Kevin's Watch

Why should there be something as opposed to nothing? It's the great question where physics and philosophy collide [and hence the reason why I post here as opposed to the Close] - perhaps the greatest question of all - and the one where, despite the best efforts of thinkers both materialist and metaphysical[?], we still seem to be least furthest forward in answering, our ever greater understanding of our universe notwithstanding.

Why indeed do we frame the question this way at all; that we know there is something [or we think we do] and not nothing probably goes some way toward explaining this - why we do not say "Why should there not be nothing as opposed to something". [Are these the same question; perhaps a logician could answer this for me, I don't know.] But the point is, has to be, that something requires explanation where nothing does not. Nothing is easy; it simply can be without there being any need for explanation. Something, on the other hand, requires the something to always have been there or it requires the something to have come into existence [presumably - but not exclusively I'd think - out of nothing. Something requires explanation where nothing does not. Must something have been necessarily created? I suppose it depends on definitions. If the something appears spontaneously without prior cause, is it still nevertheless created - or is its appearance outside the definition of the word?

Whenever I hear physicists talking about the problem it always seems that every time they inch a bit further toward the point of appearance of something, it seems to inch that same amount a bit further away; they move toward it but it never seems to get any closer. In a recent TED talk I watched I heard a leading physicist say that it might be the case that the question simply has no answer. That the Universe simply 'is'. [get used to it!] I'm sure David Deutsch would be horrified at such a 'theory'; it simply seems so defeatist. If this is where physicists take us on the question then they are no better [surely] than the meta-physicists who infer from the presence of something the invisible hand of God that "passeth all understanding".

For my part I'm simply revelling in the state of finding myself part of the something [not always comfortably to be sure, but a damn site better than the alternative] and ever more secure in my belief that it is the being part of it that is the key thing - and the thing that will never stop, never be taken away, choose what happens when I receive my summons, as will we all, from the Great Beyond.

[As an aside, could someone explain the Anthropic Principle to me in it's strong and weak forms? I'm sure to some extent it's tied into the something as opposed to nothing debate, but can't for the life of me think how.]

peter wrote:Why should there be something as opposed to nothing?

Why shouldn't there?

--A

I would argue that all somethings and creations of somethings have scientific explanations. Even if our understanding of the somethings or creations of somethings are incomplete. I would also argue that any something or creation of something by default has to have scientific reason or it could not exist.

The somethings, or creation of somethings, that have no scientific understanding is due to our lack of ability to study it. This is usually due to the phenomenon being too far away to study or we have not developed tools or methods to explain that particular something. Sometimes the something is counterintuitive to our current scientific understanding. However, again that is due to our abilities. It is simply impossible to have a something not have a scientific rationale.

On the other hand how could nothing exist everywhere at all time and in all space? There is no scientific theory that could ever explain nothing everywhere at all time and in all space. If you want more rationale for that line of thinking - how could that nothing exist - something still had to make that nothing be true....

The nothing would have to apply to space as well; once you have space you are definitely into the realm of something even if you have no elemental material in it. I'm thinking that somewhere I've heard that matter is at depth the equivalent of little tightly screwed up bundles of space. No - nothing is what it says it is; no matter, no space, no time.......zilch!

I once heard "bouncy celebrity astronomer" Brian Cox explain the second law of thermodynamics by comparing things to sand castles on a beach; chaos could have an infinite number of states while the sand castle in front of him could only have one. Thus any non static system - like the sand grains in front of him - was bound to move inexorably toward chaos and away from order since there were infinitely more ways that chaos could pertain.

Maybe the same applies to nothing (there being only one kind of it) and something (there being an infinite variety). Where this idea breaks down is that nothing should be the ultimately static system......it should be so hunkered down sumo wrestler like in it's staticness that nothing short of a prime mover could upend it!

peter wrote:the question simply has no answer. That the Universe simply 'is'. [get used to it!]

Well, yeah.

Science can tell you what things are and how they work, but if you're looking for a meaning or a reason for it all, that's inherently unanswerable. It doesn't stop people from trying, of course, but there is no answer. If you want one you can make one up for yourself.

Thats what most people do.

Lifes meaning is what you give it.