Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[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.

 

[robertm]

Very interesting indeed! But I still maintain that the answers to your questions are not beyond the realms of science. We (as a society) may not have complete answers to these questions as of yet, but do not fear! There are a great many very intelligent people working on it. I'll post some links on some modern theories for you later.

 

[robertm]

This ones quite a read but very thorough:
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/eaa/eaa-cosmology.pdf"

A very recent paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411153"

Note: Superstring is a very tentative theory:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html"

An interesting new theory:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/"

 

[Kenny_L]

Very interesting indeed! But I still maintain that the answers to your questions are not beyond the realms of science. We (as a society) may not have complete answers to these questions as of yet, but do not fear! There are a great many very intelligent people working on it. I'll post some links on some modern theories for you later.

Thanks robertm. I'm not sure if the 'answers' are beyond the realms of science or not. But the nice thing is that at least people are trying hard to find out how something (eg...energy, or even 'strings' etc) formed. At the moment, the best that scientists are doing is thinking of ways to look for more and more basic/fundamental things about the universe (eg like...strings etc)...but they can never wrap their minds around how strings themselves (etc) are 'there'.

And even when scientists/mathematicians come up with things like 'we can have zero', as long as everything sums up to zero. But that doesn't explain how anything formed, no matter what kind of system they come up with. So in the end, everybody is still clueless.

 

[Kenny_L]

Picture someone asking "what is the length of heavy?"

out_of_whack ... don't worry about 'length'. Let's just keep things to something like energy. And just focus on how something like energy got there. Sure...science has come up with the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed... but it is something. I'm betting on it that scientists haven't got the whole picture. In fact, I'm we haven't even got any picture at all right now. All we have right now are mathematical/physical relationships/observations relating one known thing to another...but the mechanisms behind the formation of all the things we're working with (or thought up) are unknown. It's just an endless wild goose chase.

 

[out of whack]

out_of_whack ... don't worry about 'length'.

I don't worry about length. That was an example of an invalid question. I tried to illustrate for your sake how some questions make no sense because they ask about things that don't apply.

Apparently I cannot express what I want to convey in a language that can reach you at this time. I should stop now, but I invite you to bookmark this thread and read it again in a few months. Maybe the message will come through at a different time.

 

[Kenny_L]

I don't worry about length. That was an example of an invalid question. I tried to illustrate for your sake how some questions make no sense because they ask about things that don't apply. Apparently I cannot express what I want to convey in a language that can reach you at this time. I should stop now, but I invite you to bookmark this thread and read it again in a few months. Maybe the message will come through at a different time.

I see. But you didn't need to provide an example of an invalid question, because my point is not about an invalid question. It is about a valid question...namely, 'how was energy FORMED'? Which leads to the biggest question of 'how was anything at all FORMED'? And I already told you...we don't know. And this question relates directly to existence...or, if you have a problem with this term, then call it 'formation'...or 'linking'.

Eg ... cell formed from atoms -> formed from protons/neutrons/electrons ...each of these are then formed from...or linked to ... blah blah blah... maybe it gets down to energies/forces. And then these 'might' be linked to 'strings'...which might involve dimensions or whatever... but, then what are these linked to? We may find more things...but anything that we find does not get us any closer to a stage that explains how these 'materials/components/things' got there. No matter which avenue you go down, there is no explanation for how anything began to 'exist/move/form/transition/whatever'. If you want to hear it in layman's terms, then the question is "where did the building blocks for everything come from?"...or "how did the building blocks for everything get there"? I just decided to sum up, in case you want to read this thread again in 3 months time as well.

 

[baywax]

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

Hi OOW... I don't know how a question can be flawed. I mean, asking what nothing is can be seen as flawed on my end of the question because the answer to the question is in the question. Nothing is nothing... not a what... not a where and not a when etc.

Nothing will be contradicted as soon as you put "is" after the word. This is because nothing isn't.

But, the person asking "what is nothing?" has every right to ask the question because they haven't thought it through and may need help understanding the concept. That isn't a flaw, its... a question. There's no flaw there. However, I can use the contradictory nature of their question to perhaps bring to light the idea that nothing describes non-existence.

edit: So, the question that makes up this thread's title "Why does anything exist than rather nothing?" is answered simply by pointing out that nothing does not exist and therefore leaves much room for everything else to exist.

 

[Kenny_L]

edit: So, the question that makes up this thread's title "Why does anything exist than rather nothing?" is answered simply by pointing out that nothing does not exist and therefore leaves much room for everything else to exist.

In that case, it's necessary to identify what they mean by nothing. For example, they probably have an 'idea' of what they mean. They might have meant nothing, as in no energy, no material, no movement, no transitions. If you want to leave time/space or even dimensions in the picture, then that's fine. But if we're going to talk about 'nothing', then at least it's necessary to at least give it a definition where everybody can start from. Otherwise, communications is a waste of time.

 

[out of whack]

Hi OOW... I don't know how a question can be flawed.

Hi again baywax. I think you have already answered your question. If you remember, our exchange started with your reply to my statement that "asking what existed before existence makes no sense". You said that all questions make sense to the one asking them. As I already acknowledged, such a question does make sense to the asker but only until you show the question's flaw; then it stops making sense to them as well.

One common way a question can be flawed is by being self-contradictory. This holds for statements in general, not only questions. You mention "what is nothing?" as a good example of this where "what is" can only apply to something, not to nothing. Another one I like is "what happened before time began?" It also fails to make sense because you cannot have "before" in the absence of time. Obviously, anyone is free to ask flawed questions. It cannot possibly be avoided. My goal is to explain why the questions do not actually make sense. I hope you are not saying it is wrong to explain why a contradictory question has no actual meaning.

So, the question that makes up this thread's title "Why does anything exist than rather nothing?" is answered simply by pointing out that nothing does not exist and therefore leaves much room for everything else to exist.

Indeed. Not only does nothing not exist, it simply cannot exist by definition of nothing (what does not exist).

Unfortunately, this answer is not satisfying for many people who see it as a play on words. My attempts have been to explain why wanting a reason for existence makes no sense. It is because existence is not a concept that has a reason as one of its characteristics. It's like asking "what is the length of heavy?" when heavy clearly does not have any length. The question does not apply in any way.

I can try one more example regarding the lack of any reason to explain the "origin" of existence. Those who seek a reason will find one of only two possibilities: either a reason that exists or a reason that does not exist. But a reason that exists could not be a reason for existence itself since it would already exist. Since such a reason would not explain its own existence, a reason for existence cannot exist. This brings us to the other possibility, a reason that does not exist. Here it isn't:

 

[robertm]

Unfortunately, this answer is not satisfying for many people who see it as a play on words. My attempts have been to explain why wanting a reason for existence makes no sense. It is because existence is not a concept that has a reason as one of its characteristics. It's like asking "what is the length of heavy?" when heavy clearly does not have any length. The question does not apply in any way.

I can try one more example regarding the lack of any reason to explain the "origin" of existence. Those who seek a reason will find one of only two possibilities: either a reason that exists or a reason that does not exist. But a reason that exists could not be a reason for existence itself since it would already exist. Since such a reason would not explain its own existence, a reason for existence cannot exist. This brings us to the other possibility, a reason that does not exist. Here it isn't:

Very well summed up OOW. I am impressed, ideas such as this can be very difficult to explain with words.

Kenny L, really read over what the above states especially the last bit, I would like to hear what you think. That last paragraph really sums up the paradox of searching for the ultimate origins of everything.

Why is it so important for everything to have a beginning? The idea of 'beginning' and 'end' and finite qualities are very human. So far, the universe as a whole seems to be very anti-human.

As I said before, you are asking for trouble when you try and apply everyday logic to the quantum world.

 

[Kenny_L]

Robertm... I never said that it's important for everything to have a beginning and an end. I think it was you that just brought that thing up. What OOW is really doing is to make up his/her own set of conditions/rules in attempts to stay out of the question area.

When the original poster means 'nothing', then we all have to at least agree on what means 'nothing' in this case...or at least come to some agreement of roughly what their 'nothing' means. And, as I said already, we might be able to agree that nothing could mean no matter, no energy, NO TRANSITIONS (no transitions of energy states or whatever states), no movement. If some people are very pedantic and just want to leave 'time' in the picture, and even 'space', then just leave it in there...but stick to the no energy, no transition, no matter condition. And even when you're talking about quantum stuff, there's still states involved with that...so even quantum conditions are included in our discussion.

Given that we have energy, and matter, and transitions occurring, then the big question is: where'd they all come from? This is a valid question, for those that try to go off on a tangent and try to make everybody believe that it's a 'flawed' question or meaningless question...well, bad move for them, because we do know what we're talking about.

 

[robertm]

I agree that the fact that there is something means indeed that there is "not nothing"; however to ask why there isn't "not nothing" IS indeed a flawed question, in the since that the answer is inherently apparent.

Now as for what OOW stated. I think you misunderstand what I am trying to get at. Figuring out where all those things you mention arise is obviously very important, and I intend to devote my life to doing just that. However, anything existing at all creates the exact paradox that OOW stated. Trying to describe or answer where the existence of existence itself arises, is indeed futile.

When you look at the universe you describe its existence through the phenomena that arise within it. No phenomena, no nature, no spacetime yields "nothingness". So attempting to say, 'well we are starting to figure out where the phenomena of the observable universe arose from, but where did that arise from, and where did THAT arise from, and where did anything at all arise from?', is indeed not a scientific mode of thinking.

It is a philosophical question that answers itself.

 

[castlegates]

Indeed. Not only does nothing not exist, it simply cannot exist by definition of nothing (what does not exist).

It is true that nothing does not exist, but the definition of nothing does, and that is what the universe is ... The definition of nothing. In a nutshell ... We are the Reality of Non-Existence.

 

[Langbein]

As a starter of this tread, I have followed it and I can see that there has been a lot of interresting comments and arguments.

I think an other interesting way of twisting the question arount a little bit is to ask:
What will it then mean to exist ? What does it mean that something does exist or have an "existence" or does not have an "existence" ?

What about the dimention of "time" .. can something "exist" without in some way being present in the dimention of time. Is it in some way possible to exist without without in some way moving trough the dimention of time ?

Is the term "existence" in some way connected to the term "time" ?

Is timeless existence possible ? Will existence allways include time ?

"Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?.." Could the answer be as simple as: Because the only condition that has been experienced by anyone ever is the condition of "somethingness" or "existence" while moving in time.

About non existence:

Trough the last 1000 years which is a very short period of time for the universe I actually have been dead or "non existent" most of the time. Where were I in 1853, just as an example ? Dis I exist ?

Did I move trough the dimension of time in 1853 ? Did the time itself exist in 1853 ? Did I or did my world exist in 1853 ? Does I and does my world exist in 2008 ? Why ?

 

[out of whack]

You asked many different related questions Langbein. I will pick just one that I can readily answer, in keeping with the OP on existence, and get the ball rolling.

What does it mean that something does exist or have an "existence" or does not have an "existence" ?

To exist or to be real is to interact with other real things in some way, any way at all. If it's real, it matters to something or someone, either directly or indirectly. If it matters, it's real. If it's not real, it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, we're not even talking about it.