Why is there something rather than nothing?

[beenherebeforeagain]

our imagination (one of Spongebob's great teachings) can freely live in the mysterious, create imaginary beings and stories and beliefs which can liberate us from whatsoever we feel the need to be liberated from

imaginary beings and stories and beliefs can also constrain us, capture and trap us in whatsoever we really need to be liberated from...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Such a weird question. For a very long time, my response to it has been "humans cannot comprehend true nothingness; this is not a valid question and is entirely outside the scope of our abilities."

What is "True nothingness" as compared to being nothingness itself without being true or false?

 

[Polymath257]

If the universe is non contingent then there is something infinite and eternal about its cause and effect.

Why assume it has a cause? Why would the universe being contingent mean the cause is infinite and eternal? I don't see how f these follow.

If the universe is contingent upon else reality then it was set in motion to stand on its own by that other reality.

I guess. I generally find that those who use the 'contingency' of objects in a philosophical context don't know much of actual science or what it really means to be a cause.

The only causes we know of are physical causes within the universe.

Since the universe is expanding from the big bang until now, and indefinitely into the future, then something outside of the universe must exist to give space room to grow itself.

This is a common misunderstanding of what the Big Bang model says. No, it does NOT postulate that there is something outside that the universe is growing into. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case: 'the universe' consists of *all* space, matter, energy, etc at a given time. There is literally no 'outside' of it.

We can go further. Modern science considers ALL of space and time together as a single entity. Since all of time is part of this, any causality happens *within* spacetime.

Without space there is no matter, because there is no room for matter to exist.

Well, this assumes that matter has to take up space. This is not as much the case with baryonic matter as it is with fermionic matter. In any case, the typical view is that space, time, matter, and energy are all co-existent.

Without space you either have a state of nothingness or an outside reality.

Not sure why this would be true. Can you explain?

As for the reason there is something rather than nothing, I don't think there is such a reason. A reason requires a law of logic of physics to apply. So, to have a reason requires at least laws of logic and physics. And that isn't nothing.

 

[sealchan]

Interesting idea. Are you holding to the position that God is an imaginary construct then?

For me even as a Christian, I believe that there is an objective reality of God within the realm of human psychology. In my view, God is not simply anthropomorphization but reflective of the structure and function of the human psyche. In this way what is God is not merely, exclusively a personality.

On some level i believe that our own sense of identity is also objectively limited in the same way.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

For me even as a Christian, I believe that there is an objective reality of God within the realm of human psychology. In my view, God is not simply anthropomorphization but reflective of the structure and function of the human psyche. In this way what is God is not merely, exclusively a personality.

On some level i believe that our own sense of identity is also objectively limited in the same way.

Interesting. So I assume you believe God exists outside of the human psyche as well, or no?

 

[Willamena]

Interesting. So I assume you believe God exists outside of the human psyche as well, or no?

Where is "outside of the human psyche" located?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Where is "outside of the human psyche" located?

Outside of the brain. Or, in other words, part of objective reality outside of humans.

 

[Bear Wild]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

I completely agree. All we know is that the universe exists and has always existed in one form or another. I am not a physicist but something coming from absolute nothing is without any meaning since nothing in its absolute meaning could not create something. Theories are interesting but what we have to go on is reality which gives no evidence that the universe continues even if it changes form.

 

[sealchan]

imaginary beings and stories and beliefs can also constrain us, capture and trap us in whatsoever we really need to be liberated from...

True...

...with great power comes great responsibility.

Literalist Christianity demonstrates in many ways how such things can go horribly wrong.

 

[sealchan]

Interesting. So I assume you believe God exists outside of the human psyche as well, or no?

I just finished a book about the collaboration between Jung and Pauli...and in their collaborative view of psyche and physics your question is difficult to answer. But a straight forward answer is that God is mainly a psychological reality with significant neurobiological and cultural aspects.

 

[Firemorphic]

What's the difference between God and an "anthropomorphic sky fairy?"

What you outline here is actually the issue with the overuse of the later European-English word "God" in the first place which brings on it's own misconstrued cultural baggage, and is often used to describe many completely different ideas - but that's what you get with a 'once size fits all' English word that doesn't appear in any of these major religious scriptures in their original languages (as obvious as it should be) for the best part of their history. I don't like the word.

Following with my actual reply and not were you're trying to take this. "Sky fairies" or deities, are a complex topic in themselves when removed from superstition or parody. As I said with polytheism, Pagans in general tend to deify nature and worship it.
The image the devote themselves, they don't believe is physically a thing but what it represents to them they believe to be a legitimate force within nature. But of course, Paganism itself aligns more well with the Atheist world view making the Physical universe the absolute, so you should really have no issue with that, right?

The difference between the philosophy of the all-pervading Reality vs anthropomorphic deities is an incomparably massive leap of perspective. One is an image representing a more finite idea (even if it's reoccurring, such as the elements or the planets), the other is a more transcendent philosophy of existence that takes a leap outside of our immediate predisposition in a personal sense.
One grasps aspects (and personifies) of the universe, the other ascribes qualities to Reality itself as a transcendent IT.

BTW on your use of "fairy:" I always find it interesting when religious people use older religious beliefs that have fallen out of popularity (e.g. fairies) as their go-to examples of ridiculous ideas.

No, I'm just repeating stuff atheists keep saying here every thread I visit. My views on things don't end at that but I am critical on a personal level, about the 'guy in the sky' view of reality (as you probably are too).

Funny - "it was there the whole time even if the religion didn't realize it."

My comment was the opposite way around, I said:

"Many religions realized it, even if you didn't pick it up but it's not too soon to learn their methods of interpretation to learn something from them, even if you don't believe what they believe"

So these religious people don't count because they're doing their religion wrong?

Absolutely not, why are you projecting onto what I've said? I made no conclusions about their own misinterpretations of their own religions but it isn't too late for them to get a deeper knowledge of their own history and intellectual knowledge from the intellectuals of their own early period history (aside from their scriptures themselves).

Do you think "cosmic" means "lives in the clouds?" You're setting up a caricature.

Again, false reading of my words. My comment states that common caricatures of polytheism tend to miss what polytheists actually tend to believe.

 

[Curious George]

You are thinking in terms of what I call mono-modal truth...namely all truth can be incorporated into a single, rational system.

This simply isnt what nature does even at the level of human cognotion.

Our brains "publish" the experience of truth from more than "way of knowing". A failure to recognize in a deep way the fact that the human brain freely entertains conflicting truths frequently is to miss this important aspect of reality.

All truths are framed in a context in which that truth is substantiated. Just as two observers in two different inertial frames of reference can experience conflicting truths about the physical characteristic of a given object, we can do the same in our own, more complex reality. The trick is to identify the frame and translate between the two frames.

This is how human binocular vision works.

No, i was referrimg to truth at hand from any given perspective. If one view holds a contradiction and the other does not, there is no need to believe the contradictory one.

 

[Curious George]

In reality the God of the bible contradicts science (evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, etc) yet in reality millions of people accept both because they tailor them to fit the believe they want such as "God started it and gave it to nature" or "God created evolution" as well as others.

Edit. Sure all beliefs are equal. Each is equally important to the one holding that belief.

That some may seem to hold a contradictory belief means little.

And while you can try to equivocate regarding "beliefs" and their equality, the proof is in one's actions.

 

[osgart]

Why assume it has a cause? Why would the universe being contingent mean the cause is infinite and eternal? I don't see how f these follow.



I guess. I generally find that those who use the 'contingency' of objects in a philosophical context don't know much of actual science or what it really means to be a cause.

The only causes we know of are physical causes within the universe.



This is a common misunderstanding of what the Big Bang model says. No, it does NOT postulate that there is something outside that the universe is growing into. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case: 'the universe' consists of *all* space, matter, energy, etc at a given time. There is literally no 'outside' of it.

We can go further. Modern science considers ALL of space and time together as a single entity. Since all of time is part of this, any causality happens *within* spacetime.



Well, this assumes that matter has to take up space. This is not as much the case with baryonic matter as it is with fermionic matter. In any case, the typical view is that space, time, matter, and energy are all co-existent.


Not sure why this would be true. Can you explain?

As for the reason there is something rather than nothing, I don't think there is such a reason. A reason requires a law of logic of physics to apply. So, to have a reason requires at least laws of logic and physics. And that isn't nothing.

As for my remark:

At the very edge of expanding space its going to expand more. Its a matter of intuition that there is room available for space to expand.

I also was saying that if the universe is NOT contingent than cause and effect is infinite and eternal; something is always going to be happening in it, and something has always been going on in it. No end and no beginning to the doings of the universe. There by intuition is something perpetual about the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without evidence, God done it or Something always existed are faith based statements. An honest answer is we don't know but the answer of we don't know leaves no room for argument, so sides are chosen, claims are made, and arguments become entertainment.

The correct answer is of course "We don't know".

And the correct attitude to that is "Let's find out". Choosing one side and demanding it is true without evidence is not rational.

 

[Quintessence]

What is "True nothingness" as compared to being nothingness itself without being true or false?

In honesty, there are no words to describe the distinction. To put it simply, the moment humans put a word to "nothing" it is no longer nothing. It's a word, it's a concept, it's an idea. It represents something and means something. "True" nothingness cannot represent anything. If a word is put to it - or if it is known or understood in any way - it cannot be nothing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In honesty, there are no words to describe the distinction. To put it simply, the moment humans put a word to "nothing" it is no longer nothing. It's a word, it's a concept, it's an idea. It represents something and means something. "True" nothingness cannot represent anything. If a word is put to it - or if it is known or understood in any way - it cannot be nothing.

The context in which you describe this makes Nothingness (with a caps) different than just the word and definition of nothingness itself. Is nothingness just a word or does it have a more deeper significance; and, if so, why?

What you're saying sounds like Dharma. There is a word but in itself there is no meaning/emptiness. Once someone puts a description and concept (true or false etc) to that word it's no longer nothing/emptiness.

That is fine until you put the word true and/or false as a quality of nothingness/emptiness. It throws it off because you just nullified the point you're making.

 

[sayak83]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

There could be an infinite number of ways in which there could be "something", but only one way there could be "nothing". So, by sheer probability alone, some sort of "something" would be overwhelmingly likely. Another way of saying this is that nothing is the lowest entropy state (as it requires 0 bits of information to specify) and any kind of something, requiring at least one bit of information to specify, would be a higher entropy state than nothing.
So, its no wonder we find that there is "something" rather than the far more unlikely "nothing".

 

[sealchan]

No, i was referrimg to truth at hand from any given perspective. If one view holds a contradiction and the other does not, there is no need to believe the contradictory one.

And if a particle is also a wave?

Life, also death?

 

[Curious George]

And if a particle is also a wave?

Life, also death?

Seems like you are trying here. I would suggest that there wad no reason to believe that a particle could also be a wave until evidence presented itself.

Because it was believed that light could not be both described as a particle and described as a wave simultaneously, anything is true?

So let us recap. We have evidence to suggest that light is both particle and wave. But we have no evidence for belief in nothing existing. See the difference?