Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

  • Thread starter Langbein
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the philosophical question of why there is something rather than nothing. The anthropic principle is mentioned as a possible explanation, but it is argued that this only pushes back the same question. The motivations behind asking such a question are also explored, with references to Nietzsche's philosophy and the importance of understanding the motive behind a question. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the ongoing curiosity and search for answers surrounding the existence of anything at all.
  • #1
Langbein
209
0
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.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If there were "nothing", then you would not be here to ask the question! That is basically the "anthropic principle"- it is, in fact, quite possible to imagine a universe in which there is nothing but in any universe in which there is someone to ask that question, there must exist something! I think that is a paraphrasing of what your website says.
 
  • #3
There doesn't have to be a reason why there is something instead of nothing. If there was nothing, then there would just be nothing. If there was something, then there would just be something. That's how I see it.
 
  • #4
It's only because of something that you can imagine nothing.
 
  • #5
A whimsical idea: if the relation determined by the axioms of the universe are aleph-nought categorical (countably infinite and unique up to isomorphism), then as per the Lowenheim Skolem theorem there is a model.
 
  • #6
Why is there sometning than rather nothing ?

Hmm .. I agree with the answers above.

"If there were "nothing", then you would not be here to ask the question!"

"It's only because of something that you can imagine nothing."

I thought this question should be a major difficult one, but the truth is that the only condition that is experieced ever is "existece" or "something".

On the other hand people might have experieced to observe other dead people that might not have "existence".

Possibly the anwer could be:

"Because something is the result of living"

or possibly

"Because existence is the result of life".
 
  • #7
Crosson said:
A whimsical idea: if the relation determined by the axioms of the universe are aleph-nought categorical (countably infinite and unique up to isomorphism), then as per the Lowenheim Skolem theorem there is a model.

That's "something" else!
 
  • #8
HallsofIvy said:
If there were "nothing", then you would not be here to ask the question! That is basically the "anthropic principle"- it is, in fact, quite possible to imagine a universe in which there is nothing but in any universe in which there is someone to ask that question, there must exist something! I think that is a paraphrasing of what your website says.


I think the anthropic principle would only push back the same question. If a intelligent being do indeed life in a universe (where there is something), then that intelligent being could ask why there is some universe that existenc, and some universe that don t exist.
 
  • #9
kant said:
I think the anthropic principle would only push back the same question. If a intelligent being do indeed life in a universe (where there is something), then that intelligent being could ask why there is some universe that existenc, and some universe that don t exist.

What would prompt an intelligent being to wonder why something did not exist?

Do you mean like where I'm sitting on my patio and wondering why I don't have a Hummer and a helecopter on my lawn?

(because the wife and kids have them out for the weekend!)
 
  • #10
baywax said:
What would prompt an intelligent being to wonder why something did not exist?

I wonder why the motivation of such a person is important. It is like asking why people like ice cream. The main point is that the question won t go away, because the answer is never satisfactory.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
kant said:
I wonder why the motivation of such a person is important.

I think that in general - the motivations why questins are asked at all is a rather interesting part of it.

Could it be that questions are asked because of "the will to power" ?

Will this eventually be valid for all kind of questions and all kind of answers ?

Lets look at some of the stuff of Nietzsche as an example.

He says something like "God is dead" and so are all old "values", so there will be neaded new "values", new thinking etc.

Then there is this interesting little question direved from the first:

Why does Nietzche think that it is a problem that God is dead ? Does he think that there should be a God ? Why is is a problem for him at all that God is dead ?

Why does Nietzche think that there should be any values or any moral at all ?

Why does Nietzce think it is important or relevant to search for any meaning or any moral at all, and why does he se it as a point to design a new one ?

In general I think that the motive behind a question is an important part of the question.

In the case of Nietzche, when you analyze the logical structure in his arguments and try to read in the built in motivation behind the question, the philosophy of Fredrich Nietzche is a bit logical inconsistent.

Still, as I would see it, he is one of the very most important philosophers of our modern history. (And a key to understand our culture.)

If I should try to help Nietzche with some of his questions in "Ecche Homo",
"Why I am so wise, etc" I think I would say something like: "You mean why it is so important for you to feel wise, or to be looked at as wise ?"

It wouldn't be polite so I wouldn't say it, but I would think by myself: "Because you are among them who might like to performs smartness without wisdom".

A small divergence from the origal question, but still interesting I think.

Why ask question like this: "Why does anything exist than rather nothing". The motivation for asking the question at all will also be, as I would see it, a part of it.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
kant said:
I wonder why the motivation of such a person is important. It is like asking why people like ice cream. The main point is that the question won t go away, because the answer is never satisfactory.

You mean to ask "why is there a universe instead of no universe?":bugeye:

A satisfactory answer is :uhh: "because there is a universe".
 
  • #13
Langbein said:
I think that in general - the motivations why questins are asked at all is a rather interesting part of it.

Could it be that questions are asked because of "the will to power" ?

Will this eventually be valid for all kind of questions and all kind of answers ?

Lets look at some of the stuff of Nietzsche as an example.

He says something like "God is dead" and so are all old "values", so there will be neaded new "values", new thinking etc.

Then there is this interesting little question direved from the first:

Why does Nietzche think that it is a problem that God is dead ? Does he think that there should be a God ? Why is is a problem for him at all that God is dead ?

Why does Nietzche think that there should be any values or any moral at all ?

Why does Nietzce think it is important or relevant to search for any meaning or any moral at all, and why does he se it as a point to design a new one ?

In general I think that the motive behind a question is an important part of the question.

In the case of Nietzche, when you analyze the logical structure in his arguments and try to read in the built in motivation behind the question, the philosophy of Fredrich Nietzche is a bit logical inconsistent.

Still, as I would see it, he is one of the very most important philosophers of our modern history. (And a key to understand our culture.)

If I should try to help Nietzche with some of his questions in "Ecche Homo",
"Why I am so wise, etc" I think I would say something like: "You mean why it is so important for you to feel wise, or to be looked at as wise ?"

It wouldn't be polite so I wouldn't say it, but I would think by myself: "Because you are among them who might like to performs smartness without wisdom".

A small divergence from the origal question, but still interesting I think.

Why ask question like this: "Why does anything exist than rather nothing". The motivation for asking the question at all will also be, as I would see it, a part of it.

I think this question is important in that it defines the limit of human understanding. It is said by paul davis( i think also wittgenstein) that the greatest mystery is the mystery of existence. I think this question expresses that idea. That is one possible motivation.

Another possible motivation i think might be to wonder if the causal structure of the world might be different, but that is another topic for another thread. This is perhaps my own motivation.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
baywax said:
You mean to ask "why is there a universe instead of no universe?":bugeye:

A satisfactory answer is :uhh: "because there is a universe".


You are not really answering the question. All you are doing is begging the question, or by restating the question so that you might give the impression that you are being profound and deep.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
kant said:
You are not really answering the question. All you are doing is begging the question, or by restating it so that you give the impression to the other guy that you are being profound.
Tell us the rules that decide whether a proposition is an acceptable answer to the question then.
 
  • #16
kant said:
You are not really answering the question. All you are doing is begging the question, or by restating the question so that you might give the impression that you are being profound and deep.

No, that's what you're doing. :smile:

I am simply stating the obvious.
 
  • #17
honestrosewater said:
Tell us the rules that decide whether a proposition is an acceptable answer to the question then.

Well, the way i see it. There is only two ways to reply.

1) the question is meaningless, because nothing is not a thing.

The question is meaningless because there is no answer, because any anwer would entail existial claims, but than such answer would be begging the question.


the question is meaningless because nothing is not something for all we know empirically exist, therefore, the question is meaningless.


2) The question is not answerable.
 
  • #18
baywax said:
You mean to ask "why is there a universe instead of no universe?":bugeye:

A satisfactory answer is :uhh: "because there is a universe".

But it is not that bad ! Who decides the rules for philosophic argumentation ?

If nature is our teacher of (rational) thinking and all human (rational) thinking reflects structures learned from nature, then a part of this "think training" has been to learn that there has allways been an universe.

Possibly its also like that without a universe there could be no life, and that to be allive will be to be to fullfill a role as "the creator of my world", so that the condition of a nonexistent will be meaningless.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
baywax said:
No, that's what you're doing. :smile:

I am simply stating the obvious.


I know you are stating the obvious, but i also know it is obvious to you only because you don t know.
 
  • #20
Langbein said:
But it is not that bad ! Who decides the rules for philosophic argumentation ?

If nature is our teacher of (rational) thinking and all human (rational) thinking reflects structures learned from nature, then a part of this "think training" has been to learn that there has allways been an universe.

Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way. By induction, when we open our eyes, we always see a world, therefore, the world must exist. This is in fact not true, because it is not the case that there was always our physical space-time universe from what science tell us. You might "feel" that something is a priori true can be wrong.

Answering a question by restating the question does not solve anything. If you think this is right argumentation, then you are plain wrong.

Possibly its also like that without a universe there could be no life, and that to be allive will be to be to fullfill a role as "the creator of my world", so that the condition of a nonexistent will be meaningless.

You are pulling stuff , and ideas out of there context. The anthropic principle does not seek to answer the original question of this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
"Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way."

I don't know allways what I'm saying, but what I actually believe is more something like the opposite. (Thinking will have to be learned from environment or "nature".)
 
  • #22
Langbein said:
"Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way."

I don't know allways what I'm saying, but what I actually believe is more something like the opposite. (Thinking will have to be learned from environment or "nature".)[/QUOTE]

Whatever that means.
 
  • #23
kant said:
I know you are stating the obvious, but i also know it is obvious to you only because you don t know.

I "don't know" a lot of things. What is it that you know I don't know?:bugeye:
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Langbein said:
But it is not that bad ! Who decides the rules for philosophic argumentation ?

If nature is our teacher of (rational) thinking and all human (rational) thinking reflects structures learned from nature, then a part of this "think training" has been to learn that there has allways been an universe.

Possibly its also like that without a universe there could be no life, and that to be allive will be to be to fullfill a role as "the creator of my world", so that the condition of a nonexistent will be meaningless.

It's possible that we can learn without trying. We just open up our brains and the fact that our brain is part of the rest of nature means it already "knows" everything.

Its just that when it comes to communicating that knowledge we need to go to school or learn from people who know how to communicate knowledge.

When it comes to nonexistence, we can't really effectively communicate the condition because, as existing events, we are unable to experience a "non-event". In order to experience an "non-event" we have to "be" one (yet, "being" a non-event is impossible because "being" is about existing).

It is in this way that "nothing", by definition, does not exist.:rofl:
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Why assume that 'nothing' is the default state and that 'something' must have been preceded by 'nothing'?
 
  • #26
baywax said:
I "don't know" a lot of things. What is it that you know I don't know?:bugeye:

frankly, i am bore talking to you. All you post so far has to be pin point some vague ideas.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
baywax said:
It's possible that we can learn without trying. We just open up our brains and the fact that our brain is part of the rest of nature means it already "knows" everything.

if anything, science tells us that our intuition is very fallable.


When it comes to nonexistence, we can't really effectively communicate the condition because, as existing events, we are unable to experience a "non-event".

are you saying we can t experience "nothing"? We can t experience jumping off a bridge, but i can imagine what would happen if some one do jump off a bridge. What is your point? The fact that we can t experience q doesn t imply that q does not exist. The word "experience" is itself vague.


In order to experience an "non-event" we have to "be" one (yet, "being" a non-event is impossible because "being" is about existing).


Be "one" with the universe?:rofl:
 
  • #28
kant said:
"Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way."

I don't know allways what I'm saying, but what I actually believe is more something like the opposite.

Whatever that means.

This means standard basic learning theories, Piaget as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget
 
  • #29
kant said:
frankly, i am bore talking to you. All you post so far has to be pin point some vague ideas.

That's a pretty vague statement in itself.
 
  • #30
  • #31
baywax said:
That's a pretty vague statement in itself.



There is actually a golden rule, and one that i think you know very well. The rule is this. To trick people in believing that you are profound, is to actually say as little as possible.
 
  • #32
In what way do these seemingly snide remarks have anything to do with the topic or meet PF's standards? I like PF, and it makes me sad to see these things.

Is there any way that we could get back on topic (if there is one)?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Rosewater's right, guys. Clean it up and quit exchanging quips. It's obvious you all do have posts of value to contribute.
 
  • #34
honestrosewater said:
In what way do these seemingly snide remarks have anything to do with the topic or meet PF's standards? I like PF, and it makes me sad to see these things.

Is there any way that we could get back on topic (if there is one)?

Apologies to you honestrosewater and all. PF rocks:cool:

I'm answering the question as best I can under the curcumstances.

Why does anything exist rather than nothing?

It's a fundimental question that requires a fundimental answer.
The closest I've come with one is

• "because it does"

and

• "by its own (conceptual) nature, nothing does not exist "
(except as an abstract concept. It is arguable that "anything" exists only as an abstract concept as well but the question ascertains that one of the two conditions actually does exist ie: "anything".)

Edit; "anything" could also include "nothing". This would ensure that nothing exists (as contradictory as that sounds).
 
Last edited:
  • #35
• "because it does"

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.

• "by its own (conceptual) nature, nothing does not exist

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

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?
 
<h2>1. Why does anything exist rather than nothing?</h2><p>This is a philosophical question that has puzzled humans for centuries. From a scientific perspective, the existence of anything can be explained by the Big Bang theory. According to this theory, the universe began as a singularity and expanded rapidly, resulting in the formation of matter and energy.</p><h2>2. Is there a purpose or reason for the existence of anything?</h2><p>There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is a specific purpose or reason for the existence of anything. However, some philosophers and religious beliefs propose that there is a higher power or consciousness that has created the universe and everything in it for a specific purpose.</p><h2>3. How did the first living organisms come into existence?</h2><p>The origin of life is still a mystery to scientists. However, the most widely accepted theory is that life on Earth began with the formation of simple organic molecules, which eventually evolved into more complex organisms through a process of natural selection.</p><h2>4. Is there a possibility of other universes existing?</h2><p>Some theories, such as the multiverse theory, suggest that there could be an infinite number of universes besides our own. However, there is currently no scientific evidence to support this idea, and it remains a topic of debate among scientists.</p><h2>5. Can we ever truly understand why anything exists?</h2><p>This question may never have a definitive answer. While science can provide explanations for the existence of the universe and living organisms, the concept of existence itself may be beyond our full understanding as humans. It may always remain a philosophical and existential question.</p>

1. Why does anything exist rather than nothing?

This is a philosophical question that has puzzled humans for centuries. From a scientific perspective, the existence of anything can be explained by the Big Bang theory. According to this theory, the universe began as a singularity and expanded rapidly, resulting in the formation of matter and energy.

2. Is there a purpose or reason for the existence of anything?

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is a specific purpose or reason for the existence of anything. However, some philosophers and religious beliefs propose that there is a higher power or consciousness that has created the universe and everything in it for a specific purpose.

3. How did the first living organisms come into existence?

The origin of life is still a mystery to scientists. However, the most widely accepted theory is that life on Earth began with the formation of simple organic molecules, which eventually evolved into more complex organisms through a process of natural selection.

4. Is there a possibility of other universes existing?

Some theories, such as the multiverse theory, suggest that there could be an infinite number of universes besides our own. However, there is currently no scientific evidence to support this idea, and it remains a topic of debate among scientists.

5. Can we ever truly understand why anything exists?

This question may never have a definitive answer. While science can provide explanations for the existence of the universe and living organisms, the concept of existence itself may be beyond our full understanding as humans. It may always remain a philosophical and existential question.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
831
Replies
6
Views
446
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
960
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
887
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
605
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
4K
Back
Top