Stephen Law - Why Is There Anything At All?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2023
- Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Why is there a world, a cosmos, something, anything instead of absolutely nothing at all? If nothing existed, there would be, well, ‘nothing’ to explain. To have anything existing demands some kind of explanation. Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why anything? Why not nothing? What can we learn from the absence of nothing?
Watch more interviews on the mystery of existence: bit.ly/45YM0MW
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Stephen Law is an English philosopher who is the Director of the Certificate in Higher and Education and Director of Philosophy at The Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: 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 wish I could have used this philosophers argument during my school exams!
😉
Well, once you earn a Ph.D in physics, you no longer need school exams!
After watching quite a few of these videos I have come to the sobering conclusion that even the greatest minds still don't have a clue about anything and everything at all, in spite of developing devestatingly abstract and incomprehensible theories and hypotheses, each preaching to their own church of thought.
yeah
yes.
Well no lol
Wow
Each seeking to establish their own church of thought. One of the basic items of dogma in my church is The universe is not just another thing in the universe; in order to avoid confusion, stop talking about it as if it were.
It could be that the concept of "nothing" is itself flawed.
I'd say that some questions might simply be beyond our cognitive ability to make sense of. We're beings who've evolved particular ways of sensing and understanding things via our conscious experience, in a way which is usefully adapted to navigating the universe we're born into. Even quantum theory seems unintuitive and weird to us, because it doesn't fall into the clockwork cause and effect ways we've evolved to think about our observations of the universe as we experientially encounter it.
To expect the ways we understand the universe as we experience it (including cause and effect, reason, logic, intuition) to also be able to provide an answer to why anything exists at all, is asking a question we're perhaps simply not equipped to answer.
The question is beyond the grasp of language. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask it. Refusing to ask it is like refusing that we exist outside of language. This is utterly dumb. That guy, Stephen Law, constantly speaks about therapy and nobody knows why, well the reason is he is crying for therapy for himself. He desperately needs therapy because he is entirely focused on how he will appear to others. He only lives for the consideration of others, which is the same as saying he only lives in the world describable by language (because language is made for exchanging views with others). And he is a living reminder of how dumb and insecure and pretentious this is.
I have pondered this very question for many years. I don't understand why anything should exist. But the other aspect of this is that I can't imagine absolutely nothing existing either. Boths aspects I find unfathomable. It seems to be beyond my capacity to understand.
I don't know why I exist. It wasn't my decision 😂.
My mind want to be somewhere else...than this planet. Maybe next life if conciousness is really free to ride!?
That question has already been answered
www.dropbox.com/s/c69trrjillfr23r/HAKIZA-1%20%28draft%29%20-1.pdf?dl=0
I think that the non-existence of things, and the existence of everything are equivalent, and also are equivalent to our consciousness. It is just that the concept doesn't make sense in the framework of our brain.
If you assume causality to be true in all circumstances then it seems beyond our capacity to understand. BUT, if you notice that causality works if and only if there is time (because any cause C is follow by an effect E, after a non zero positive time T, and realize that things beyond time space doesn't obey causality anymore (T=0 , beyond time space continuum there is no time at all, so C=E), then there are self sustaining things (which by the way, are unchanged, unchangeable, undeletable, non-addable and permeate every point in time space continuum - a mundane e.g. is math constants) then there is an explanation. And curios or not, God reveal Himself as: I am the One who exists through Myself.
When they reach for the old "What's north of the north pole" ...I kinda know we won't go anywhere
What's north of the North Pole? Up.
Do they ever go anywhere?
The North of North Pole already teach us that words invented by humans guarantee we won't ever know the fundamental truth of the natural world because everything is communicated in this art called language. It guarantees we will go deeper into rabbit holes and not find the truth
Maybe, like the north pole, there is nowhere else to go, and that knowledge is the place you called 'anywhere'.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 as we can see, Humans are confused by language and yet language is what communicates all our info and knowledge, laws, theories. No wonder religions never end and politicians always win some votes and bigotry, bias always exists
It's definitely NOT a meaningless question.
(0:30) *SL: **_"I've become more and more sympathetic to the view that the question doesn't need an answer"_* ... Which is the typical conclusion many reach regarding any question that science and religion struggle to answer. It is a question that absolutely *CAN* be answered! There are no barriers set in place to answering it, and just because it's a _"tough question"_ doesn't entitle anyone to knock it off the table.
The answer to the question, *"Why is there anything at all?"* is that a juxtaposition of *Existence* and *Nonexistence* is as far back as one can regress while still adhering to logic. Anything beyond this archetypal pairing would be inconceivable.
... You must accept both as one offers conceivability for the other,
One way to look at the question of existence and nonexistence is that any given state of existence seems to exclude other conceivable states of affairs that might have existed instead. It seems on the face of it that for me to exist, all the other people who might have existed in my place must not exist. So yes, I can see there is an inherent necessary relationship between existence and nonexistence, at least in this specific sense of nonexistence.
As Mr. law points out though, that's not quite the same sort of nonexistence as total nonexistence. In the case of my existence and some other person existing in my place all the matter, energy, etc might still exist but just in a different structure. So there's existence in the sense of physical existence and there's also existence in the sense of the same or a different arrangement. It seems this word 'exist' has multiple very different meanings, and so it's important to be sure we are using it in the right way to ask the right questions.
@@simonhibbs887 *"One way to look at the question of existence and nonexistence is that any given state of existence seems to exclude other conceivable states of affairs that might have existed instead. It seems on the face of it that for me to exist, all the other people who might have existed in my place must not exist."*
... This is where I default to logic. What you are proposing is a *top-down* approach to why Simon Hibbs exists whereas what I propose is *bottom-up.* Top-down requires too many assumptions.
*1st Assumption:* There is information available that represents all possible versions of you and the Simon Hibbs we have with us today was selected from that data pool. This begs the question, _"Where did all of this vast pool of virtual information about you come from?"_
*2nd Assumption:* A third-party arbitrator is required to make a selection from the Simon Hibbs variation pool, which begs the question, _"What is this third-party arbitrator, where did it come from, and were there also x-number of virtual variations of this third-party arbitrator before it was able to exist to later be able to select you?"_
*3rd Assumption:* There is either a *finite* or *infinite* number of "virtual" variations to choose from in the Simon Hibbs data set. If it's an *infinite number,* then the arbitrator that selected "you" from the available data set did so prematurely without considering all possible versions. *Reason:* If there are an infinite number of variations, then the arbitrator would never have access to the complete set of variations.
*4th Assumption:* If there was an *finite number* of variations of you, then what was it specifically about the version of "you" that does exist that compelled the arbitrator to select you? ... If the arbitrator just randomly "spins the wheel" and lets fate do the selecting, then why not just go with the first version of you that was available and save all the needless effort?
My *Bottom-up* version assumes there was only one possible Simon Hibbs, and that's the version I'm replying to right now. You are a byproduct of everything else that preceded you. 13.8 billion years of particles have been moving around until they ultimately assimilated into "you" and that's just the way Existence unfolded.
*"As Mr. law points out though, that's not quite the same sort of nonexistence as total nonexistence. In the case of my existence and some other person existing in my place all the matter, energy, etc might still exist but just in a different structure."*
... That's the key problem with a top-down ontology. You have to find somewhere to put all of the "other" variations of everything that exists that didn't make it into this realm, ... and we never seem to find any of those secret hiding spots.
*"It seems this word 'exist' has multiple very different meanings, and so it's important to be sure we are using it in the right way to ask the right questions."*
... Bottom-up ontology only requires a single definition for "exist:" ... It's whatever you have available and nothing more.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I wasn’t proposing a top down reason at all. The question I asked is from a top down perspective yes, but I don’t believe in top down causation. I think what exists and is real emerges from bottom up processes. There is no third party arbiter.
As for possibilities I think for me the jury is still out. It comes down to whether reality is fundamentally deterministic or probabilistic. Most perspectives on quantum processes say probabilistic, in which case this outcome in this universe was not inevitable and other outcomes could have occurred. Furthermore the way things will develop on future is not set in stone.
If some variation of superdeterminism is correct then there could not have been any other outcome, and the future is equally inevitable. If so, I find it hard to figure out how variation could occur. If all the processes in the world can only occur one way, how did uneven initial conditions occur? I would have thought perfect inevitable progression from perfectly inevitable initial conditions would produce perfectly symmetrical, or perfectly smooth and isotropic resultant conditions. Yet the universe we observe has intricate structure and variation. So there must be some underlying principle of variation and irregularity.
If I believe that there is an infinite God who created indivisible universe and if our mind in nature is to divide the whole to present conceivable things then maybe this structure does not tells about infinite God that's why said God is inconceivable.
I agree it is still juxtaposition. Infinite/finite.
Equation cannot be set to zero.
The first response from everyone interviewed on this channel: "You're asking the wrong question..."
imagine to apply that to real life ....
@@francesco5581 It's often an incredibly useful approach in real life. When you're genuinely stuck with a problem, go back and look at your assumptions.
@@simonhibbs887 to yourself yes, i agree ... with others does not work ...
Meaning "you asked a question we have no idea how to answer". It's the one thing that unites science, religion and philosophy: none of them have a clue about this most fundamental question of existence.
The smartest answer to this question is "I don't know."
True enough, and likely will forever be the smartest answer, but not knowing the answer does not make the question fundamentally illogical as long as nothing is literally No-thing. We likely will never know what exists beyond our cosmic event horizon, but the question as to what does is still logical.
Time is relative, existence is absolute.
Finally! Intellect! We know it’s rare, but obviously you possess it! Excellent observation!
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
When awareness become aware of it self it's own nature that's moment of enlightenment.
Good to see Laurence pushing back!
Yes Laurence should have destroyed Stephen Law. But he couldn't because Stephen Law already destroyed himself willingly. Try to argue with a dead body...
Even nothing is something. For nothing to exist it would have to stand out in some way, a background or something to be compared to. Only in a world of things can it even be possible for the question to arise. It is like wondering why it is that everyone's legs are the proper length to reach the ground. No on has legs so long as they are underground or so short that they hang in the air.
Very well stated, I think. I love the leg thing.
Hmmmm.....no, I don't think so. I think we simply find true nothingness almost as incomprehensible as the notion of infinity -- we have the idea of both, but can't truly take in either concept. Since we exist.... since we are "something".... we can't comprehend true "nothing". But this doesn't mean that "nothing" is "something".
He's right about the question being fundamentally flawed.
"What happened before the big bang" is a valid question.
Even though the answer may lie outside of this universe, that shouldn't rule the question from being asked.
Reality can only be one way. It can have something, or it can contain nothing. The fact is that it has something. If it contained nothing, it simply would not be reality. Reality comes with something.
Robert's frustration is obvious.
I don't blame him this guy said nothing
@@Joseph-fw6xxyup... He's a fallacy machine.
That's the fanciest thumbnail I've ever seen in comments.
I think the reason the universe is here is because it was needed to bring me into existence.
The actual, retorical and linguistic answer is ... Nothing is impossible. 🤔
Einstein said, "thermodynamics is the one law of universal content which will never be overthrown".
1st law: heat cannot derive from cold
2nd law: cold goes only to heat.
THIS universe of heat cannot have begun: 1st law
A universe an infinity of years old would now have distributed its heat: 2nd law
THE single most proven, in fact unchallenged law known to humans says this universe
did not begin and cannot be eternal. Human's brains cannot fathom a third alternative.
Penrose/string/infinite universes/quantum anything (without heat there are no waves; NO quantum physics)
...any and all "explanations" are purely perpetual motion machines which do not trick the 2nd law.
"it's time to stop asking that question"
@@WayneLynch69 Einstein wasn't the last physicist. He was a step along the way. We tend to think of him as a "late" step, near the end of discovery. But the truth is that if we continue to exist for another 100,000 years, science will continue to advance, and Einstein will eventually be thought of as primitive. Eventually, all scientists will be wrong. As astronomy and especially quantum physics continue to get weirder and weirder, we can't even imagine how weird they will be in 100,000 years.
If the Big Bang holds, that doesn't affect whether "Nothing" is possible. By definition, it cannot exist.
@@WayneLynch69 The First and Second Law, as you state them (and, I think, Einstein's quote), are meant to describe processes in the universe. They are not meant to describe or apply to the origin of the universe, by which I mean the Big Bang. Assuming I am right, what would the name of this fallacy be? How about, Fallacy of assuming an absolute context?
We can't answer it, therefore it doesn't need an answer...got it.
Thanks scientist
Why is the moon happy? He argues that some questions just dont make sense.
@@josef9733 wondering if the universe itself is contingent or necessary is not a meaningless question
If this query could be answered, we simply wouldn't be here.....❤
I was trying to figure out at the end of the day, if I had done anything useful. I am glad that I got my answer here.
Let's compare the question "why is there something rather than nothing ?" to the question "are there other universes?" The second question has a definite one-bit (yes/no) answer, but the problem is that from within our Universe we cannot find out what that answer is. Now back to the first question, it may or may not have an answer, but if it does, that answer is most likely many bits long. Regardless of how many bits of information it has, there is no way for us to find out what that answer is. No amount of philosophical hand waving, nor any kind of scientific experiment, will ever be able to find answers to these two questions. And that is all one can say about that.
Why is there something instead of nothing = what time is it on the sun? One of the worst answers ever😂 Just say you don’t know! It’s actually a completely valid question.
Love is the only reason why the universe was created. In order for love to exist there has to be a choice, which creates a counterpart that taints life.
If nothing existed, no one or no thing would be able to experience it or ask a questing like ‘why there’s nothing in existence’.
That that we are cannot be removed. "You" can't be removed. "you"and "I" can both claim that we can't be removed, and we both can conclude we are "everything there is" (since one is everything that is not the other). Thus, we are not made by anything that can be removed. We're indestructible given we exist. What is can't be threatened (destroyed).
Let's treat each other like the Gods we are.
Because there isn't any THING. The Universe isn't a noun, it's a verb.
Yes Universe is living thing or just mother for life and conciousness.
But a verb, or a brain that comprehends the verb, is SOMETHING that exists.
@suncat9 If the Universe is every thing that exists, then it cannot be a thing in itself, rather a process, an action, a verb. The first verb we learn in any language is To Be. It's no accident that when Moses asked the voice in the Burning Bush its name, the reply was: 'I am that I am'. God isn't a Being, a noun, God is being, a verb.
@@HarryWolfprocess ontology is false. Being grounds Becoming
@@HarryWolf You have no clue what you are talking about. Its no wonder you were tricked into believing the biblical nonsense. The universe in your situation there is most definitely a thing. In fact it is the set of all things. You really need to learn what nouns and verbs are.
Where did you get that the first verb learned is 'to be'? Did you make that up like the rest of the nonsense?
Simple! You cannot get something out of nothing! 🤷🏾♀️
Yes but what was that something?
@@kipponi the universe
@@kipponi *"Yes but what was that something?"*
... A minimalistic representation of "Existence" for which its only ability was to count the amount of "Existence" that was present and the amount that was not present. The amount of "Existence" that was present was *1* and the amount of "Existence" not present was *0.*
@@kipponi Exactly! That’s what I want to know too!
His answer reminds me of this: Why do birds fly? They just do. Oh well. Mankind then stays on the ground.
That was cool.
The Question towards Stephen Law should be framed like this, "Qualitative aspect of the universe could not be bound by spacio-temporal set up like various human emotions, love, anger, inquisitiveness.These seem to take place in the space time platform but the qualities itself are not part of the the set up. Human experience by itself doesnot contain any correlates with space and time. So we could then understand that "Experience" could reach metaphysical level beyond space time. So can we look upon the issue from that angle".
If we get happy or angry about something or get inquisitive about anything it is the object of happiness or anger we are referring to is spacio-temporal but happiness or anger itself is not.If the experience could be brought within the mind without it's attachment to object then something could be known.
Obviously, absolute absence is fundamentally impossible, simply because absolute absence would, itself, be irreducibly present.
In this way, Presence Itself is ALWAYS present.
Evidently, It's causeless appearance is this ever-flowing asymmetry that is commonly called "the universe", with no need for a reason why.
What makes this a fascinating question is that some of us have tried to imagine experiencing the concept of nothing as youngsters. If you were the least bit interested in science and the universe this idea might have popped into your head. And it would have given you brain freeze as it did me. In fact it was a pretty disturbing idea. If I tried to imagine the condition of nothing now I would immediately conclude that it is impossible because that condition hasn't existed nor ever could have existed. There already was a big bang and there already is something. If someone tries to say there was nothing at some point in the past I would say then there should be nothing now - as I don't see how the concept of nothing could be anything but eternal.
That question has already been answered
www.dropbox.com/s/c69trrjillfr23r/HAKIZA-1%20%28draft%29%20-1.pdf?dl=0
"Nothing" is fascinating!
But to argue that it can't exist because you can't imagine it is a fallacy from personal incredulity.
Because if there wasn't anything at all, there would be nothing at all and we wouldn't be asking questions about it!
You can whittle down everything till you get to yourself. If you whittle yourself away, then then the question disappears. It comes down to 'Why do you exist?' Well, accidents happen, that's probably 'why'.
Here we have someone who's thinking the question through rather than agonizing over an answer. Just because you have some "strongly held belief" that there *must be* an answer, those are just your emotions masquerading as philosophy.
Makes sense to me. We don't have the tools to step out of our space and time to ask questions outside of the realm or supporting environment of our current understanding, just as for most of our existence we didn't have the tools to answer what time is it on the sun. Even our language only supports our current environment. We will need new understanding and frameworks to formulate the question.
That question has already been answered
www.dropbox.com/s/c69trrjillfr23r/HAKIZA-1%20%28draft%29%20-1.pdf?dl=0
We can feel the change in speed (acceleration) but not the speed itself. We can observe the change in existence, (no coffee in the cup to some coffee in the cup) but we cannot observe the existence itself.
When was the time nonexistent? Where did space begin to exist? Which process caused processes? Why is there nothing rather than something?
Give it up. We can't experience nothing. We can only experience what is.
The false equivalency between the 'north of the North Pole' analogy and the question as to why existence prevails over absolute nothingness is the height of intellectual dishonesty. He gives no other coherent reason for why his proposition of dismissing the question other than "I don't have an answer."
What's the point of only attempting to answer the questions that you already know the answer to.
06:40 he insists that the dichotomy exists as a matter of fact but fails to offer an explanation of how nothingness transitioned into the universe.
You'd figure that a so called "intellectual" would have a better proposition other than circular reasoning, appeal to ignorance and special pleading fallacy.
Sure, it is highly unlikely that a suitable answer beyond supposition will ever be discovered, but that does not invalidate the question or demand fallacy to replace a simple "I do not know."
We likely will never be able to answer the question "What all exists beyond the event horizon of the observable universe?" will likely never be answered to satisfaction, but that does not mean the question is nonsense.
You could argue that a playwrite's ideal manifestation of a character, does not occupy the same space-time universe before reification and given this, why not an aspatio-temporal unique number category?
Bruce Coburn has a song with the line "Infinity always gives me vertigo" with which i empathize greatly. I have ended up concluding that the idea of infinity being "endless time" is a wrong concept. Better might be "always tomorrow".
He's right, it's not a good question.
why is there air?
When you have a question like this, try asking yourself, "could I conceivably ask the reverse if that was true?"
For example, could you possibly ask the question, "why is there nothing rather than something?" if there actually was nothing?
"Why does consciousness exist?" can be met with "why doesn't consciousness exist?"
"Why are there thoughts?" with "why aren't there thoughts?"
The point is there are so many necessary preconditions where the falsehood of them would mean it would be impossible for anything to be asked. We can accept that, and focus on the interesting and productive questions of *how* specific parts of that work.
Children don’t think about this. And if they do, they need a psychologist
Then ask why do we feel like we need/want an answer..
Having a concept of "nothing" it is " something". Observîng "nothing' it is "something". You can never reach "nothing"
I can add one additional "nothing" to this episode. This gentleman offered "nothing" of substance in his attempted answer to Robert's question.
To every why is answer we just not know it yet😂.
The platonist would say that the physical universe is the attribute of the absolute, the absolute or “the one” being the transcendent principle behind all physical reality. Existence is the eternal shadow of The One
From Sri Krishna everything emarges, in Bhagbat Gita God Sri Krishna shows His cosmic form to Arjuna, it is the only relegious text where God speaks Himself.
Respectfully, this is at least irrelevant and at most basically jibberish. Good luck with that.
@@KillkillkilldiediedieThat doesn't sound respectful.
@@ianwaltham1854 Please explain why. Thanks. Not liking something, isn’t the same as it being disrespectful.
Would you prefer is use the word rhetoric instead of jibberish? It wouldn’t change the context of what I said, would that make you feel better?
If there were really nothing at all, there would never be anyone to ask when will there be something.
That does not negate the question though. Science claims to be on more solid footing than religion and yet the attitude that the big bang addresses all inquiries of origin and no further questions can be logically asked is basically the same as saying God is the final answer as to why there is a universe.
Because “something” is fun.
My answer to our existence is,' "much ado about nothing".'
I like that, at so many levels. Which then suggests the question “What is nothing”!
Say that when you die.
It is like dividing by zero
Is ignorance the absence of knowledge; or the presence of knowledge?
Similarly is nothing the absence of something or the presence of something?
The incompleteness of consciousness, existence and knowledge may not be fundamental to reality, but it may be fundamental to life: living beings.
If we think that : if there is a void eventually it will be filled, hints at the theory that there is a unified field. But then the question arises in that why is there any void that needs to be filled, or nothing at all? Maybe it is that cosmologically there is no void?
Except that a "void" is in fact "something" by definition. It is not 'nothing'... At least not the nothing that is being discussed here.
I kind of agree with the speaker that the question (possibly) makes no sense outside the realm of human experience/consciousness. Our minds are wired to think in terms of cause and effect. The flow of time is also predominant in our experience. But if you buy into 4D spacetime, then the universe becomes a place where nothing ever changes. Events are correlated rather than causally related (i.e. cause and effect goes out the window). Then the whole idea of before and after is erroneous. I would argue that the distinction between something and nothing also becomes ill-defined. By definition, something exists if it persists through time. So if time is an illusion, then maybe existence is itself an illusion.(?)
There is only one way for there to be absolutely nothing.
However there are a near infinite number of ways there can be things.
It is basically infinity to one that things exist.
That question has already been answered
www.dropbox.com/s/c69trrjillfr23r/HAKIZA-1%20%28draft%29%20-1.pdf?dl=0
Nothing is contained in some Thing.
@@bojanangjeleski138 Prove it!
@@glenncurry3041 Well it is beyond intellectual concepts, need to be experienced, useful analogy its explaining particular colour to someone who has never seen it..
@@bojanangjeleski138 So NO, you can't prove it. Gotcha!
Color is easy to explain based on frequency/ wavelength. Even colors not visible to humans.
Scientifically, I cannot comprehend how our gigantic universe could have originated in an exploding singularity,
biologically, I cannot comprehend how my personal existence is the consequence of a collision between a sperm and an egg cell,
digitally, I cannot comprehend how 0 & 1's can visualize so many concepts thru internet, cable TV and consoles,
religiously I cannot comprehend how God spake and everything came to be.
But the Judeo-Christian faith gives me the most meaning, hope and purpose to carry on.
We can hear what you were missing in your comprehension. You are missing our star the sun. No star no existence. When we experience our star the sun, we are experiencing time. No time no existence. Time is the fabric of the universe. Pseudo scientist intentionally miss lead Humans who have been indoctrinated especially by religion. Religion is mythology. Fiction. Read more non-fiction. For example, the dictionary the encyclopedia and the thesaurus. This should help with your comprehension. For example, no star no oxygen. No oxygen no consciousness. No consciousness, no comprehension. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction.
Belief is a disease. Belief is a human brain virus. That causes irrational and illogical thinking. Delusion. Avoid belief like a plague. Belief is a plague. The remedy is to read more non-fiction. Obtain knowledge. Knowledge is where we find facts. For example, we are our star. Fat! Think about it. While thinking know that your thoughts are only possible through solar energy. When thinking about time, remember our star, the sun is the reason for existence on earth. Time is not a clock. Time is the fabric of the universe. Avoid imagination. Science rebukes imagination. Read more nonfiction.
The question why is not Nothing can be answered by the answer to the question how (not „why“) can there be something.
Personally, I think people don’t always understand all the “something from nothing” talk and they get mixed up. I explain it to myself this way.
1. If there were nothing that would require no explanation. (This is not saying that there ever “really” was nothing, just a little 5ought experiment… if there had been nothing that would have been easy to explain. We wouldn’t be here to explain it but it would be easy-or rather it would _require no explanation_.
2. When we think about ‘origins’ (back here in reality) we’re thinking backwards in time. Where and when and how did all this come about?… origins. One thing we can be sure of: if there ever was a time in the past when there was _really_ nothing, ‘something’ didn’t come out of it-from nothing, nothing comes. What’s great about our simple state in (1) is that it requires no explanation but it’s also very stable. Nothing doesn’t suddenly become something, that then causes other things, etc. so what we really know is, there was no time in the past when there was truly nothing (because if there had been-nothing new would come about). There was always something.
3. What’s probably most puzzling about the question why is there something rather than nothing is that if you take the scientific tact and say, “Well, what sorts of things are there (that we hope to explain being here) and what sorts of explanations could there be for them being here?” What you always end up with is a theory that laws or materials (at some earlier point) account for, causally, the laws and materials… but the laws or materials we propose as causal explanations are just the same ‘sorts of things’ we had hoped to explain in the first place-and being just the same things (at an earlier point, themselves, require explanations. The question of why is there anything at all seems to require that a. There always was something (since we know there never was nothing) and b. seems to require that that something not be “laws and materials in an earlier state” (since these lack explanatory power to ‘account for their own existence’).
no answer un punnant temporary is nothing something is beautiful;i like
Stephen Law is a Philosopher, not a Scientist. Though I am sure there are Scientists, perhaps many, who would be attracted to his stance on this very primal and often asked question; Why something instead of nothing, and by inference, what was before the Big Bang. He is the archetype positioner of the approach I intuitively reject, but then he makes me wonder in a key way. That perhaps though we can word the big question, do we really have the depth to understand what we are questioning. That perhaps we are not even made for understanding by our very nature. That despite our best intentions, we are just mouthing 'why' yet not being to comprehend.
To add, I may be missing something, but this approach would I think by default maybe allow for some sort of God, because we are also too deficient to determine yay or nay.
Also to mention, there has been some decent informed speculation of what might have come before the Big Bang. But speculation it is. Just like multiple universes
Personally, I will keep asking. But his thinking has been added to my thoughts.
Was there an other option then?
Surely, there are confused questions and confused concepts.
After we have removed the table and other physical things from the room and also from our thought, we can remove the room and space&time from our thought using abstract thinking. Likewise, abstract thinking yields the concept of Nothing.
The question, "What caused the Big Bang?" is indeed a confused question because the concept of cause/reason implies a previous time and a previous thing as a cause, but time and the universe with it are assumed to have a beginning and therefore there is no 'before' the time and the universe. Instead of 'cause', we should here use 'basis' and say, "What was the basis of the origination of the universe?"
No, that question is not wrong. Because we experience things to be in non-existence in terms of forms. So it is valid possibility that there could be nothing, at least with things that come into existence or change forms. It is important to ask, given the possibilility of non existence, there is existence, what does that mean in terms of meaning we assign to things or facts? It means that there is something that is 'all time' removing the possibility of nonexistence from occuring, that gaurantees existence from its possibility of going out of existence. That something which ensures the existence of things with changing forms or states and possibility of nonexistence must be not of that category, rather it is not a of kind which changes forms, states like that in our universe, but it is of unique kind that can not be limited by these kind of boundaries.
Robert says his question of why is there anything at all is more vexing than the question is there a God, and he doesn't seem to understand that they are exactly the same question - they boil down to the same thing.
There are only two options:
1. Something forever.
2. Nothing for never.
Therapy? It's Parmenides' question; why is nothing that exists necessarily one thing except the Universe itself? The question can be answered by explaining origination instead of some recursive description of existence. Like where did the Universe come from? what gave the Universe its permanence? I think Stephen Law claims here these sorts of questions won't ultimately be satisfying.
The question is we know the concept of there could be nothing because there is something and if we were nothing then would we know the concept of something? I think there is still nothing out there somewhere as an entire entity with it's own building blocks.
That question has already been answered
www.dropbox.com/s/c69trrjillfr23r/HAKIZA-1%20%28draft%29%20-1.pdf?dl=0
let's not assume anything. Better to ask, "is there anything at all?" and the answer might be, "Who's to know?"
The answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Is, there isn’t...
There isn’t something ‘rather’ than nothing.
There are both, and may even be central or necessary for each other’s existence, or creation, or non-existence, or non-creation.... whether we define ‘nothing’ as a non-oscillating quantum field, or no field, or anti-field, or what have you...
Surely the question is flawed and there isn’t something rather than nothing...
There are both... and perhaps they are simultaneous
The answer to an infinity of questions is zero. The answer to a different infinity of questions is non-zero.
0 by its own nature is an infinite number, until non-zero is seen to exist also... thus perhaps both render each other both finite and non-finite by logical necessity by virtue of each other’s simultaneous existence or non-existence.
Imagine that someone gave you a good reason for the existence of all things. Then you could always ask “Why does that reason exist?”!
Well, unless they say “there is no reason”…😊
It's a philosophical question but not a scientific question.
infinitesimal zero time (nothing) part of infinite time that makes something from nothing?
Who's to say there isn't nothing though? If you mean why isn't nothing here, then it answers itself: You wouldn't be here to ask the question then. This whole universe could be nowhere. When we're talking about fundamental things it gets extremely weird like that. All of nothing and something could exist in somewhere or nowhere.
Then, the question would be: why is there the question, instead of not having the opportunity?
A "selection artifact" explanation works for me (some universes are nothing); however, if the answer is (as others suggest), because you can't get something from nothing (and we agree there is something), then the correct form of the question (given nothing was NEVER the initial condition): how did we get here from before? Also, if the universe is cyclical (gets to the same place it started from), then "causality" works as an explanation.
The nothing being discussed here is not the 'nothing' that many people reference as "before time" or the singularity. Whatever you want to call "the singularity" before 'the big bang', it still had absolute potential as proven by the reality we can observe now. The concept of nothing being proposed as the dichotomy of existence doesn't even have potential as that would 'something' whether it became reality or not. Nothing literally means no-thing in this discussion...no potential, no singularity, no causality, no time nor timelessness, no conc we pts, no mathematics....by definition it means no possibility for change whatsoever, potentially or actually, orderly or chaotic. Nothing means nothing.
Apply logic, take knowable constants, and work backward through time. If life begets life, then at no time in the past could there have been a period without life. Otherwise, there would be no life today. Thus life has always existed in one form or another.
If we are made of stardust, then it may very well be that stars are living beings, albeit vastly different from what we know as living.
"Something" has always existed. For that "Something" to know itself, it created "Nothing" (at least in theory). You can not obtain something from nothing, but you can end up with nothing when you start with something.
"Why is there something?" is an awesome, big question, which leads to the next question, "How can we be good stewards of this something?"
The Andromeda galaxy doesn't care.
@@suncat9 How can you be sure? 😁
@@suncat9 But Gaia does
@@HarryWolf Reality is that thing that continues to exist even when you stop believing in it.
The something didn't need us as stewards before, doesn't seem to need us at present - in fact we're kinda doing the opposite of stewardship there - and most certainly won't need our 'stewardship' in future either.
Regarding the former question, I happen to share the view briefly presented in this video: I think there's something deeply flawed about this why question: it's questioning the existence of... existence, which sounds as absurd as asking why violence is violent. But people generally don't notice, perhaps because of the mysterious, unintuitive, and mind bogging nature of reality at this level of abstraction.
I completely agree with this perspective, though he could have explained it better, and Robert could have been a little more open-minded to understanding it. Our concept of nothingness is always in reference to the absence of something in a physical space where it is expected such as a cup that is either full or empty. However, extrapolating that simple, local concept of nothingness to a possible alternative condition of the universe is incoherent. That kind of absolute nothingness, by simple logical definition can't exist. If it could, then it would be something. Furthermore, I personally believe that this human preoccupation with the idea of nothingness stems from our evolutionary adaptation to surviving in a state of scarcity. We think of nothingness as the default until something is acquired. This experience distorts our view of the truly abundant properties of nature. The somethingness that we experience is simply a fact because nothingness Is a logical impossibility. This is why the Kalam cosmological argument fails. It's premise incorrectly presumes that a state of nothingness preceded somethingness, and that miraculous appearance of something from nothing must have had a miraculous cause. Of course if something always existed, then there is no need for a creator.
Always interviews great people, often talks over and doesn’t actually listen to them. Leave your agenda outside.
There is something rather than nothing because there is an unseen, unobservable driving force, that is infinite. Whether you believe that to be God, the universe itself, a multiverse, or something else, is subject to your own beliefs and interpretation, but i don't believe we can have the capability to answer that question definitively.
Nothing is more than anything.
There cannot be an infinite series of contingent things.. the series need to end on something which is independent..
Also -
Nothing comes out of nothing (because there is not even possibilities)
I think Mr. Law presented an interesting idea but really did not defend it adequately. Why is there energy why has it manifested itself into matter? These are both physics and philosophical questions?
"Why Is There Anything At All?" is just a layman's equivalent of the "How does everything appeared?". "Why?" always has some degree of teleologism in it.
I disagree. "Why" is a demand for an explanation, which is not necessarily a teleological explanation (e.g., "Why did the rock fall? Because of an earthquake" is a non-teleological explanation).
@@legron121yes... Much like asking "WHY is 5 not equal to zero?" So many people get hung up on their chosen trigger words so that they can start having away at their strawman.
@@joshuacornelius25
Ok.
@@legron121 But if you add an event to your example - that the falling rock injured some guy - you might hear lots of "Why?", like "Why me😩?", "I'm so young, why did I have to be injured by this damn rock?!" and so on, implying some sort of fate, purpose etc. in all that. It's so common for philistines. But, of course, there some people, pretty few, able to use "why" for pure reasoning only.
Ok, HOW is there anything at all?
Why is there something? Because it is possible.
"Nothing" is not really what you think it isn't...
Maybe nothing is not possible which nullifies the question.
Why some people asks, "Why is there anything at all?". Here is why :
...when you have no God to thank to for all the free blessings you benefit because you chose not to believe, you always carry this heavy burden of guilty conscience for being a FREE-LOADER...
..and while always suffering from carrying this guilt, you rather wish that there is NOTHING AT ALL to free you from this pain, then starts asking "Why is there anything at all?"
FYI Robert Kuhn, asking such question can not take away your pain. Only having faith, so to have a loving God to thank to, would be your best therapy to ease your uncomfortable feeling of being a free-loader.
You god botherers need therapy.
There is just mathematics. Everything that we call reality is just emergent from the mathematics. The Peano axioms show us how to construct the natural numbers from very little - just zero and a successor function. Similar axioms will exist that construct the mathematical structure necessary for reality to emerge.
If we able to form a question it automatically create a need for answer . (I think)
Zen has a notion
What is big has no outside
What is small had no inside.
Nothingness can only be defined in a state of somethingness. Unless you can keep this lifes memories forever........... there is no "Anything " Before "you"... and after "you" ....as far as anyone knows is "Nothing"
*"Nothingness can only be defined in a state of somethingness."*
... Then what would you define "Somethingness" as?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC ...Having the ability to "define" .
Theoritically we should not be able to answer this question! Simply because we are part of the system. Part of the system can't understand the whole system, only part of the system details are be known by that part!
When someone asks a “why” questions they are asking for a cause to some state of affairs (it is a question about causality).
The cause can be personal-man M caused X to happen because He was angry-or impersonal-the glass cup broke into pieces because the stone hit it.
If something exists necessarily then there is no cause as to why it is the way it is, so it just is that way as a brute fact (there is nothing that exists beyond it or which precedes it which would be the cause of why it exists as it does; thus no possible explanation to the why question which is a question about causality).
Unless someone is saying there can be effects without causes (which negates a why question also) then because there is anything there has always had to be something which just exists necessarily as a brute fact.
The question "why" is not being used to question causality in 'nothing' as by definition causality does not exist in this hypothetical 'nothing'. "Why" is being used to question why one option in the dichotomy exists over the other. The question is not about how the universe began, but why it exists at all when nothing seems to be a perfectly valid option as well even Knowing that there would be no one to question the validity of nothingness if there was in fact nothing. It's an unanswerable question for sure, but it's no less valid than asking "What is beyond our cosmic event horizon?" We likely will never know, but it's still a valid question.
@@joshuacornelius25
It definitely is.
When we reason we simulate in our minds possibilities and probabilities from some object/nature.
Whenever we “ask why is X this way?, the question assumes there is cause/reason why it is the way is. That cause has always got to be some other preceding nature which caused it to be the way it is.
If we have no nature more fundamental than X then that is what makes people scratch their heads, because they are looking for something else other than X which caused X to be the way it is but there is nothing beyond X which caused it to be the way it is-it just is that way necessarily as a brute fact.
We end up with something that is just a necessary brute fact that is the way it is based on no other preceding or more fundamental nature that caused it to be the way it is.
@@mrfabulous4640 lol... Nothing literally means no-thing, which includes no causality. He's not asking why did nothing to give birth to something, as in how did the universe go from singularity to space+time.... The question is why is a universe where anything at all exists (including causality) versus absolutely nothing whatsoever which means nothing...no causality, no potential, no singularity, no universal state of thermal equilibrium, no entropy, no uncertainty, no order, no chaos, reasoning or reason, no mathematics, not even a "void".... NOTHING. "Why" is not being used to describe "nothing" as nothing needs no description by definition... And your insistence on inserting "causality" into "Nothing" (capital "N" to help you see your error) is an obvious fallacy.
@@joshuacornelius25
You have some problems.
Firstly, the question is not about the universe but about reality itself.
Secondly, I am saying a “why” question assumes a cause that explains some effect. If we ask why B, it assumes there will be some other nature A which is the cause which explains why B is the way it is.
Thirdly, when we ask “why” there is a reality rather than no reality it will make us scratch our heads because the “why” assumes there will be some cause to reality itself-which can’t be the case as a cause would we be in the category of reality. So the “why” question to “why is there a reality rather than no reality” is going to be a problem because the “why” assumes a cause where there can not be a cause.
Fourthly, if all effects need a cause (that is something can not just pop into existence from nothing) then since anything exists we can infer something has always existed necessarily as a brute fact (this necessary thing has no other nature which proceeded it or which is more fundamental to it that made it the way it is. No why question can be applied to it. For example we can not ask why does it exist rather than not exist because there is no reality more fundamental to it which allows for the option of it not existing rather than existing).
@@mrfabulous4640 (((universe, reality, something, everything))) vs NOTHING!... try to get past your semantics fallacy. I get that you have no answer to my actual point... But this is really getting tiring.🤪
Some thing is a thing for example, one. Some thing that exist depends on time for existence. Nothing indicates not existence, for example, zero. Nothing and 0R human words use to communicate the absence of something. Zero, and nothing are irrelevant to the cosmos. Time is one. Time is the mind. The mind is one. Time is the reason for everything. Read more non-fiction. We keep explaining this and it’s so simple. We don’t feel it needs to be explained but obviously some people have a brain disease. The brain disease is belief. Read more nonfiction. Knowledge is power. Our sun, our star, the sun is the most powerful Thing in our immediate proximity. No debate.