Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[kant]

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

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)?

 

[loseyourname]

Rosewater's right, guys. Clean it up and quit exchanging quips. It's obvious you all do have posts of value to contribute.

 

[baywax]

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

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).

 

[kant]

• "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?

 

[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.