Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[out of whack]

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.

Saying 'how' something happened requires you to identify a cause so we're no further ahead. And if we say there was no cause then existence would have to arise spontaneously and you could not possibly describe 'how' in any way. So again, the question is meaningless.

 

[Moridin]

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

I agree. It is like saying that existence equals nonexistence.

 

[Kenny_L]

Saying 'how' something happened requires you to identify a cause so we're no further ahead.

That's the point. Some of us, due to curiosity, would like to identify causes (or origins) of something else. But, maybe for somebody like that you that doesn't want to identify or know about origins of something, then that's fine...it'd just be meaningless to you only.

 

[Kenny_L]

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

But what is the origin of energy, and the origin before that...etc? Nobody knows. This can lead people to question the assumption that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[Holocene]

There is no scientific reason to assume that the "natural" state of affairs ought to be nothing, rather than something.

 

[Kenny_L]

There is no scientific reason to assume that the "natural" state of affairs ought to be nothing, rather than something.

But there is a meaning in wondering what's the origin of that something, and everything 'before' that (and also before that as well...etc). Which would then lead to the question...how did these 'something' get here? Eg...if people think there was always 'something'...then they should also think about how there was always 'something'.

 

[out of whack]

That's the point. Some of us, due to curiosity, would like to identify causes (or origins) of something else. But, maybe for somebody like that you that doesn't want to identify or know about origins of something, then that's fine...it'd just be meaningless to you only.

Well, it's not the point I was making. It's not that I don't 'want' to know the origin of existence. The point is that asking the question does not make sense. Let me explain with another question that also makes no sense: "what does not answer this question?" This is also a meaningless question because there is no way to answer it. Both questions are like that.

 

[baywax]

There is no scientific reason to assume that the "natural" state of affairs ought to be nothing, rather than something.

I get you there. There is a probability of a wide range of conditions between nothing and everything and beyond them as well.

 

[robertm]

Well, it's not the point I was making. It's not that I don't 'want' to know the origin of existence. The point is that asking the question does not make sense. Let me explain with another question that also makes no sense: "what does not answer this question?" This is also a meaningless question because there is no way to answer it. Both questions are like that.

On what empirical evidence do you base the claim that humans will never understand the origins of existence? Or is this just your personal belief?

 

[baywax]

You have to properly define "everything".

Does it include "nothing"?

 

[out of whack]

On what empirical evidence do you base the claim that humans will never understand the origins of existence? Or is this just your personal belief?

That's not what I claimed.

It's my personal belief that asking what existed before existence makes no sense.

 

[baywax]

That's not what I claimed.

It's my personal belief that asking what existed before existence makes no sense.

It used to make no sense to ask how we could fly. Then it made no sense to ask how to get to the moon. It made no sense to ask why the moon went black once or twice a month or how it got there or why it stayed there.

All questions make sense to the person asking them.

 

[DT_tokamak]

In mathematics, we define abstract spaces all the time with elements that don't necessarily physically exist... for instance, has anyone ever seen an element of a function space? Do we have them in our desk drawer?

I'm going to illustrate a couple constructions here. This is not to build a precise structure persay, but rather to get us thinking in the same manner.

Consider an abstract set of elements (we shall call it the "truth set") where an element is said to be in the set if that element is a truth. For instance, the statement '2+2=4' is an element of the truth set. Do not think of this truth in reference to decimal or modular notation... think of it at the level of raw truth... a block and a block... and then another block and another block... that is the same as a block and a block and a block and a block. This is an absolute truth.

Now let us consider a larger set that is actually complete so we shall call it the "known space". An element is said to be in this space if it is anything that can be known. For instance the design behind a 1985 Lamborghini Diablo is something that can be known. The process for starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together can be known. Therefore those are elements of the set. Now, consider this... before human beings knew that rubbing two sticks together would start a fire, was it still true that rubbing two sticks together would start a fire? Before it had ever been done, was it still true that the process would work? It's simply friction...laws of the universe. My contention is that there exists an abstract space where anything that can be known, is known. Therefore any technology that we have yet to discover, any fact that we have yet to unfold, any law of physics that we have yet to create, is still in this abstract space waiting for us to discover it. This space is independent of us and has always existed. Moreover, we can say that the "known space" contains the "truth set". If something is true, then it can certainly be known.

Consider even more strange and abstract sets containing elements such as desires and passions. We can feel the force of desire and passion in our lives... these are real forces because they physically move us to do things. They cause action and change. And like elements in the "known space", elements of desire existed independently before human beings came about. Let's call this new space, the "space of desire".

Now, bring this together... you have a space where everything that can be known *is* known. You also have a space where everything that can be desired *is* desired. Moreover, you have a subset of all known things called truths. And since all of these are independent of our own minds, then they have always existed. Their existence is absolute. Now consider this... these truths will direct the forces of desire and knowledge, to create something that is functional, intricate, complex, beautiful, and majestic. They will create a functional universe and dismiss nonfunctional ones. They will create functional lifeforms and dismiss nonfunctional ones. They will create us.

What you have is infinite knowledge, infinite desire, and truth... you have an intelligent omniscient being. You have God.

 

[Kenny_L]

What you have is infinite knowledge, infinite desire, and truth... you have an intelligent omniscient being. You have God.

But different religions have different 'god's. So what makes this particular one more believable than the others? In fact, which 'god' are you talking about here?

 

[DT_tokamak]

But different religions have different 'god's. So what makes this particular one more believable than the others? In fact, which 'god' are you talking about here?

I was just illustrating a construction from the way I see things. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't believe me. If you see any merit to it, then ponder away and take what you will. I'll be glad I could inspire further thought. And if you don't see merit to it, then at least it didn't take you too long to read =)

 

[out of whack]

It used to make no sense to ask how we could fly. Then it made no sense to ask how to get to the moon. It made no sense to ask why the moon went black once or twice a month or how it got there or why it stayed there.

Naw, clearly it had to make sense at least to all those who answered these questions.

All questions make sense to the person asking them.

I certainly agree with this one. I've asked my share of senseless questions before realizing why they didn't make sense. But once I understood a question's flaw then I stopped asking it and moved on to better ones ...or so I think until I learn better!

 

[Dark Fire]

I haven't read what everyone has written, though I find the problem to be: what is nothing.
Is vacuum really nothing, or can it interact?
If it can't, if we're talking about the empty: "nothing", that can not interact, then like most has already said: there must be something to create this very question.

However, in a very abstract view of reality, it is possible that only nothing exist, because the ultimate reality does not correspond to our logic for some reason.
This is in my opinion, likely enough to be prioritized.

 

[DT_tokamak]

I haven't read what everyone has written, though I find the problem to be: what is nothing.

Here's my take on it. 'Nothing', in essence, marks the absence of something. Without something to absent, 'nothing' cannot even be defined. Therefore, if there is a definition of 'nothing', then something must exist.

Just my take... no proofs or coercive plots given =)

 

[Kenny_L]

Here's my take on it. 'Nothing', in essence, marks the absence of something. Without something to absent, 'nothing' cannot even be defined. Therefore, if there is a definition of 'nothing', then something must exist.

Just my take... no proofs or coercive plots given =)

Yeah...but the thing is ... 'how did anything/something/thoughts/movement/whatever come to 'exist' in the 'first' place?'. That's the big(gest) question.

 

[Dark Fire]

Here's my take on it. 'Nothing', in essence, marks the absence of something. Without something to absent, 'nothing' cannot even be defined. Therefore, if there is a definition of 'nothing', then something must exist.

Just my take... no proofs or coercive plots given =)

What..?
Is your point now, as already stated: that the definition of nothing is information, therefor something must exist?
Because I disagree that nothing implies anything in absent.
Infinity nothing is still nothing, yes?

how did anything/something/thoughts/movement/whatever come to 'exist' in the 'first' place?'. That's the big(gest) question.

Why must there be any limit or a point of start of the universe?
I find Big Bang as a very accepting theory, but that's just me.
"Start" and "End" is just myths in my opinion.
Terms of a weak attempt to define important periods of time, though I have no problem accepting reality to continuously exist in an infinite amount of time.

 

[Kenny_L]

Why must there be any limit or a point of start of the universe?
I find Big Bang as a very accepting theory, but that's just me.
"Start" and "End" is just myths in my opinion.
Terms of a weak attempt to define important periods of time, though I have no problem accepting reality to continuously exist in an infinite amount of time.

Yeah...but regardless of a limit or point...I mentioned already that the big(gest) question is ...how did something/anything/energy/movement/thoughts/WHATEVER get to arise/exist/come-about in the 'first' place? The 'big bang' is only a theory about a subset of something...since the 'big bang' theory only describes something that happened. But what 'made' it to happen, or what things 'triggered' this to occur is unknown. In other words ... the emphasis on ... 'what happened?'... or what's going on here?

 

[Dark Fire]

Few has studied Big Bang enough to know the very inch of physics of it.
What about: due to the massive energy created by the Big Crunch, while the process of all matter/energy to be compressed, energy is built up, and in the end the energy is so great that a explosion will occur aka Big Bang?

I'm not sure what you mean, really..
You bring up "first place" once again, so I presume you're still convinced that there must be a starter point, while I'm convinced it most likely does not.
Perhaps reality states: we can predict every action of the universe, back to the point of our most recent Big Bang.

//Going to bed

 

[Kenny_L]

What about: due to the massive energy created by the Big Crunch, while the process of all matter/energy to be compressed, energy is built up, and in the end the energy is so great that a explosion will occur aka Big Bang?

I see...so basically, it seems as if all you care about is what you know. But you don't care about what you don't know. If you begin your talk with energy already in the picture, and some movements already in the picture, then that's ok. But what I'm saying is ... how did that energy (or other things) get here/get there in the 'first' place? Or, if you don't want time references in there...then I could just say 'how did energy or other things get here/there'...or 'how did they get here at all'?

Perhaps reality states: we can predict every action of the universe, back to the point of our most recent Big Bang.

But you don't know the origins of all those things that you mentioned... eg big crunch/big bang/energy ... and what I mean by origin is ...what 'behind' all those things you mentioned...and if you really want...what's behind all those things that are behind those things that are behind those things...etc. But as I said already, if you're happy to sweep aside what you don't know...or don't want to know, then that's ok. But at least you know there is a big question out there with no answer ... that is 'what are the origins of anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever'?

 

[out of whack]

'what are the origins of anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever'?

What is the origin of existence?

 

[Kenny_L]

What is the origin of existence?

Not known (unknown)

 

[out of whack]

I wanted to point out that what you are asking by the origin of "anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever" is the origin of existence itself, regardless of what specifically exists. The fundamental question is about existence. Do you agree with this?

 

[Kenny_L]

I wanted to point out that what you are asking by the origin of "anything/energy/matter/thought/whatever" is the origin of existence itself, regardless of what specifically exists. The fundamental question is about existence. Do you agree with this?

I know what you were trying to say there. The 'existence' that you mentioned is also included in the 'whatever' part. What's the origin of it? Unknown.

 

[out of whack]

I know what you were trying to say there. The 'existence' that you mentioned is also included in the 'whatever' part. What's the origin of it? Unknown.

What we do know is that the origin in question either existed or did not exist.

If we knew for sure that an origin did not exist then existence would be known to be for all time and the question would be answered: no origin. This would not a bad state of affair since it would be perfectly in line with our daily observations: we never witness anything appearing out of nowhere. Everything changes but nothing is either created or destroyed. So why should anyone assume that existence itself is any different? No origin works fine.

If on the other hand an origin did exist then we would have a problem: such an origin could not be the origin of existence because existence would already be a fact: the origin exists! Since this possibility does not work at all, the hypothesis that an origin existed for existence itself fails immediately. The only alternative is the one in the previous paragraph.

 

[Kenny_L]

The only alternative is the one in the previous paragraph.

But that doesn't answer the biggest question at all. The issue/question is... what mechanisms or just 'what' makes anything (energy or whatever else) exist? Emphasis on 'what'. In other words, where does it come from? You could also ask 'how'...like, if somebody (like you) assumes it was already there...then 'how'. And right now...you don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. If you do happen to find out, then please, by all means...let us know. And saying something like 'It was always there, but I don't have a clue how it got there'...is just not going to cut it.

 

[out of whack]

But that doesn't answer the biggest question at all. The issue/question is... what mechanisms or just 'what' makes anything (energy or whatever else) exist? Emphasis on 'what'. In other words, where does it come from? You could also ask 'how'...like, if somebody (like you) assumes it was already there...then 'how'. And right now...you don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. If you do happen to find out, then please, by all means...let us know. And saying something like 'It was always there, but I don't have a clue how it got there'...is just not going to cut it.

Consider the possibility that you don't fully understand the question itself.

In your question "what makes anything exist", the 'what' part stands for something, right? That something either exists or does not. So you can apply the same rationale as above to this question. Or in your question "where does it come from", the 'where' part also asks for some "place" or some "situation" that either exists or not. The same thing applies if you instead ask for "how it happened" or even for "who is responsible". In the end, you are asking for a reason. Well, a reason exists or it does not exist. And one more time, apply the previous rationale to 'reason' instead of 'origin' and you will arrive at the same conclusion.

You complain that this does not answer the question. Of course not. What I have been trying to explain is this: the question does not apply to existence, the question is invalid. Existence is the starting point, one of the rare few certainties you can believe for sure. It is immune to doubt (cogito ergo sum). It is also immune to "why", to "how" and so on.

I find some beauty in this concept of "existence". It gives us a starting point to understand reality.

 

[Kenny_L]

Consider the possibility that you don't fully understand the question itself. In your question "what makes anything exist", the 'what' part stands for something, right? That something either exists or does not. So you can apply the same rationale as above to this question. Or in your question "where does it come from", the 'where' part also asks for some "place" or some "situation" that either exists or not. The same thing applies if you instead ask for "how it happened" or even for "who is responsible". In the end, you are asking for a reason. Well, a reason exists or it does not exist. And one more time, apply the previous rationale to 'reason' instead of 'origin' and you will arrive at the same conclusion.

I understand the question perfectly. When you said ... "the 'what' part stands for something, right?". Yes, obviously it does stand for something. If you define 'energy', then the question is what makes it there? Or how did it get there?

You do understand this following sentence, right? "If energy is here/there, then what made it be there, how it got there?". If you get to understand more about energy (apart from the 'it cannot be created or destroyed' thing, and know nothing more about it), then we can pick things up from there.

You complain that this does not answer the question. Of course not. What I have been trying to explain is this: the question does not apply to existence, the question is invalid. Existence is the starting point, one of the rare few certainties you can believe for sure. It is immune to doubt (cogito ergo sum). It is also immune to "why", to "how" and so on.

I didn't complain actually. You're the one that introduced something about 'complaining'. I'm just telling you what the biggest question is..."How do you get something from absolutely nothing, or from absolutely no activity". It is the 'how do you pull rabbits out of the hat' question. The question boils down to that. Now, of course there's debate about what what 'nothing' actually means. And you have people saying...'there's no reason for assuming that nothing was happening in the first place'...and a whole bunch of question dodging tactics.

But you know what the deal is here. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the original question in this thread either...ie "why does anything exist at all?" Perfectly valid question, considering that there's nothing wrong with asking how anything formed or moved or transited in the first place ... (or whatever place).

 

[out of whack]

"If energy is here/there, then what made it be there, how it got there?"

We could specifically discuss where energy comes from, or where matter comes from, or thought, or whatever. I have used your own terms in this list, as I did when I pointed out that fundamentally, we are discussing existence. When I speak of existence, be assured that the existence of anything, energy, matter, thought and whatever is included in existence itself. It's merely a short cut to include all of it so there is no need to single out energy. I hope it's acceptable.

Now, what is the reason for existence? You say there is nothing wrong with this question and I maintain that it is in fact invalid.

Picture someone asking "what is the length of heavy?" You could point out that the question does not make any sense, heavy doesn't have a length so the question is invalid. The person might reply: "That doesn't cut it. If you don't know, come back when you do. It's a perfectly good question." I think you can agree that some questions are invalid because they address something unrelated to the matter at hand.

I explained at post #98 that existence cannot arise for a reason that exists. Obviously, it also cannot arise if a reason for it does not exist either. So in short, existence cannot arise; existence is where it all begins. Asking a reason for existence is asking for a characteristic that it does not possess. What is the speed of dark? Where can I find nothing? What is the length of heavy? What is the reason of existence? These questions all ask about something that doesn't apply. The main difference is that some do so more obviously than others. It's futile to obsess over invalid questions like these. It's useful to know which questions are valid and which aren't.

 

[robertm]

Kenny_L, when time does not exist there is no need for a "how" or "what" came before because the logic behind the word before becomes invalid.

I agree it certainly sounds like answer dodging, however you can not apply regular logic to quantum situations.

I don't have answers for you yet, but maybe the LHC will come through for the both us.

 

[robertm]

Also, there are many suggestions that, as the universe is a closed system, it CAN originate from what we would consider 'nothing'. I can not find the literature right now, hopefully someone more organized can shed some light. In the mean time I will try and look it up for you.

 

[Kenny_L]

Kenny_L, when time does not exist there is no need for a "how" or "what" came before because the logic behind the word before becomes invalid. I agree it certainly sounds like answer dodging, however you can not apply regular logic to quantum situations. I don't have answers for you yet, but maybe the LHC will come through for the both us.

I know what you mean robertm ... but ok...let's keep time in the picture. Time is in, and included of course. Now, the big question is still the same...'how did energy (and even constituents of energy...if there is any...and it's constituents etc etc) ... form? How did they form...or what did they form from? Now that's interesting.