Why is there something instead of nothing? [Merged x3]

[mklsgl]

True nothingness does not exist within this universe. The closest we have is vacuum, and as any physicist will tell you - that's far from being nothing.

Even within a vacuum, particles regularly appear, only to be vaporized shortly afterwards by their anti-particles.

In short - the reason something exists rather than nothing is because it is impossible for nothing to exist.

Indeed, Tiggs. In this universe, nothing is something. In the Ivory Tower of literary intellectualism, 'nothing' is simply the word we use when we mean "in the absence of something." The OP's actual question, though, I think, is how can there be 'something' if there is no 'nothing'? I don't believe there is scientific explanation for this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited October 4, 2009 by mklsgl

[Guyver]

I think it's a very good question. Something can't come from nothing. So, that there's something means there's a cause. I guess the real question is; What's the cause? Is the cause random or purposeful. I vote purpose.

[ShaunZero]

Saying it's impossible for nothing to exist is a bad way of putting it in my opinion, because of course it can't, it's... the absence of all existence. Nothing can't "exist" because if it did, that's saying that it is something; it has existence. If all things which exist now would cease to be, then... we'd "have" nothing. Or to put it better.... everything that could possibly exist wouldn't.

Edited October 6, 2009 by ShaunZero

[Paranormalcy]

Threads merged - AGAIN.

Paranormalcy

[Forum Mod Team]

[Fitter]

I know the question is cliche, it leads to a trap of circular thinking, and is completely unanswerable, but it's still fun to think about.

Now please, this isn't meant to be a question of who or what created the universe, I'm not trying to start a creation/evolution debate here. I just want to know why stuff exists instead of not? And before creationists answer "because it's God's will" then why does God exist instead of not? Let's just cut out the middle man and call everything "something".

By it's definition, nothing is the absence of something. Does that mean that in order for there to be something, there has to be nothing? Only, there isn't nothing, so how can there be something? But there is something, of this I'm at least sure. I can observe, interact and experience it. And clearly something was here long before I or any being could experience it. Even if life had never started and no observers ever came to be, it would still have been here. So what's the point of it? What's the point of there being something rather than nothing? There isn't one. So why did something even bother to exist in the first place.

Speaking of "first place" what of time? Time has to be included in the something. So I guess, there can never have even been a time where nothing existed, because then there wouldn't have been time and therefore no catalyst for something to start existing.

Now I'm starting to tread into "how" territory and I said I wouldn't go there. I guess my only consolation is that in several decades, when I cease to exist again, all these questions will be moot, at least to me. Thank you for reading my slightly drunken babble and I would love to hear everyone else's thoughts on what could possibly be the oldest question ever, as well.

I'd like to propose a few answers to this.... you can choose to comment or not comment as you all see fit. let's see what comes up..

My first thought is that there is no such thing as nothing.... Even what you propose as "nothing" is in fact "something"... it's a nothingness. !! If that answer seems a little too pat, try this one....

The words 'something' and 'nothing' are meaningless in this context. CS Lewis used to say that the limitations of language are what makes the impossible possible, most of the time whilst he was trying to explain away the unstoppable force-immovable object debate.... For example, just because you can actually say the words "pencils are just small elephants" and it is grammatically correct.. can even be translated into different languages and conjures up mental pictures and can start debates, it does not actually mean anything... it is gobbledegoook rubbish...

So in this case, is the question "Why isn't there nothing?"

Thirdly... and I like this one best of all... There is loads and loads of nothing... Tonnes of it... It's just that there is tonnes and tonnes of somethings in it's way, and we can't see it very easily...

But you saw plenty of it before you were born, and you'll see plenty more of it after your dead.

Time is the easy one to grasp though... There is only time when there is something there to measure against. In the same way that there is no idea or concept of the colour red to someone who has been profoundly blind since birth or the use for a car speedometer when it is stationary, if there is nothing to measure, there is no measurement rule. Don't be fooled by thinking that a man stranded on a desert island has no time because he has no clock.... the passing of time is measured by existence of matter or energy; the sand on the beach and the sunlight in the sky. In the case of the car speedo; there is no velocity, therefore no change of velocity to measure. Simples.

Thoughts ?

F

[Paranormal024]

Why is there something instead of nothing? The answer to that...is beyond our capability to answer. It's kind of like saying "Why isn't there Nothing instead of Something?". It happened because it happened I guess. There is no "Why?", just "Because".

[ShaunZero]

Even what you propose as "nothing" is in fact "something"... it's a nothingness.

I think that's only the case when viewing it from a purely semantical(is that a word?) point of view. In reality, I believe it could "be". The fact that it's hard to discuss "nothingness" using words does not mean that it's any less likely that it can be.. or not be? (See) Nothingness is simply the absence of anything that could potentially exist.

[Fitter]

I think that's only the case when viewing it from a purely semantical(is that a word?) point of view. In reality, I believe it could "be". The fact that it's hard to discuss "nothingness" using words does not mean that it's any less likely that it can be.. or not be? (See) Nothingness is simply the absence of anything that could potentially exist.

Ok, I think I see your point.. but in that case, how can you say that there is no "nothingness" when in fact there has to be some "nothingness" sitting on top of your laptop ? There has to be some "nothingness" there on top of it, because if there was something there on top of it, you would not be able to see it. True ?

By definition, nothingness is not only the absence of anything, it is a noun meaning the absence of everything; to my mind that means, semantically or in reality, it is a something.

There can be no nothing, if nothing is a noun. I hate semantics....

F

[Professor Buzzkill]

Instead of the definitions of "nothing" or "Something" how about some answers to the energy being in the universe. And "just because there is energy" is not a sufficient. I mean as people are pointing out, there seems to be no "purpose" for life in the universe as it is structured, and without life then there is no need for the universe (i.e how would the universe be "experianced" without life...). So why is there energy? It cannot be created or destroyed yet it exists..

[Fitter]

Instead of the definitions of "nothing" or "Something" how about some answers to the energy being in the universe. And "just because there is energy" is not a sufficient. I mean as people are pointing out, there seems to be no "purpose" for life in the universe as it is structured, and without life then there is no need for the universe (i.e how would the universe be "experianced" without life...). So why is there energy? It cannot be created or destroyed yet it exists..

A bit off the topic, but i'm up for a diversion !!! lol

As you know, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is 'merely' transformed from one state to another.... that includes into matter and/or into potential energy. The only reason that there appears to be energy in this universe is because it is not all evenly distributed, surely ? If it were all evenly distributed, then no heat, no energy would flow and no transformations would happen. Entropy will one day see an end to all transformation of energy, but hopefully not for a long time yet. Until that time, there will always seem to be energy 'flowing and changing' in our universe..

It is a similar case for life, in my opinion.Life is an inherent ingredient of the cosmos, and the universe would undoubtedly not be the same without it. However, it would still exist in some form without life, just different from the one it is in now.

Think of your shower. When you run it, it flows straight down the drain, very hot, causing expansion of the pipes through heat, and massive gushing of large volumes of water. But when you step under it, your body absorbs some of the heat... the flow of water is interrupted... soap bubbles are added... a hundred minute changes are made... but it's still a shower !! So no, I disagree, there is a purpose to life. and there is an effect of life on the universe..

And there is still a need for a shower to be built into houses that have not yet been lived in.

F

[Tiggs]

Indeed, Tiggs. In this universe, nothing is something. In the Ivory Tower of literary intellectualism, 'nothing' is simply the word we use when we mean "in the absence of something." The OP's actual question, though, I think, is how can there be 'something' if there is no 'nothing'? I don't believe there is scientific explanation for this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In the "Dark is the absence of Light" kind of way?

The opposite of Matter is Anti-Matter.

[Pinx]

I'd like to propose a few answers to this.... you can choose to comment or not comment as you all see fit. let's see what comes up..

My first thought is that there is no such thing as nothing.... Even what you propose as "nothing" is in fact "something"... it's a nothingness. !! If that answer seems a little too pat, try this one....

The words 'something' and 'nothing' are meaningless in this context. CS Lewis used to say that the limitations of language are what makes the impossible possible, most of the time whilst he was trying to explain away the unstoppable force-immovable object debate.... For example, just because you can actually say the words "pencils are just small elephants" and it is grammatically correct.. can even be translated into different languages and conjures up mental pictures and can start debates, it does not actually mean anything... it is gobbledegoook rubbish...

So in this case, is the question "Why isn't there nothing?"

Nothingness is only something if there is someone to observe it. Which there wouldn't be, in a true "nothingness". And yes, I'm very aware of the limitations of language and understand the difficulty of expressing myself properly through written and spoken language all too well.

Thirdly... and I like this one best of all... There is loads and loads of nothing... Tonnes of it... It's just that there is tonnes and tonnes of somethings in it's way, and we can't see it very easily...

But you saw plenty of it before you were born, and you'll see plenty more of it after your dead.

Empty space in between atoms and galaxies isn't exactly nothing. It's still space, and it's defined by the things that surround it. The last part of the statement is just referring to one's own personal "nothing." Once I'm dead, there will be billions of years of something that come after me.

Time is the easy one to grasp though... There is only time when there is something there to measure against. In the same way that there is no idea or concept of the colour red to someone who has been profoundly blind since birth or the use for a car speedometer when it is stationary, if there is nothing to measure, there is no measurement rule. Don't be fooled by thinking that a man stranded on a desert island has no time because he has no clock.... the passing of time is measured by existence of matter or energy; the sand on the beach and the sunlight in the sky. In the case of the car speedo; there is no velocity, therefore no change of velocity to measure. Simples.

Thoughts ?

F

I think see what you're trying to say here. Actually, the whole time thing in my OP was really just an afterthought. I was just speculating that there had to be time during nothingness because how else would something start? Imagine a VHS tape that's blank, except for the last five minutes. In order to get to the 5 minutes, you have to watch the tape or press fast forward. Either way, time has to pass.

[Fitter]

Nothingness is only something if there is someone to observe it. Which there wouldn't be, in a true "nothingness". And yes, I'm very aware of the limitations of language and understand the difficulty of expressing myself properly through written and spoken language all too well.

I disagree. Nothingness most definitely exists if there is no one there to experience it. Surely by definition, nothingness is inherently a part of non-observation ? I apologise if I made you feel I was attacking your usage or abuseage, I was not. I was trying to explain the limitations of language as a whole. The whole unstoppable force v immovable object debate is a point in case.... the semantics of one pronoun negate the use of the other in the same sentence, so the question becomes meaningless. I think this question of something v nothing is a case in point for most people; "something" and "nothing" as pronouns preclude each others use in this question unless all parties can agree on a common point of reference. Obviously we cannot !! :-)

Empty space in between atoms and galaxies isn't exactly nothing. It's still space, and it's defined by the things that surround it. The last part of the statement is just referring to one's own personal "nothing." Once I'm dead, there will be billions of years of something that come after me.

I agree, empty space is not nothing, but I didn't intend to say that it was. As far as the deceased are concerned, I agree there are plenty of "somethings" happening after they have died, but only for living people.What they experience (the deceased) is nothingness, and living people are aware that they (the deceased) are experiencing it.

I think see what you're trying to say here. Actually, the whole time thing in my OP was really just an afterthought. I was just speculating that there had to be time during nothingness because how else would something start? Imagine a VHS tape that's blank, except for the last five minutes. In order to get to the 5 minutes, you have to watch the tape or press fast forward. Either way, time has to pass.

Well, I hate to seem critical, being new here and all, but the VHS tape is really a bad analogy for this example. Let me suggest a better one, see if you agree... Quantum mechanics.... New and exotic particles are leaping into existence from absolutely "nothing" all the time (forgive pun) So any postulate that there has to be time during a period of nothing just doesn't hold.

Nothing, by definition, is nothing. Not even time. And when you can put a name to something it becomes a noun, or pronoun... it becomes a "something" a nameable thing.

That's what I meant by the limitations of the language...

F

[adrenochromevortex]

I know the question is cliche, it leads to a trap of circular thinking, and is completely unanswerable, but it's still fun to think about.

Now please, this isn't meant to be a question of who or what created the universe, I'm not trying to start a creation/evolution debate here. I just want to know why stuff exists instead of not? And before creationists answer "because it's God's will" then why does God exist instead of not? Let's just cut out the middle man and call everything "something".

By it's definition, nothing is the absence of something. Does that mean that in order for there to be something, there has to be nothing? Only, there isn't nothing, so how can there be something? But there is something, of this I'm at least sure. I can observe, interact and experience it. And clearly something was here long before I or any being could experience it. Even if life had never started and no observers ever came to be, it would still have been here. So what's the point of it? What's the point of there being something rather than nothing? There isn't one. So why did something even bother to exist in the first place.

Speaking of "first place" what of time? Time has to be included in the something. So I guess, there can never have even been a time where nothing existed, because then there wouldn't have been time and therefore no catalyst for something to start existing.

Now I'm starting to tread into "how" territory and I said I wouldn't go there. I guess my only consolation is that in several decades, when I cease to exist again, all these questions will be moot, at least to me. Thank you for reading my slightly drunken babble and I would love to hear everyone else's thoughts on what could possibly be the oldest question ever, as well.

I have never considered myself religious(even as a kid i didnt even though i didnt realize it yet) but i kinda always had this thought: if it all just ends when we die, why do we remember this RIGHT NOW?

[ShaunZero]

Ok, I think I see your point.. but in that case, how can you say that there is no "nothingness" when in fact there has to be some "nothingness" sitting on top of your laptop ? There has to be some "nothingness" there on top of it, because if there was something there on top of it, you would not be able to see it. True ?

By definition, nothingness is not only the absence of anything, it is a noun meaning the absence of everything; to my mind that means, semantically or in reality, it is a something.

There can be no nothing, if nothing is a noun. I hate semantics....

F

That's one of the faults of language in my opinion. It's simply a way to describe the absence of everything. Even if it's a noun, in nothingness, nounds do not exist.

[Fitter]

That's one of the faults of language in my opinion. It's simply a way to describe the absence of everything. Even if it's a noun, in nothingness, nounds do not exist.

I agree. It's the language that confounds this discussion, because 'nothing' is a noun, you can describe it. But you have to be outside or separated from it to be able to describe it..However, when you enter the framework of "nothingness" there is literally not a thing to measure, compare, look at, describe or even have awareness to know; that there isn't anything to measure, compare, look at etc....

F