks for other properties in the Hilbertspace. Then we exchange our informations and by this way we build a common view of the real world.
It follows: The mind of multiple conscious beeings creates the real world. Why mind exists, I dont know.
if nothing else, I found this one immensely entertaining...
On existence, I am afraid I have nothing to say...
Getting a little tense there for a moment, lol. Host gonna leap across the table.
No. This is what true philosophical debate looks like.
I had that same thought at around that age.
They talk about entropy- shouldn't it all have run out by now?
What a mystery.
"The only thing that would satisfy me (not that satisfying me is so important) is the existence of something which self-sufficiency is a fundamental characteristic"
Wow.
I think in the end it has to be something like the tv show Dark: three storylines keeping each other in existence, like a mutual bootstrap out of nothing
In an infinitely recursive question such as this, I see no way to apply human reasoning, human logic, human words or humanly understandable reality to draw a conclusion. Whatever the base point to reality is, it would (by its own function) exist beyond human mental framework. We exist in a reality of finites. Everything has a beginning and end and a reason for both. To imagine anything outside that basic human truth falls beyond our ability to understand. Interestingly enough though, we ARE whatever that thing is. We can be nothing else.
*"In an infinitely recursive question such as this, I see no way to apply human reasoning, human logic, human words or humanly understandable reality to draw a conclusion."*
... I'm not so sure about that. It could be that the universe is a 93-billion-light-years-wide question mark, and after 13.8 billion years of not finding the answers via matter, energy, inanimate structure, and basic lifeforms, ... self-aware humans are currently the ones tasked at answering these types of questions.
I think the answer to why we have "Nonexistence and Existence" is relatively simple!
@@mazolab *"The problem is we think human reason and logic is the best tool we have."*
... Logic is to Existence what a ladder is to a roofer. Nobody would say, _"The problem with roofers is that they think a ladder is the best tool they have for getting to a rooftop."_ ... That's because it IS!
*"But reason and logic may not lead to the highest form of understanding."*
... True, logic doesn't take you the entire way, but it CAN reliably protect you from going the wrong way.
@@mazolab *"There are a lot of ways to get on a roof. Walking up through the house, climbing out of window, using a lift, like tree cutters. You could use a trampoline if you're brave. You could have some fun an climb an available tree. So many options. Sure, ladder seems practical. But a lot of other stuff is going onThere are a lot of ways to get on a roof. Walking up through the house, climbing out of window, using a lift, like tree cutters. You could use a trampoline if you're brave. You could have some fun an climb an available tree. So many options. Sure, ladder seems practical. But a lot of other stuff is going on"*
... Out of all of the options you have listed, a ladder is still the best tool to get to the roof. Even a lift would not be the best tool because it is cumbersome, expensive, and difficult to position. That's why roofers still use the age-old historic ladder to get up on a roof.
*"Logic is a great tool, a go to foundational thought pattern. But we might need some other options."*
... I'm not arguing against your claim. However, if whatever tool you are using other than logic ends up operating against the principles of logic, then logic should supersede the other tool.
*"Logic doesn't protect people from going the wrong way."*
... Yes it does.
*"There is such a thing as bad reasoning, logical fallacies, all that good stuff. "*
... Providing examples based on the misuse of logic that illustrate the importance of proper logic is not a good argument against using logic.
@@mazolab *"You can walk onto my roof from our back deck. No ladder was needed for the roofers."*
... An anomaly does not speak for the majority. Virtually all roofers take ladders to a roofing site.
*"Logic has led the best of minds astray. Just look what our ancient philosophers believed using the socratic method and so forth."*
... That did not lead people astray. The Socratic Method was based on whatever information was available at that time. Hey, we weren't sure about Big Bang until the CMB was discovered in 1963. And what "analytical tool" was used to calculate that Big Bang goes back to T=0? That's right ... "LOGIC"
Later we may discover that there is no T=0 point in the evolutionary record of the universe. Does that mean that all of the logic we used along the way was flawed, or that logic is only as reliable as the information provided?
*"On your last point, I wasn't arguing against logic, we need reason more than ever. But it isn't everything"*
... Again, I agree. My argument is that logic is by far the most reliable tool in our analytical arsenal. That's why science is steeped in logic. "Gut feelings" often turn out to be accurate but will never be as "reliably accurate" as logic.
I dont think that is the problem, how ever it is a totally normal idea you have. It would then be more logic if you link it to our human capacity of intelligence instead to link it to reason&logic. Our human capacity of understanding is for sure limitted. Reality could never contradict it self at its foundation. Then it simply could not be in an optimum state to exist. That is why logic and reasoning work. So the question is more..do we got what it takes in capacity of understanding. Time will tell, we are a young specy.
The question "why is there something rather than nothing" is a loaded question because it presupposes that there is a reason.
If you are right, the only answer would be there was always something…either that or it sprang into existence for no reason. Which leaves us where we are already.
@@Sjolden98 No, that is not the answer. The 'logical positives' believe that statements (and questions) are not either true or false but can also be meaningless. It may be meaningless to ask "why is there something rather than nothing".
Are you not then assuming that causation requires reason? Do any laws of physics have 'reason', or simply observable causal relationships? Are cause and reason the same thing? Reason seems to require humanly-interpretable logic. Cause seems to only require an observable, apparant law.
The problem of the question may be better understood of we asked ' why does existence exist? ' . The only answer that seems appropriate for this tautology is ' to exist '. It may not satisfy but it is the answer this question deserves. Everything else is untestable speculation.
very useful, Kuhn is showing that a scientist have not the tools (and never will have) to answer the fundamental question of existence (as he is so humble to admit)
Very true. I would just go one further and say that nobody has the tools. However, everybody does have imagination.
The path to knowledge is philosophy and a willingness to accept assumptions until more information becomes available.
@@JustAThought01 indeed but i think is normal to speculate about this fundamental question (that are actually 2: A) why there is something rather than nothing A1) Since there is obviously something what caused it ).
@@francesco5581, obviously there something because that is the more interesting case. If there was nothing, we would not be having this discussion. The point is: humans make better decisions when they are based upon knowledge (justified true belief). Basing knowledge on a set of assumptions to which we all agree will give better results rather having each tribe select their own belief system.
Kurn is ignorant and stupid com man from his questions is left behind how Law fundamental are so unpredicted in show up reality Universe . He manipuleting his questions turn in true possibilities real in the Universe. It hard to say Mr Kurn is boring challatan.
This is a wonderful series but one big criticism is that I've seen hours of content now revolving around theism and not a single Muslim scholar or theologian featured on the show. Since it is the fastest growing religion it only makes sense you give their academics a chance too.
There is something rather than nothing either for a reason or no reason.
If there is a reason, it's outside our ability to comprehend. If there's no reason, it must be randomness.
Perhaps:
"All the world's indeed a stage and we are merely players
Performers and portrayers
Each anothers audience outside the gilded cage
Living in the limelight, the universal dream
For those who wish to see
Those who wish to be
Must put aside the alienation
Get on with the fascination
The real relation, the underlying theme".
As long as we approach the play as the role we cannot know we are the great Actor.
@@guywhoisnotbob Living in the limelight, the universal dream
For those who wish to see
Those who wish to be
Must put aside the alienation
Get on with the fascination
The real relation, the underlying theme
The real relation, the underlying theme
Conscious minds, genuine personality, and the ShamWow are very hard to explain / understand on a purely physical explanation of existence.
Seriously, don't you have something better to be doing with your time, like fighting bad guys and saving the world?
@@joemomma8573 I’m not a super hero… that’s just stuff made up in the movies.
This question always pressupose a kind of being which has the hability to pose the question. Without this being posing this question there is no question.
The idea that there could be nothing at all is absurd. The concept of 'nothing' is only meaningful in the context of there being something already in existence. If you ask why there is something rather than nothing, then you are seeking for a something else that accounts for the something whose existence you are questioning in the first place; however, since the something you are questioning is supposed to be all of existence itself, the something else you are seeking (to account for it) is necessarily a part of the something you are questioning in the first place, and, therefore, it cannot possibly account for it ! This absurdity is the consequence of treating nothing as an absolute, rather than a relative term. The question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing ?' is as absurd a question as asking, 'Why are there causes, and not just effects?' In each case, what the question presupposes is logically absurd.
Kuhn knows more about God than I did when I first chose to believe in Christ, which is good. But sometimes when you cannot know facts, you just have to take the plunge and believe. Although you will not learn all the answers, you can learn more by experiencing a genuine faith in the Lord than you can ever figure out by studying the issue academically.
Also, a question drags another question and that can go into a loop. Like in this video :)
I would say that we don't have access to that information. It's not that it isn't there. But it's shrouded, wether intentionally or not. It's actually a clever trick we have played on ourselves. In the beginning there was only the One. But that was not enough because, well that's boring. I know if I was the One, I'd be like, yeah, wouldn't it be cool if I could experience the universe with a fresh set of eyes and behold the wonder of it all. But to do that, I had to forget who I was, where it all came from, why I even existed at all. And so it is with every new life that springs forth with no memory, no experiences, and no expectations. Behold the wonder of it all, over and over again in every form of existence in the entire universe. Yeah, that's what I would choose if I were the One. A lot more interesting that way.
The idea that there could be nothing at all is absurd. The concept of 'nothing' is only meaningful in the context of there being something already in existence.
Is there any word that does not refer to or describe within existence? Even words like nothing and non-existence describe or refer to existence?
French composer Claude Debussy said, “Music is the space between the notes.” I am a note. I will never be a space!
Nothing presupposes something; it is incoherent to posit Being to "not be". It is equally incoherent to posit that "nothing is".
Why is there something rather than everything? An equally valid question. Mr. Kuhn?
The question is biased. There are infinite ways to have something, but only one way to have nothing. So the harder question is why should there be nothing instead of something?
There could never be nothing because nothing is a presence onto it self that means it's there
The hubris of some scientists and philosophers irks me. A lobster has a primitive nervous system and interacts with the environment but will never understand calculus. There may very well be realms of knowledge and reality we can't access even in principal no matter how much technological progress we make. Cosmologists that say the universe came out of "nothing" really need to revisit Heidegger's conceptualization of Nothing.
We humans need to remember that we are a product of the universe. It is quite possible that some explanations are out of the realm of our comprehension and understanding.
Start by defining and describing "nothing." We have no experience with what is supposedly described by that word.
Agreed. That is the heart of the problem. We as humans cannot understand or grasp 'nothing'. Our definitions of nothing are always substancially 'something', perhaps characterized by a lack of features, but still with a evidencable existance. Eg. "Nothing exists", says that something called 'nothing', exists. It seems to be the case that this thing we consider "nothing whatsoever" is just an abstract creation of the mind, that simply has no substance. Eg. There is always something, and that is a fundamental in itself.
The ground of inference is more the ground of being than the ground of reference: consciousness? Nature is self-evidently something. Only self-consciousness can pose the question of nothingness.
The question then becomes comparitive; is self-consciousness the source of nothingness; or is self-consciousness in contrast to consciousness the source of nothingness? Can ontology recognize nothingness, or is nothingness "only" an epistemological assertion?
I think nothing is ONLY an epistemic postulate. It can only be inferred. Never referred to. But it's inference is, in part, due to ontological absence. A denial, not a negation, of ontology.
Is it just me, or is that a 'no answer' answer. There seem to be two things scientists can't explain at all: why there's something rather than nothing, and what causes self-awareness.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Can we agree there is "something" now. If we can agree on that, then the answer is this. Something exists, therefore there was always the possibility of something existing, and when this universe finally devolves into near "nothingness" it can be said the universe has existed. Hence, absolute nothingness can never have existed.
@@donespiritu1345 So does that mean there is an infinite past? That would mean an infinite sequence of events has occurred.
@@quuq6259 My speculation is that would depend on the theory of multiple universes. If there are multiple universes then each one has a finite past. In our universe there is a finite past, likely. Truest answer, I don't know.
For me the key to answer Mr. lawrence is to tell him that even nothing exists. Nothing is nothing but is something because it exists. Period.
Even if there is nothing in my pocket, I can still ask a question.
God is not something the materialist deny and not something the philosophers assert. God is not a third person as expressed in the discussion. The essence of God evades both the materialist and the idealists. The eye can not see the Eye.
We can’t ask why the totality of everything exists, because there is nothing outside of the totality of everything that could provide the explanation
Overly long comment (sorry). "That there is something rather than nothing becomes just an amazing and wonderous fact, but without the assumption of a necessary being we have no explanation for it. We have no explanation of existence at all. … Even though we know that things exist, we do not and cannot, without the assumption of a necessary being, know why they exist."-A Debate On The Existence Of God” (BBC radio, 1948) between Father Frederick Copleston (age 41) and Bertrand Russell (age 76).
Father Copleston’s famous argument can be described as explaining one mystery in terms of another mystery. This is sometimes called abduction or hypothesis, a form of induction: From a curious fact B (why there is something) we hypothesize a cause, A (God created the universe, possibly from nothing). But, A implies B with some positive probability, only if A is the best or one of the best explanations we can think of and has some evidence behind it. In this case, however, there are other candidates for A: Some things have always existed. Processes, not intelligent beings, brought matter and energy into existence. Etc. Consequently, Father Copleston’s use of abduction will not give us a positive probability. In discussing Nature, why-type questions concerning the deepest levels of reality are disallowed. We can only observe and describe (science is no more than this) what we think we see and how those parts seem to interact with each other. Humans don’t know the answers to the ultimate questions of Nature because humans did not design the universe, and the intelligent author (if there is one) did not leave any explanation. Hence, such questions are currently unanswerable. The attempt to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” by claiming “God made it so.” must be classified as more of a theological pose than an answer.
The foundation of the cosmos should be something that its existence should be part of its essence like 2+2=4. How enlightening a thought!
The answer is the Totalitarian Principle. *"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."* If there was nothing, then there would be no constraints--no laws, no logic, no restrictions. Nothing would be forbidden, therefore everything that could exist would exist--and everything that could happen would happen. So "nothing" _has_ to result in "everything". These arguments about causality and infinite regress are wrong (as suspected, because they lead to a paradox). Physics already shows us this--quantum mechanics has revealed our universe has a non-deterministic (i.e. non-causal) foundation. Possibility is fundamental, not time or causal relationships.
"Why" is the question for searching a reason, this is a logical question our mind does because of the cause-effect involved in the universe; so, there must be a valid reason because we exist. Going by steps, actual knowledge takes us to the physical explanation from the big bang up to our days, everything is cause-effect explained. The question is trapped at what happens at / or previous to the big bang. Here relativity time dilation must take into account, energy was so concentrated that its time change is zero (because the Lorentz factor goes to infinity). This doesn't mean no time traveling or passage of time, this means a scale change so time doesn't change, it gives the same value for all the passage of time previous to the big bang, it considers a frizzing local time; like being over a beam of light at C speed. Nirvana is a good example of this, a frizzing cause-effect condition... it just previously - infinitely exists...
"valid reason because we exist" -----
God is existence in and of Himself.
The essence of existence is Love
God is Love.
Love is to will the good of the other as other.
Love is this creative will manifest through action.
God is Love.
Christ is God made manifest.
Isham points out my assumption of existence which then seems unquestionable but at least we have evidence the fact we are here. But then how can he also assume a god in the same way as there is no further evidence other than existence really. Will he avoid a definition of god by just speculating everything is not just science?
It will drive you crazy if you think about too much.
"Even if there was nothing, you still wouldn't be satisfied!" Sidney Morgenbesser
The same thing goes for why there is everything rather than just anything...
To comprehend that you can’t comprehend is a comprehension.
It seems that the only adequate answer for why there's something would be some reason why there being nothing is (logically?) impossible.
The question is why.
The answer is: we have insufficient information to know the answer.
Therefore, we must develop a short list of assumptions which provide guidance in making decisions during the individual life time. The only thing I know for certain is: I exist. Everything else is based upon that list of assumptions.
Problems there arent any evidencie that show up how possibilities is possible in this way Universe are unpredicted while conscieness not picuret it reality.
@@maxwellsimoes238, the evidence is our own individual observations. That is our only source of information.
There are no assumptions with the Universe being a finite ISOLATED thermodynamic system with increasing entropy. Check the requirements for such a system to exist.
@@abelincoln8885, how do I check for the requirements for such a system to exist? What is my source for such information?
@@JustAThought01 Check for yourself the origin of ... and requirements for, ... an isolated THERMODYNAMIC system.
Anything that contains matter, energy/heat is a Thermodynamic System.
There are only three types of Thermodynamic systems: open, closed, & isolated, and are differentiated from one another by the transfer or not, of matter/energy(heat).
All Thermodynamic Systems originate from the surrounding System(s).
A can of soup is a CLOSED thermodynamic system, which only allows the transfer of energy(heat).
Open up the can of soup, and it becomes an open thermodynamic System.
And the can of Soup originated from the surrounding Systems(s) which is which is the Atmosphere of the Earth, in the space of the Universe.
The Human Body is a thermodynamic system, as are vegetables, and soup making machinery.
The Universe is the only example of an ISOLATED Thermodynamic Systems as there is zero evidence transfer of matter and/or energy from the SURROUNDING SYSTEM(S) so it is not an open or closed system.
And the Universe can not be infinite because Isolated thermodynamic systems will have CONSTANT entropy because there is infinite time & volume will allows infinitesimal small changes for a system to return to thermal equilibrium( ie reversible thermodynamic processes which are ideal and never happen).
There has always been enough information to determine the origin of the Universe & life.
Man has known for thousands of years, that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes Laws ... and things that have a purpose, design, function.
The Universe is clearly full of things withe purpose, design & function, and "natural" Law. This why every people of any culture ... have have all sought an explanation for the origin of the Universe & Life .... from a Supernatural( Unnatural) existence & INTELLIGENCE. This is why , even today with all our scientific knowledge, facts, Laws of physics, and technology .... most people in the world believe in the supernatural & gods/God.
Again. Anything that has purpose, design & function is made by an intelligence.
We have always known the facts about purpose, design & function ... and man's limitations as the only known intelligence in the Universe. Man clearly did not make the Universe ... but made it was ... by a very very powerful intelligence.
Why not “nothing”?
1. Could there have been nothing? Suppose so. Name it 0. You might reply that 0 is already something. Yes, but only because of my consciousness. I must assume that neither I nor the universe, nor energy exist.
2. Nothing could have come out of 0.
3. Suppose the contrary. Something, call it E, came out of 0.
4. E has replaced 0.
5. The verb “replace” implies a previous situation. That’s 0.
6. But 0 can’t be a situation, otherwise it’s something in contradiction to it being nothing.
7. So, there was no “nothing.”
8. Perhaps statement 4 is false, then. Suppose so.
9. So then, statement 3 is false, that is, statement 2 is true: nothing could have come out of 0.
10. Since existence obviously exists, then it follows that 0 never existed. So, what is “nothing”? Answer: nothing.
11. Second, why is there ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’? Answer: because existence exists. So, answering one question automatically answers the other.
12. So, E is everything and eternal. It’s everything nonphysical, since the reasoning here didn't need the physical. It’s God.
These answers don’t seem satisfactory. The reason is that humanity associates God with religions. They expect a God that is much more than what I just deduced.
Isham Is surely right, one cannot have laws without there being something they are laws _of._ It gets worse than that, though. Even if laws could exist on their own, how could they cause anything to come in to existence? And how could laws of mathematics cause anything not already in existence to come into existence. As has been remarked: if I put £1 in the bank and then place another £1 in the bank, the laws of arithmetic say that I will have £2 in the bank (given no withdrawals in the mean time) but such a law simply tells us that 1 + 1 = 2. It does not cause the existence of the £2 in my account. Alas, _I_ am the one who has to cause that.
Many scientists seem systematically to mis-understand the question 'Why something rather than nothing?', thinking it to call for an empirically testable hypothesis. But there already has to be something, describable by laws, in order even coherently to frame such a hypothesis, let alone test it. It is good to encounter a physicist who seems to have some grasp of this. A celebratory gin, I think, is called for.
But before I open the bottle, please no one tell me that we can't really understand nothingness. Of course we can't. We can only understand _something._ We do not need to understand it, though, we need only coherently to be able to frame the possibility of it. Since 'nothingness' = 'not anything' (including laws), I think we can do this. This leads on to another gripe. If we can coherently frame the question, do not tell me, either, that it's all a part of some mere 'word salad'. That is nothing more than sheer desperation (perhaps exasperation) arising from a wish to withdraw from serious thought about the matter.
I agree, that was a great answer by Isham. I thought he was about to be stumped by that question.
@@Slo-ryde Many thanks. I clicked on the video with the same soul-flattening intuition, but after listening to him - and a subsequent gin - I'm happy.
From the book … Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen ... author Jane Hawking ... The True Story Behind the Theory of Everything.
Only a month later we found ourselves again in Rome, where Stephen was to be admitted by the Pope to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, despite the heresies he was still preaching about the universe having neither a beginning or an end.
I watched and listened from the sidelines and my heart sank as I heard it repeated again and again in some form or other. "Professor Hawking, what does your research tell you about the existence of God? Or "Is there room for God in the universe you describe?" or, more directly, "Do you believe in God?" Always the answer was the same. No, Stephen did not believe in God and there was no room for God in his universe.
But all questions in the end leads to God
@@waterproof4403 If you could create a universe, would you deprive your subjects of your knowledge, and then punish them for not knowing what you know?
Would you also expect them to worship you for depriving them of your knowledge?
@@junevandermark952 I'm just human my friend. I can't think like that
@@waterproof4403 I understand. We are taught to fear an image of a creator, and never to ask questions. That is how they kept us in line.
"KEEP THE FAITH, ... or else face harsh judgment in the afterlife"
@@waterproof4403 Religion is the study of mythical gods. Science is the study of all things other than mythical gods. Please don't confuse the two as being united.
The religious (so-called) scientist Anthony Leewenhoek crossed the line between science and religion when he stated as a fact that suffering could only occur because God had willed it to be so. From the book Microbe Hunters by Paul de Kruif … published 1926 … “Life lives on life-it is cruel, but it is God’s will” he pondered.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" - well, why do we assume there's not, nothing... We can only experience, something... that doesn't mean that something (the universe) doesn't have an end point (in time and space)... the real question is, why is there something?
the only answer that makes sense as of 2022, is brough forth by Theology. However, even then, the answer requires faith and cannot be fully proven, it can only be accepted....
Totally agree. Zeus created universe.
It is so difficult for we humans to understand that which Is outside of Time and Space, which Is, regardless of Time and Space.
It is a timeless Me which manifests all worlds, and can manifest any world, and does so for its own play.
It is not in time, it is not eternal, it is timeless and it created or manifested Time and Space.
And everything could disappear this minute, and it would be diminished not one iota. It is Reality, that which Is, the only ''thing'' (and it is not a thing), God without the taint of Religion, Awareness or Nameless. It knows Itself as Me.
At 10:20, you raise the question whether the laws of physics could have caused the universe. Laws of physics -- as well as mathematics -- DESCRIBE cause and effect, they cannot create the effect, no more than the mathematical law of rectangles that Area = base x height can create Area.
we may be trapped by language itself - what gives it the right to assume that a why question is even fundamental- its more basic even that presupposing a physical world as our ideas about it are expressed in language and thought itself a product of the so called physical world- perhaps a ' conceptual prison'
Does a infinite realm beyond what we perceive as space-time answer this. Nothing can not exist by its definition, why not a region that has always existed and spawns universes infinitely.