Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[baywax]

The problem i see with such answer is the utter useless nature in giving any insight to the question at all. Suppose a coin falls on a table with head facing toward you. When one ask why it is head? One can answer that it is head because it is head. It would tell us nothing at all. One could explain that there is as much chance for both head and tail, but it just so happens that it is a head at his trial. I think such explanation is much more meaningful.

What do you mean by "(conceptual) nature"? Surely, nothing is no a thing, but it does express an absense of a thing.

Exactly. "Nothing" is an expression of the absence of existence. There is no other way to express that other than conceptually. You can't show non-existence to exist other than by concept alone.
The OP does assume that "anything" exists and "nothing" does not. Perhaps whoever wrote it is wrong as is demonstrated in my 3rd answer which says "anything" can include "nothing" and therefore both "exist".

The basis of the question is "why does existence exist and not non-existence". But the answer becomes obvious in the meaning of the word "exist". Logically, non-existence does not exist because it is non-existent.

Let p be the statement that "the physical space-time observable universe exist".
There is not logical bases to favor p more than -p. We can answer by saying that the p is true no matter what, but what is your justification for that?

The question is not logical. This is because its asking why non-existence or "nothing" does not exist whereas "anything" or more precisely "existence" does. The answer is inherent in the question as I have already demonstrated a couple of times.

 

[kant]

which says "anything" can include "nothing" and therefore both "exist".

The notion of nothing is as you say "conceptual". That means the whole notion if nothing is depend on the existence of matter( something). Is this what you mean?

if so, then the corrallary is that if there is no matter, then nothing is a meaningless notion.

The basis of the question is "why does existence exist and not non-existence".

Do you mean why does existence exist, and non-existence do not exist?

Logically, non-existence does not exist because it is non-existent

It makes no sense. if the notion of non-existence is depended on the notion of existence( matter), and no the converse relationship. It makes no sense to me that any claim of non existence of matter is meaningful without the integration of something( matter) in the explanation.

If something existence, then nothing is a meaningful notion

let p= something existence, q = nothing is meaningful.

i claim that if p is false, then q is meaningless, because nothing is meaningless without the context of something ( matter).


Freakly, i don t really know why p is necessarily true

 

[honestrosewater]

Apologies to you honestrosewater and all. PF rocks

I don't understand the question as it's asked. If I see someone with a box and ask what's inside, and they reply that nothing is in the box, this makes perfect sense. And I can even ask why nothing is in the box and expect a sensible answer. I think the reason that there is possibly a sensible answer is that there exist things outside of the box, things that could provide some reason. (Some possible reasons: no one put anything in the box, someone took everything out of the box.) If there is nothing anywhere, what provides the reason for there being nothing?

Do you see what I mean? I could explain it more formally, but formality doesn't seem to go over well down here.

Or here is another question: where is this supposed reason?

You might be able to get away with not having to explain the context in which existence is distinguishable from nonexistence (or anything else), but if you also want to have something -- a reason is something -- then you need to say where it is and explain how things are setup so that you can have both nothing and a reason for things being that way.

 

[baywax]

I don't understand the question as it's asked. If I see someone with a box and ask what's inside, and they reply that nothing is in the box, this makes perfect sense. And I can even ask why nothing is in the box and expect a sensible answer. I think the reason that there is possibly a sensible answer is that there exist things outside of the box, things that could provide some reason. (Some possible reasons: no one put anything in the box, someone took everything out of the box.) If there is nothing anywhere, what provides the reason for there being nothing?

Do you see what I mean? I could explain it more formally, but formality doesn't seem to go over well down here.

Or here is another question: where is this supposed reason?

You might be able to get away with not having to explain the context in which existence is distinguishable from nonexistence (or anything else), but if you also want to have something -- a reason is something -- then you need to say where it is and explain how things are setup so that you can have both nothing and a reason for things being that way.

The box is full of air, pollen, dust, etc... you can't have a box "with nothing in it".

 

[honestrosewater]

The box is full of air, pollen, dust, etc... you can't have a box "with nothing in it".

Haha, how do you know? You are claiming that it's not possible to create a perfect vacuum? I was not making any claims about perfect vacuums. Since "nothing" wasn't explicitly defined to begin with, I was using it as it is already commonly used in normal conversation. English speakers can say that something contains nothing (or is empty) and be understood to mean simply that it is not the case that it contains anything worth noting. In this context, air is not worth noting. As part of the context, it is assumed to contain air.

(And, by the bye, if you want to dissect the language in that way, did you seriously mean that the box is full of those molecules, and perfectly full at that?)

I would love an explicit, precise definition of "nothing". The lack of such a definition is exactly what I think the main problem is. But I am starting to feel like a broken record asking people for definitions.

Anyway, I actually meant it as a thought experiment. I didn't have a real-world interpretation in mind. I don't think that complication is necessary. Perhaps the moral of the story is simply this: a reason is something.

 

[baywax]

Haha, how do you know? You are claiming that it's not possible to create a perfect vacuum? I was not making any claims about perfect vacuums. Since "nothing" wasn't explicitly defined to begin with, I was using it as it is already commonly used in normal conversation. English speakers can say that something contains nothing (or is empty) and be understood to mean simply that it is not the case that it contains anything worth noting. In this context, air is not worth noting. As part of the context, it is assumed to contain air.

(And, by the bye, if you want to dissect the language in that way, did you seriously mean that the box is full of those molecules, and perfectly full at that?)

I would love an explicit, precise definition of "nothing". The lack of such a definition is exactly what I think the main problem is. But I am starting to feel like a broken record asking people for definitions.

Anyway, I actually meant it as a thought experiment. I didn't have a real-world interpretation in mind. I don't think that complication is necessary.

I see, so, in common language you asked why does anything exist and not nothing.

This is certainly not a common question to begin with. A common answer might be that "they do both exist" under in terms of common language.

My personal exclaimation mark is the realization that nothing does not exist simply because that's what it implies.

Nothing describes the lack of a thing. As common language goes, a "thing" can be any concept, object, feeling (as in I've got this "thing" for ice cream).

Since "nothing" is a concept that describes a state of no thing being present, it quantifiably exists in this manner.

In neurological terms, "nothing" exists as a specific electromagnetic wave that's exciting a few neurons. But, this is only defined by physiological terms or "thingyological" existence.

You may be referring to the Chinese philosophy that points out the empty glass, the full glass and the half full/empty glass and our attitude toward the condition. Is it half empty or half full?

Could the glass be full without emptiness?
Could the glass be empty without fullness?

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I am saying that if the "nothingness" that the original question refers to is meant to be absolute in some way (which is another confusing concept), then it defeats itself in asking for a reason, since a reason is something and contradicts the presumption of absolute nothingness.

To paraphrase one interpretation of the original question: why is absolute nothingness not the case? Answer: if you assume that there is a reason for the way that things are, absolute nothingness is not an option. It is logically impossible. If nothing exists, then no reasons exist either. So assuming that there is a reason leaves "something" as the only option (as others have already said).

But (as others have already asked) why assume that there is a reason? And, as I asked before, what kind of reason might this be? Is this a first-mover question? Are you assuming that there is something outside of the observable universe, so that it possibly could be empty?

 

[baywax]

I am saying that if the "nothingness" that the original question refers to is meant to be absolute in some way (which is another confusing concept), then it defeats itself in asking for a reason, since a reason is something and contradicts the presumption of absolute nothingness.

That's almost what I realized except I stopped at the idea that nothing, by definition, does not exist in the first place.

To paraphrase one interpretation of the original question: why is absolute nothingness not the case? Answer: if you assume that there is a reason for the way that things are, absolute nothingness is not an option. It is logically impossible. If nothing exists, then no reasons exist either. So assuming that there is a reason leaves "something" as the only option (as others have already said).

By looking at the Zen(ish) way of seeing empty and full as compliments one has to arrive at the conclusion that both something and nothing need each other to be realized through comparitive analysis (and brain activity).

But (as others have already asked) why assume that there is a reason? And, as I asked before, what kind of reason might this be? Is this a first-mover question? Are you assuming that there is something outside of the observable universe, so that it possibly could be empty?

I am saying that, according to complimentary princibles, emptiness can only be emptiness when compared to fullness and fullness only fullness when its compared to emptiness. Therefore, conceptually, both everything and nothing must exist (edit; at least conceptually) to complete our perception of the universe.

 

[paledim]

i haven't had time to read through all the posts about this subject, but taking form the original question, in my opinion, since know one knows the answer or will ever know the answer, unless we were there at the creation of the fabric of the universe.

abstractly, in simple terms, the concept of nothing is something. a null value in a computer system is something, it holds a palce value. so if, say, at one point in time in the universe, there was nothingness, well, it basically contradicted itself. the 'why' question is impossible to answer. because matter etc... does not require a motive for its existence. but if 'nothing' had a motive, it would be because it's jealous of whatever might come after. and if 'something' has a motive, it is obviously to give something for free and unconditionally, because let's face it, its kinda hard to pay back the universe, "so how will you be paying?", "is mastercard ok?", "sure, just swipe it facing the 8th moon of saturn."

lol, don't know. all i can think of, as corny as it is, the motive of something is love.

ciao

 

[kant]

If we start with the absolute postulate of nothing; i don t see how we can get anywhere. A mathematical model of nothing would be a blank piece of paper. There is simply nothing. No space-time, matter or energy. I don t see how a mathematical model of a physical universe can pop into being on the blank piece of paper

 

[kant]

I am saying that, according to complimentary princibles, emptiness can only be emptiness when compared to fullness and fullness only fullness when its compared to emptiness. Therefore, conceptually, both everything and nothing must exist (edit; at least conceptually) to complete our perception of the universe

You keep on saying that nothing is complement to something, but is not true. There is no absolute nothing. Even in the most empties region of space, there are fields. It seems to be me that we are at the liberty to doubt that nothing even exist within our space-time universe.

 

[baywax]

It seems to be me that we are at the liberty to doubt that nothing even exist within our space-time universe.

You seem to doubt your conviction. You are "at liberty to doubt" anything you want. But what do you believe? Does "nothing" exist? Can it exist at the same time as everything? Would you recognize the concept of "nothing" if you had never known "something"? Would you recognize fullness or emptiness without either? Do either anything or nothing exist without a brain being present?

 

[kant]

You seem to doubt your conviction. You are "at liberty to doubt" anything you want. But what do you believe? Does "nothing" exist? Can it exist at the same time as everything? Would you recognize the concept of "nothing" if you had never known "something"? Would you recognize fullness or emptiness without either? Do either anything or nothing exist without a brain being present?

I don t really try to answer the question, because it is not very interesting. For me, i try to think in terms of a mathematical model of nothing. The simpliest possible model would be one without space-time, or laws of nature as it basic postulates. what logical conclusion can one draw? nothing. nothing in the sense that we don t know what to do or think since i content that no one knows what this all mean.

 

[baywax]

I don t really try to answer the question, because it is not very interesting. For me, i try to think in terms of a mathematical model of nothing. The simpliest possible model would be one without space-time, or laws of nature as it basic postulates. what logical conclusion can one draw? nothing. nothing in the sense that we don t know what to do or think since i content that no one knows what this all mean.

Agreed! Not very interesting.

 

[kant]

Agreed! Not very interesting.

Not so fast. Obviously, if we start with a mathematical model of nothing. The a priori postulate in such model is that it is void of space-time, matter, energy, real numbers, and the laws of nature. The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper. I am interested in the causal( or perhaps something else) relationship between such blank state model v.s a mathematical model of our physically self-contained universe. In such case, i am not really taking about nothing or something.

 

[cristo]

The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper.

A blank piece of paper implies that there exists an object on which something can be written. This is clearly not nothing!

 

[honestrosewater]

Not so fast. Obviously, if we start with a mathematical model of nothing. The a priori postulate in such model is that it is void of space-time, matter, energy, real numbers, and the laws of nature. The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper.

Can someone help me out a little here? I'm having a hard time following this.

Say that to build, or define, a mathematical model, we start with a set. This is our domain and contains all of the individual things that we want to consider. For example, our individuals might be numbers, sets, dogs, colored objects, members of a family, or the stops on a certain subway line.

On top of the domain, we can define some relations and operations. For example: if our domain contains dogs, we can partition the domain into all of the different dog breeds; for numbers, we can define zero, one, and multiplication; for a family, we can define a family tree; for subway stops, we can put them in order by the order in which the train visits them.

This basic setup, a domain with some relations and operations defined on it, is how I understand "mathematical model". So can someone tell me what a "mathematical model of nothing" would be? Does that simply mean that the domain is empty?

Also, I'm having a hard time with how an empty model could be "void of space-time" too. Is your domain there a vector space? If the domain is empty, how could you tell it apart from another model with an empty domain? In all formulations of set theory that I have seen (I am borrowing some modest set-theoretic ideas here), there can be only one empty set. This follows from the assumption (axiom of extensionality) that if two sets have exactly the same members, they are considered to be equal, or the same set.¹ I think this is a useful idea. Your domain is set, and the relations and operations that you define on your domain are also sets and are built using the members of the domain. So how can you tell two empty models apart? Don't they have exactly the same members: none?

Or maybe someone can explain in what other way the terms are meant. To me, a mathematical model is an abstract object and a blank piece of paper is not; it's a concrete object. I realize, or presume, that this abstract vs. concrete distinction is just a tool to help us divide up our perceptions. But I still find it to be a useful tool, so could someone help straighten that out? How can a mathematical model be like a piece of paper?


1. There is some difference between equality and identity, but I don't suspect we are to that subtlety yet.

 

[kant]

A blank piece of paper implies that there exists an object on which something can be written. This is clearly not nothing!

Well, a blank piece of paper need not be a blank piece of paper. You don t really need to write equations or a model in blank piece of paper at all.

 

[kant]

Can someone help me out a little here? I'm having a hard time following this.

Say that to build, or define, a mathematical model, we start with a set. This is our domain and contains all of the individual things that we want to consider. For example, our individuals might be numbers, sets, dogs, colored objects, members of a family, or the stops on a certain subway line.

On top of the domain, we can define some relations and operations. For example: if our domain contains dogs, we can partition the domain into all of the different dog breeds; for numbers, we can define zero, one, and multiplication; for a family, we can define a family tree; for subway stops, we can put them in order by the order in which the train visits them.

This basic setup, a domain with some relations and operations defined on it, is how I understand "mathematical model". So can someone tell me what a "mathematical model of nothing" would be? Does that simply mean that the domain is empty?

Maybe a mathematical model is a wrong way to describe it. It is still not to the bone. Let's say it is a model on a piece of paper(paper is a metaphor). And in this model, we will define a apriori postuate that there is not space-time, energy, matter, real number, logic, quantum machanics etc...

 

[honestrosewater]

Maybe a mathematical model is a wrong way to describe it. It is still not to the bone. Let's say it is a model on a piece of paper(paper is a metaphor). And in this model, we will define a apriori postuate that there is not space-time, energy, matter, real number, logic, quantum machanics etc...

So you are thinking of a model as something like a collection of statements? Okay, I know that meaning too. Can we call the model that means a set of statements an "s-model" and call the model that means a set of individuals (as I just described) an "i-model"? It can be confusing otherwise. (Or call the s-model a theory?)

So you are talking about an inconsistent s-model, then? Say that you can interpret the statements in an s-model as making claims about the individuals in an i-model. If an s-model is inconsistent (makes contradictory claims), the claims can't sensibly be taken to be talking about any i-model. And this, having an inconsistent s-model, is not the same situation as having an empty i-model, as I thought you meant before.

Are you talking about having an inconsistent s-model?

 

[kant]

So you are thinking of a model as something like a collection of statements? Okay, I know that meaning too. Can we call the model that means a set of statements an "s-model" and call the model that means a set of individuals (as I just described) an "i-model"? It can be confusing otherwise. (Or call the s-model a theory?)[\QUOTE]

I don t know if the "collection of statement" are the right connotations. It is a model( or idea), with one postulate. The only postulate is that there is no laws to govern stuff, and no stuff at all. It is a idealistic state/model/idea.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don t know if the "collection of statement" are the right connotations. It is a model( or idea), with one postulate. The only postulate is that there is no laws to govern stuff, and no stuff at all. It is a idealistic state/model/idea.

What is a postulate if not a type of statement?

The "no stuff" part is covered by what you take your statement to be saying.

 

[kant]

What is a postulate if not a type of statement?

The "no stuff" part is covered by what you take your statement to be saying.

I use the word stuff because i try to avoid the word matter. Obvious, matter is a form of stuff, but not the converse relation. Is there something more than matter? I refrain from answering.

 

[honestrosewater]

I use the word stuff because i try to avoid the word matter. Obvious, matter is a form of stuff, but not the converse relation. Is there something more than matter? I refrain from answering.

Great, call it whatever floats your boat. I don't care about the stuff.

What is a postulate if not a type of statement?

It sounds now like I understood you the first time: you are talking about a theory being modeled by the empty model. And so you take the question to be asking why the universe is non-empty rather than empty. Does that sound right?

 

[kant]

"What is a postulate if not a type of statement?"

i think a postulate is a statement of some sort, yes.

It sounds now like I understood you the first time: you are talking about a theory being modeled by the empty model. And so you take the question to be asking why the universe is non-empty rather than empty. Does that sound right?

sure, if you want to think about it that way.

 

[baywax]

Not so fast. Obviously, if we start with a mathematical model of nothing. The a priori postulate in such model is that it is void of space-time, matter, energy, real numbers, and the laws of nature. The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper. I am interested in the causal( or perhaps something else) relationship between such blank state model v.s a mathematical model of our physically self-contained universe. In such case, i am not really taking about nothing or something.

Ok, if there is a nothing (once again this is contradictory and becoming very uninteresting) it is one of the laws of nature.

 

[kant]

Ok, if there is a nothing (once again this is contradictory and becoming very uninteresting) it is one of the laws of nature.

if the laws is that there is no law, then i disagree. it is very interest to me( i am not really taking about "nothing" here).

 

[Langbein]

What a great discussion :-)

For the question: "Why does anything exist than rather nothing ? I think my answer would be more something like this:

"I feel existence - therefore I am. As I am, I am the creator of my universe."

As an existent I could not relate to a non existing universe.

Just my ten cents ..

 

[paledim]

first of all, let's use computers as a relative example. i am a computer programmer and there are many courses in computer phylosophy etc... i won't get too specific because it's unnecessary. humanity is trying to "replicate", like a human, a computer with artificial intelligence in the striving journey to be able to say that we are able to create a creator. we've accomplished nearly all in a computer (cyber) consciouness except AI, where this is the programming of free will/free thought to a computer. however, it is impossible for a computer to understand or compute a value of zero and creates a "concept of nothing" called a null value. until the computer can conceptually accept an absolute value of nothing, AI will not come about, because of the restrictions the concept itself imposes on the limits of free will/thought. The same goes with us in some regard. we cannot conceptually (or in thought) accept a value of absolute zero (not the temperature for those not following). We know what it means to have "nothing", like "i don't have any money" but we do this because we are able to compare against something. this is relative to all. you can say i don't know what it's like to have a ferrari, but you are only comparing that emotion to another relative figure like money.

the concept of nothing is to be able to 'accept' and without pre-comparison, unconsciously and consciously, but however to do this, there needs be apre-meditated (if you will) thought of planning all this thinking out. basically, you end up contradicting the very thing you want to do even before you attempt to do it. it is a necessary evil and if nothing was a person, he's already go you figured out.

say before the big-bang or God's hand in the creation of all, (whichever you want to believe), imagine standing there in the nothingness of nothing. now it's not black (you're thinking of black because of space, but space is another strain of water particles that are more dense, but more flexible than the densest form of matter-like transparent liquid-led). nothingness is not even transparent. if you can think of anything more transparent than transparent, there is a possibility that this is nothingness, or at least near. but it is conceptually impossible to imagine or comprehend non-color, non-position, non-time (which is not even pause or moving) it is beyond pause, yet thought somehow not stopped. these are the characteristics of nothingness.

it is meant to be greater than our consciousness for the sake of pure enjoyment as a mind-tease, it keeps us humble. so to summarize, here are some of the characteristics that you have to learn to grasp BEFORE understanding nothingness.

1. time: nothingness comes before pause, but is not rewinding or forwarding time. it is not moving either. it is stillness but is not still.

visual: a color beyond transparent but is not transparent as in the definition of a clear color, an empty color without particles (transparent contains particles)

position: relative to time. nothingness belongs somewhere, yet is nowhere. it has no departure point. try to conceive that. yet at the same time, it is everywhere.

now these are only 'physical' and somewhat 'mental' characteristics. sleep, in essence is the closest thing we have to experiencing nothingness.

but again: nothing, is something. it contradicts its own existence.

 

[Kenny_L]

Why is there anything than rather nothing ? - Why is there sometning than rather nothing ? Why does anything exist at all ? Why is it like that ? I found I link that might or might not put some light on it - I don't know.

The answer to "Why is there anything rather than nothing" is ... we don't know. It's helpful to admit that we don't know everything...instead of squirming and trying to squeeze out a 'reason' when we're truly clueless about what's really going on in the universe.

Nobody knows what the origins of everything is. Like, we don't know what the origin of energy is. Nor do we know what the origin of the origin of energy is. And so on. If we were able to keep backtracking to find what the origins of the origins of the origins etc etc of energy and anything else that we know of, then we'd be in a position to give an answer. But right now, we have no idea at all. We don't know the biggest secret of the universe...like...how did it get here? And when I mean 'the universe'...I mean 'everything'...not just the theoretical "big-bang"...but everything else that caused this (and everything else that caused the cause before that...etc).

Thinking about it and trying to think of an answer to this massive mystery is fun, even if we seem to have no way of coming up with a feasible explanation for how anything got here.

 

[baywax]

The answer to "Why is there anything rather than nothing" is ... we don't know. It's helpful to admit that we don't know everything...instead of squirming and trying to squeeze out a 'reason' when we're truly clueless about what's really going on in the universe.

Nobody knows what the origins of everything is. Like, we don't know what the origin of energy is. Nor do we know what the origin of the origin of energy is. And so on. If we were able to keep backtracking to find what the origins of the origins of the origins etc etc of energy and anything else that we know of, then we'd be in a position to give an answer. But right now, we have no idea at all. We don't know the biggest secret of the universe...like...how did it get here? And when I mean 'the universe'...I mean 'everything'...not just the theoretical "big-bang"...but everything else that caused this (and everything else that caused the cause before that...etc).

Thinking about it and trying to think of an answer to this massive mystery is fun, even if we seem to have no way of coming up with a feasible explanation for how anything got here.

Actually the question is skewed somewhat. To be thorough it might be better as follows in a few parts.

Does nothing represent a component of everything?

Do everything and nothing need to exist at the same time to exist at all?

Further to these, nothing can never exist beyond being a concept because of its very nature (nothing = non=existing).

But I could be wrong.

 

[Kenny_L]

Actually the question is skewed somewhat. To be thorough it might be better as follows in a few parts. Does nothing represent a component of everything? Do everything and nothing need to exist at the same time to exist at all? Further to these, nothing can never exist beyond being a concept because of its very nature (nothing = non=existing). But I could be wrong.

I don't think that the question is skewed at all. It is all to do with trying to know what is the origin of the origin of the origin of the origins (etc) of whatever thing we can think about...eg...start with 'energy' for example. Or start with 'something'. We have no idea what the origins are, or how things 'started' up. And if somebody reckons that things were already existing and already started ... then what's the origins of the origins of the origins etc of it (and if something 'moves'...what initially started the 'movement'? We just don't know. This is the biggest mystery of ... everything. And yes...you're right, you could be wrong, because we just don't know what's really going on.

 

[out of whack]

Asking for the cause of existence is an invalid question since any such cause would have to exist already. The question is meaningless.

 

[Kenny_L]

Asking for the cause of existence is an invalid question since any such cause would have to exist already. The question is meaningless.

True... but 'how' did anything (anything at all...movement, energy, components of energy, components of the components of energy etc) start off (or start up, or become created) in the 'first' place?... this question can be quite meaningful.

 

[baywax]

True... but 'how' did anything (anything at all...movement, energy, components of energy, components of the components of energy etc) start off (or start up, or become created) in the 'first' place?... this question can be quite meaningful.

Right there you're asking if energy can be created or destroyed and the answer so far is no.