@@supermushroom3175 "Something" is only possible because of nested frameworks with properties that are only revealed (in stages) that contribute to existence. Without the hidden properties of the environment, there would be nothing, not even the motion that eventually creates gravity. The framework is the something before nothing that has always existed.
"Nothing" is also something, but its definition as we see it as human beings. So why there is nothing is like asking what there is that something "nothing", so basically, no matter how you look at it, there is always something.
Great wisdom in the first 3 minutes. He is totally honest to say that the question is beyond physics. Not that physicists should not consider it, and continue to delve into the big bang and the beginning of spacetime, but the essential question of why'' cannot be resolved by describing 'nothing' as actually containing other things... laws, quantum foam, fluctuations etc., which already existed. The 'why' is then simply kicked down the road.
Einstein seems to have said, "If we take all matters from universe, time and space disappears." Actually, each matter has own world line with its coodinate (time and space), and if we take all the matters, then, we cannot deliniate any time-and-space dyagram at all. No distance, no proper time....nothing.
When we can't explain Nothingness , we can't explain why there should be something at all. It is the place where the Supernaturalists and Naturalist stand together in awe and wonder still projecting their ignorance .
"Creation is all that God has created within time and beyond time. You live within time, so you live in a part of Creation that is in motion, that is in flux, that is unstable and that is evolving and expanding. This part of Creation was established to provide a home for the separated, where they could experience Separation and have the opportunity to choose a way to return to that part of Creation that does not change, that is complete and eternal. The Creation that you must be concerned with is this temporary Creation-a place of time and space, a physical reality, a reality of constant change, of evolving systems, a reality of contrast and conflict, a reality of life and death. Separation created this reality, for God knew that the separated must have a foundation upon which to exist. This has set in train the physical universe that you are only beginning to comprehend and that you must learn to serve and to recognize if you are to outgrow its fascinations and to forgive its tragedies." _The New Message from God » The One God » Chapter 5: What is Creation?_
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Because there is no evidence it was . Complexity is an emergent property of reality as far as we can tell . Your position is that complexity existed at the beginning . You need need to demonstrate that .
Asking this question is nonsensical if you exist and able to think. Moreover, we don’t have an example of “nothing” that we can actually point to. Because even if cancel everything that exists, we still don’t know what that would be. Questions like that are like dividing 1 over zero, just because you can ask it doesn’t mean it must have an answer.
Because nothing never existed. There was always and always will be something. The cosmos is an endless transformation from one form or state into another.
You can’t ask the question if there is nothing, you can ask the question if there is something. If there is no apple, you can’t ask a question about a apple.
Nothing is at least self-consistent. Something either had to come from nothing, which makes no sense to me. Or something has to have existed forever, which ALSO makes no sense to me. Obviously something does exist, but I just can't see how that's possible. I have never been able to and no one has ever manged to explain it to me satisfyingly.
@@firstaidsack There's plenty of ways to make 2+3=5 not true, but it would necessitate changing the meaning of one or more of '2, 3, +, =, or 5'. In other words; work within an algorithmic system with different axioms than we're used to. But I don't think that's really what you're asking. You're asking if there are worlds where a proven statement within one of our accepted algorithmic systems are false. You're asking: "Is logic always sound?" And that's... a difficult question to answer. It's beneath the umbrella of philosophical thought considered metaphysics I think, though it's been a while since I took that class. Are there worlds that are not logically consistent? And, perhaps more imporantly for us, are we in one? I lean towards *no* on both fronts. I firmly belive existence is, and *must be*, logically sound, but as this is philosophical question we don't really have a way to confirm or deny it either way, so really my only basis for saying that is personal belief, the belief of my old professors and fellow students, and perhaps even my need to believe it - which is a terrible reason to believe in anything scientifically speaking. There is one little wrinkle in that belief of mine though. Which is where we come back to my original question. How can something exist at all? The guy in the video seems to think it strange that people have a bias towards thinking non-existence is more likely than existence, but all that tells me is that he hasn't fully grasped the problem. The core issue, I think, can be best described through causality. Every action has a cause, a reason that it happens. Yes, probablity exists, and no one can grasp the whole of causality, but that just makes causality complicated, it doesn't negate or deny it. Causality is needed because if it isn't true then anything can essentially happen at any time for no reason. There are more problems with it than that, but I don't care to go through the entire list. Both because it's been half a decade since I studied this stuff, I don't want to get my thoughts all tangled up, there are people better equipped to explain it than me, and this comment is getting really long as-is. Though the short version is that all of our science, the majority of our philosophy, and the continued survival of our universe kind of depends on causality being a thing. But existence itself just kind of... ignores this entirely. Either something has to have come from nothing, be it the singularity before the big bang, quantum fields that caused the big bang, or God himself. Either way *something* suddenly came into being with no reason for it to happen, probably even without any *time* for it to happen *in* depending on what you consider 'reality'. Also, if this has happened 'once' (whatever time means in this context) shouldn't it then also happen multiple times. So then why not... forever? Which brings us to the other possiblity that says that something has always existed. There was something before the Big Bang. There was something before that. And before that. And before that ad infinitum. There is always a cause to the effect, *forever.* This... also makes no sense. Because then existence is without an origin, it's an information paradox. This option *still* means the univsere is without a cause. My mind has no trouble conceptulizing a system without an end. That's fine. But something without a beginning!? That seems equally impossible to me as the first problem. And, as stated before, it's basically the same bloody problem. Both are a break in causality, which means it's also a break in logic. I believe logic is true. But at the same time there is this massive question staring me in the face, and it is far more menacing than any abyss has ever managed to be.
Be still for a long time and let the concept of Absolute Nothingness really sink in. Nothing (i.e. absolute absence of anything at all, including potentiality, etc) is impossible. Human language evolved to describe things, reifying everything it touches, fooling us into thinking Nothing is just another way that things could have been. But ... if anything at all exists, then "existence" had no beginning and will have no end, and Nothing is not possible.
Not necessarily. Because the nature of reality could simply be the mind of God. On the one hand, this could be described as 'nothing', in that it has no physical form or dimensions, and yet, on the other hand, it could also be described as being infinite potential. And the innate intelligence and awareness of this divine reality could presumably then wonder about itself?
Wrong. There is only evidence of something. It is nonsense to say "Nothing Is something." The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function. Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something. The Universe is a Natural System ... that was MADE & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL System, with unnatural laws and an unnatural intelligence ( ie God ).
Okay, let's take for granted that there are necessary truths like the ones in logic and mathematics and also the one you're talking about. Why is there anything else?
A Yid talking to a yid about another Yid. For those who understand the cadence of, " And if there was nothing 🎵🎶🎵......... you'd still complain ❕" It just made me chuckle. 😂
@@optionmaster221 There would always be something that we must accept as a brute fact anyway, like in this case. Our wish to ask such type of questions is understandable, however not all questions have any practical meaning at all. So, this question may as well be meaningless. Any cause of something must be something else, so there could not be a reason for anything to be. Even if we postulate God as an answer - it is just another step - why there is a God rather than nothing is the same question. P.S. Someone might say that God is neccessary, that is the answer. However it is another step as well: why is God necessary? Even if it is true it would be another unexplained brute fact. I just don't know how can we establish such a fact.
@@visancosmin8991 Darn, too bad there's no Google in your ideal world, Mr. Consciousness. But I'm kinda interested in the correct interpretation of that "in-between" state, original poster, please, as that's something new all right.
I would agree with this statement, except I would change it from the past tense to the present tense - i.e. "Before there is something there is nothing." Why? Because nothing clearly can't exist in time!
My thought is it may not be important to need to know why but merely that "it is as it is" (more at set laws of physics) and the need is the current moment that you are aware of now before death or perhaps a "still image". For to do otherwise is to spend moving time with the limit of comprehension to know what is beyond ours and the need of understanding for survival that will assist you while you you are aware of this moment within time accepting time only exist here within this universe....
I don't see how absolutely nothing could be a reality, because nothing can only stand in contrast to something. Mr. Albert commented that "nothing seems like just another way things could have been," but I wonder....maybe not.
What a fascinating speaker on this subject Thanks. He was logical, easy to follow, without raising all sorts of obfuscating red herrings and detail. I watched this looking for something to think about this afternoon, and have learnt some new ways of approaching this subject. Many thanks! I would like to have been at many of your lectures over the years!!!!!!!
Your multiple assumptions here are far too much to make. We have literally no information to decide the plausiblility of other realities including nothingness.
@@rickm5853 Because supernatural explanations aren't explanations. They're a cop out, and reflect a human distaste for the unknown, which is why we invent myths.
It is a fundamental fact of reality that there is something, there can not be reality without something. You can ponder upon there being nothing but it is purely imagination, reality consists of something.
@@thevulture5750 *"Can't come from nothing, needs God who can do anything."* ... Theism's God is ubiquitous and all-knowing. To argue God _must exist_ still begs the question "Why?" Logic states that if you can have God always existing, then you can also have a *minimalistic representation of "Existence" (data)* that has always existed - but is not all-knowing or ubiquitous from the get-go. Everything else that we observe today can evolve from that minimalistic representation of existence. If you have to choose whether it's God or a minimalistic representation of existence (data), then Ockham's razor says to go with the least complicated explanation.
@@thevulture5750 I never we said the universe came from nothing , and even if i did , how do you know it can’t come from nothing ? How many examples of nothing have we examined to justify your certainty?
@@thevulture5750 *"how would data exist by itself?"* ... If the juxtaposition of Existence and Nonexistence is as back far as one can regress while still adhering to logic, then we simply have to use that same logic to determine whatever that minimalistic sliver of data would have been. *Example:* A mathematical "point" is nondimensional and is only known by its coordinates. This is a "sliver of data" that has no size, shape, weight, or form. It cannot be measured, observed, or studied in a laboratory. Even so, I argue that you can have even less data than that while still representing some form of "Existence." An even smaller element of Existence would be "self-data." In other words, the smallest representation of Existence would be one bit of data that's higher than no data at all. *BTW:* I do not believe in God, and my intent is not to tear down your faith. Your faith in your God is not affected by anything I write in a comment thread. All I'm doing is sharing my perspective.
the notion of nothing is related to your consiousness your pespective, the answer is it could be, just it won't be any sensible being to experience, not in your realm. And as soon as you sensible all of a fucking sudden there is meaning this is everything!
@@ricomajestic These two have existence: 1) alive and 2) not alive. Before the conceived I have the existence 2) called potential existence, later on I have the existence 1) called realised existence.
One of the more satisfying answers to the question 'Why something as opposed to nothing?', not because he knew anything more than anyone else but because he was honest in his answer.
Because it is not logical or rational to say there was nothing. There is no evidence that there was nothing but only evidence that there was something. The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function. Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something. C'mon. Provide your evidence that there was nothing? You have ... nothing. lol.
@@visancosmin8991 one day a Jabiferous Toath pondered the universe while wallowing in the swamps of Ib. “I am” thought the Toath to himself, but then became dejected when he remembered that he wasn’t.
@@visancosmin8991 The fact that you exist simply proves that something exists, which was never in question. The question is why something exists. To which you cannot answer.
@@shaneacton1627 "why something exists. To which you cannot answer" ---- We have been given the answer: God is Love. A simple answer but of infinite complexity and significance.
Here's the thing- if we're going to go back and try to explain the origin of the universe then- we have to start somewhere, from some initial state or intelligence. Because otherwise you have an infinite regress- I can always just say "Well where did that come from?" Even if you do away with all spacetime and thus every single ting that exists within it- you would have to have an intelligence, some kind of agency, or some phenomenon that starts everything- so where did that come from. It or they- however you explain it- has to be by definition more complex and improbable than the universe it or they created so- surely it or they must be explained as well. See what I mean- so we have to pick some arbitrary starting point and it would seem to me a good place to start would be deriving everything from the laws of physics. I am quiet comfortable not asking where they came from- at least not until we can derive everything from those laws. We can't even do that yet- in other words we don't understand the universe we live in- so don't you think it's a bit cocky to start asking where it came from and demanding we regress all the way back to what you guys are calling "nothing".
“Why are you depressed, Alvy?” Dr. Flicker asks. “The universe is expanding,” Alvy says. “The universe is everything, and if it’s expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything.” “Why is that your business?” interrupts his mother. Turning to the psychiatrist, she announces, “He’s stopped doing his homework!” “What’s the point?” Alvy says. “What has the universe got to do with it!” his mother shouts. “You’re here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!” Dr. Flicker jumps in: “It won’t be expanding for billions of years, Alvy, and we’ve got to enjoy ourselves while we’re here, eh? Ha ha ha.”
The Universe is not expanding that is just mathematical nonsense. The redshift observed is caused by distance and the apparent surface area luminosity.
@@tinetannies4637 Astrophysicists have always known that the Universe was not expanding its just they get funding to lie. Research into the Big Bang Cosmology gets a lot of funding. If a cosmologist has research that demonstrates the Cosmos is not expanding and shows there was no Big Bang they would not get funded.
@@kos-mos1127 it's appropriate we use a Carl Sagan quote here: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And you're typical of today's "thinkers" who confidently make extraordinary claims.... presented as "fact".... with zero evidence. So....you say "astrophysicists have always known that the Universe was not expanding it's just they get funding to lie." Since you're making a sweeping statement across the entire field of astrophysicists you should have no problem pointing to a few specific examples. Please enlighten us with the names of a few astrophysicists who know the Universe is not expanding but lied to get funding. Who are they? And what was the funding that would have been withheld so we know they aren't just some quack flat Earthers but actually had been coerced? Give us names. Dates. Grants rescinded. Because I call BS. I say you invented all it and can't provide one shred of evidence. I predict that if you respond at all, you'll attack me, or throw out more general assertions, but what you won't do is actually defend your own assertions with any verifiable facts.
I currently think that nothing is impossible, or almost impossible. There is only one way there could have been nothing, but an endless number of ways there could be something. Also, since we have no evidence, that something can come from nothing, it seems that since there is obivously something, there was never nothing.
I agree. There BEING nothing is an impossible contradiction. If there would BE nothing, then nothing would have to be something. The only reason this is a problematic question, is because theists poison everything with their ridiculous fantastical nonsense, their fallacies, and their general sloppy thinking.
Very accurate finally someone who understands, there was never nothing. And, since ‘was’ and ‘never’ are time bound, something has to exist outside of time, or in other words, forever, constant, always.
@@ShyguyMM There are not many options left. Since an absolute nothing can not exist, there must always have been something. The problem may be in the definitions. Some people call “empty space” nothing. Scientists do not, neither do I. The complete absence of everything (including empty space) is an incomprehensible proposition.
@@ShyguyMM the room is fool or air, if you tried to pull a full vacuum on the room it would implode. So philosophically you can consider a room empty but you can never achieve a state of nothingness because it will try to destroy its self. Nature abhors a vacuum, in fact it’s nearly impossible to even achieve a full vacuum on earth.
It is impossible. The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function. Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something. These numbnuts have no evidence but only their beliefs in the unnatural. smh.
@@matswessling6600 In my view, Krauss is super arrogant and has almost zero understanding of philosophy, yet he keeps making bold philosophical claims.
@@matswessling6600 Such claims as that physics could explain why there is something rather than nothing. Read David Albert‘s review of Krauss‘s book in The NY Times. Krauss also often talks about other philosophical issues such as free will and consciousness, even though he has zero expertise in these topics and clearly lacks relevant understand and knowledge of the current state of the literature on these issues.
@@funckmasta that physics can explain why there is something rather nothing is not wrong. If you go into an enpty room then you say here is nothing even though there is floor, walls, ceiling, air etc. "nothing" is not an absolute concept, its always related to what you are interested in: the something. Krauss is clear on what calls something: space, time and matter. This isnt in any way unreasonable because that is what we usually mean when we talk about reality and the universe. I see Krauss view here much more reasonable that any philosophers misguided cry that "nothing" has to be understood as some "absolute nothing". A concept that obviously cannot have a reference in any context and thus is unreasonable. problem is thay philosophers are in metaphysics. Krauss is in physics. He makes no claim to know everything, to have a philosphical system that gives all answers. He is a thouroughly honest scientist that look on what we know.
@Closer To Truth, I have the correct answer: There exists only ONE object you can know. It exists because you can know it. You can know it because others exist. You know because you know nothing But everyone around you knows everything.
My best guess (which I believe is all it can ever be) is that existence is necessary, not contingent, and thus requires no further explanation. I'm yet to hear a good argument as to why it is unreasonable to assume that existence is necessary. Religious people have no trouble positing a necessary god - I have no trouble using Occam's Razor to cut the extra step and just assume existence (and all its contents) is necessary. It isn't obvious to me that things could have been any other way than they are.
I had the same experience when I was quite young, a moment of realisation of nothingness and it scared me to death. Still decades later I avoid to going near there. Loved the conversation...
This sounds more like an encounter that you may have had with 'sleep paralysis'. I'm 50 and have only ever had it occur the once - damn scariest thing I've ever known. Individual experiences vary, but some people do report an unbearably infinite, black void. Try reddit for individual accounts. Hope you stay well, best of luck!
@@simesaid I had these too, a few times. Indeed very scary the first two times, you are completely awake in your mind, but body will not respond to any commands.Later I tried to use the state to do something, like try to look around in the room, see if i can create a OOB experience or so, but always failed and just snapped out of it.
@@baodeus1 its the thought about it, not being there when i felt the fear. But the thought was intensely aware of what nothing means, actually just what if means when you are dead, then there is nothing, as if nothing ever existed.
"Why Is There Anything At All?" is purely a materialistic question, whereas, the questioner himself is non-materialistic in nature. Therefore, "sonething" and "nothing" go hand in hand.
Something and nothing are opposites conceptually (eg "I have nothing in the bag") but in reality nothing doesn't exist. I don't think we can know if there could be an absence of reality?
If the universe isn't infinite, what's at the edge where the universe ceases to be? When the universe expands, what is it expanding into? What is nothing? IF you adhere to a cyclic universe, are we just an accidental formation on this, the nth iteration of a trillion year cycle?
Life is very short and death is eternal. In my opinion there is no reason to waste you life wondering what happens when you die as we will all find out in time. By thinking or worrying about it you manifest anxiety by worrying about the future and just living in the present.
It's kind of like muilitplying by -1 twice. The problem is if their were nothing then the concept of nothingness would not exist. In order for the concept of nothing to exist there has to be someone to conceptualize it.
True nothing is an empty set. The empty set always exists as the set of everything that doesn’t exist. Just as the empty set is a subset of every set, “nothing” is a subset of every possible universe. So the question isn’t why isn’t there nothing. There is always nothing, because nothing is a subset of everything.
@C L "Could the past be infinite? Not necessarily our universe, but time in general" - Richard Carrier (Paragraph 2): "Second, all arguments against a past infinity of time commit the fallacy of circular reasoning, e.g. "if the timeline began infinitely long ago, we would have reached this point in time infinitely long ago" presumes that the timeline "began" which is exactly what isn't the case if time is past-infinite. If time is past-infinite, then all points in time exist, which means our point in time exists, too. So there is no difficulty in our being here. Just as there is no difficulty in seeing that the number "minus five" exists even when there are infinitely many numbers before it on the number line, so there is no difficulty in seeing that the time "now" exists even when there are infinitely many seconds before it on the timeline".
The "nothing" idea/ feeling is a terrifying feeling and I think that is why people fear death, they are afraid it will be nothing. It's impossible. Nothing can not exist (by definition of the terms). I do not think there was ever "nothing," there was always everything! The universe always existed, it just keeps changing. It is impossible for us to comprehend because the universe is always changing and it is basically the summation of trillions of things always constantly changing..... Our brain can not process that. If you do not believe me, then present some actual evidence that proves there was "nothing" at some point. (Ha, ha)
From CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) wiki: Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways: Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given. Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator. Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[32] The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33] Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL. The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[34] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.
How can "nothing" require as much explanation as "something"? From my perspective, "nothing" needs no explanation at all. It doesn't even make sense to have an explanation for nothing.
I think they are talking about the alternative to something as opposed to just the concept of nothing. It's difficult for people not to think our universe must be expanding into something. It always seems like an endless void because the universe is expanding but not into anything.
@@lrvogt1257 I'm talking about the alternative to something as well. Imagine a universe (well, actually not a universe, because it's nothing) that is not only devoid of matter and energy but also spacetime itself. There would simply be nothing, and nothing to explain. To me this seems like the most logical default state. For there to be anything else, there must be some explanation.
My nde was a fantastic experience that as a naive 17 year old was inconceivable. Since investigating for the last 53 years I believe my consciousness journeyed through my life and witnessed parts of my future, picking up the laws from the kybalion, having the life review and accounting for my deeds thereof. The blackness witnessed at another time was scary, intense dark, empty void but seemed to be born from the utter loneliness of the cosmic consciousness before breaking out into what could have indeed been as an explosion of mass intelligence. Imagination or cosmic conscious memory?
We only know a tiny fraction of an infinate multi dimensional reality. Its a shame civilisations get restricted to codes of behavoir that limit our awareness. The future is growth if materialism does not limit us.....thats the problem.
Law noun a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
An a cow has an antecedent and so does an apple and the universe. What is the antecedent for nothing? I am going with to side with Robert on this one at 4:32.
In the infinite number of universes that existed in the past, that exist now and will exist in the future, no sentient entity will be able to answer that question!
Consciousness is exploring itself and forgot who it is. Who it is is the one mind that Kastrup calls Mind at Large. Regarding Nothing that takes us into a philosophical black hole because we can not conceptualize nothing, nothing is invariably something it is an unresolvable paradox.
@@kos-mos1127 Well, from the distant memory when I read something on the subject, if matter and antimatter perfectly balanced each other, what would become of the Big Bang?
David has shifted much in his philosophical stance on these issues since I last heard him which was maybe 15 years. Sounds more reasonable in what science can or can’t tell us or even inform us.
In order for nothing to exist, something must exist. There has never been a moment where there was "nothing".
u dont kno that bud
@@supermushroom3175 "Something" is only possible because of nested frameworks with properties that are only revealed (in stages) that contribute to existence. Without the hidden properties of the environment, there would be nothing, not even the motion that eventually creates gravity. The framework is the something before nothing that has always existed.
"Nothing" is also something, but its definition as we see it as human beings. So why there is nothing is like asking what there is that something "nothing", so basically, no matter how you look at it, there is always something.
If there was nothing, there wouldn't be anybody to wonder why is there anything at all.
That was good, I like how Albert always presents the different views.
Because if there weren't anything we wouldn't be able to talk about it.
Great wisdom in the first 3 minutes. He is totally honest to say that the question is beyond physics. Not that physicists should not consider it, and continue to delve into the big bang and the beginning of spacetime, but the essential question of why'' cannot be resolved by describing 'nothing' as actually containing other things... laws, quantum foam, fluctuations etc., which already existed. The 'why' is then simply kicked down the road.
David Z Albert is cool.
Thanks David for sharingyour perspective on this open questions.thank you
Anything is Self.
Einstein seems to have said, "If we take all matters from universe, time and space disappears." Actually, each matter has own world line with its coodinate (time and space), and if we take all the matters, then, we cannot deliniate any time-and-space dyagram at all. No distance, no proper time....nothing.
When we can't explain Nothingness , we can't explain why there should be something at all. It is the place where the Supernaturalists and Naturalist stand together in awe and wonder still projecting their ignorance .
"Creation is all that God has created within time and beyond time. You live within time, so you live in a part of Creation that is in motion, that is in flux, that is unstable and that is evolving and expanding. This part of Creation was established to provide a home for the separated, where they could experience Separation and have the opportunity to choose a way to return to that part of Creation that does not change, that is complete and eternal.
The Creation that you must be concerned with is this temporary Creation-a place of time and space, a physical reality, a reality of constant change, of evolving systems, a reality of contrast and conflict, a reality of life and death.
Separation created this reality, for God knew that the separated must have a foundation upon which to exist. This has set in train the physical universe that you are only beginning to comprehend and that you must learn to serve and to recognize if you are to outgrow its fascinations and to forgive its tragedies."
_The New Message from God » The One God » Chapter 5: What is Creation?_
You’ve missed out the important bit : demonstrating that the universe is indeed created
@@tonyatkinson2210 How is it not?
@@ronaldmorgan7632
Because there is no evidence it was . Complexity is an emergent property of reality as far as we can tell .
Your position is that complexity existed at the beginning . You need need to demonstrate that .
@@tonyatkinson2210 I am not arguing that. The universe was created, and eventually galaxies, then stars, then planets.
Thanks for sharing.
Love it . I never thought of that 👍
Asking this question is nonsensical if you exist and able to think. Moreover, we don’t have an example of “nothing” that we can actually point to. Because even if cancel everything that exists, we still don’t know what that would be. Questions like that are like dividing 1 over zero, just because you can ask it doesn’t mean it must have an answer.
Necessity.
Like the hollowness of a bowl.
Quantum mechanics at its root must give rise to something.
A singularity.
It seems to me that true nothingness has only one way to be. Whereas something has an infinite ways to be.
Because nothing never existed. There was always and always will be something. The cosmos is an endless transformation from one form or state into another.
You can’t ask the question if there is nothing, you can ask the question if there is something.
If there is no apple, you can’t ask a question about a apple.
If you don't have the apples I need for the pie you have nothing I need.
Nothing is at least self-consistent. Something either had to come from nothing, which makes no sense to me. Or something has to have existed forever, which ALSO makes no sense to me. Obviously something does exist, but I just can't see how that's possible. I have never been able to and no one has ever manged to explain it to me satisfyingly.
Is there any way that the truth 2+3=5 could not exist?
@@visancosmin8991
Is it true in any possible world though?
@@firstaidsack yes. If we counted 1 2 3 4 6 :)
@@mitch5222
Then what we call 5 would be called 6, but the fact would remain the same.
@@firstaidsack There's plenty of ways to make 2+3=5 not true, but it would necessitate changing the meaning of one or more of '2, 3, +, =, or 5'. In other words; work within an algorithmic system with different axioms than we're used to. But I don't think that's really what you're asking. You're asking if there are worlds where a proven statement within one of our accepted algorithmic systems are false.
You're asking: "Is logic always sound?"
And that's... a difficult question to answer. It's beneath the umbrella of philosophical thought considered metaphysics I think, though it's been a while since I took that class.
Are there worlds that are not logically consistent? And, perhaps more imporantly for us, are we in one? I lean towards *no* on both fronts. I firmly belive existence is, and *must be*, logically sound, but as this is philosophical question we don't really have a way to confirm or deny it either way, so really my only basis for saying that is personal belief, the belief of my old professors and fellow students, and perhaps even my need to believe it - which is a terrible reason to believe in anything scientifically speaking.
There is one little wrinkle in that belief of mine though. Which is where we come back to my original question.
How can something exist at all? The guy in the video seems to think it strange that people have a bias towards thinking non-existence is more likely than existence, but all that tells me is that he hasn't fully grasped the problem. The core issue, I think, can be best described through causality. Every action has a cause, a reason that it happens. Yes, probablity exists, and no one can grasp the whole of causality, but that just makes causality complicated, it doesn't negate or deny it.
Causality is needed because if it isn't true then anything can essentially happen at any time for no reason. There are more problems with it than that, but I don't care to go through the entire list. Both because it's been half a decade since I studied this stuff, I don't want to get my thoughts all tangled up, there are people better equipped to explain it than me, and this comment is getting really long as-is. Though the short version is that all of our science, the majority of our philosophy, and the continued survival of our universe kind of depends on causality being a thing.
But existence itself just kind of... ignores this entirely.
Either something has to have come from nothing, be it the singularity before the big bang, quantum fields that caused the big bang, or God himself. Either way *something* suddenly came into being with no reason for it to happen, probably even without any *time* for it to happen *in* depending on what you consider 'reality'. Also, if this has happened 'once' (whatever time means in this context) shouldn't it then also happen multiple times. So then why not... forever?
Which brings us to the other possiblity that says that something has always existed. There was something before the Big Bang. There was something before that. And before that. And before that ad infinitum. There is always a cause to the effect, *forever.*
This... also makes no sense. Because then existence is without an origin, it's an information paradox. This option *still* means the univsere is without a cause. My mind has no trouble conceptulizing a system without an end. That's fine. But something without a beginning!? That seems equally impossible to me as the first problem. And, as stated before, it's basically the same bloody problem. Both are a break in causality, which means it's also a break in logic.
I believe logic is true. But at the same time there is this massive question staring me in the face, and it is far more menacing than any abyss has ever managed to be.
Be still for a long time and let the concept of Absolute Nothingness really sink in. Nothing (i.e. absolute absence of anything at all, including potentiality, etc) is impossible. Human language evolved to describe things, reifying everything it touches, fooling us into thinking Nothing is just another way that things could have been. But ... if anything at all exists, then "existence" had no beginning and will have no end, and Nothing is not possible.
Nothing doesn't exist.
Nothing would not need an explanation, no one there to wonder about it.
Not necessarily. Because the nature of reality could simply be the mind of God. On the one hand, this could be described as 'nothing', in that it has no physical form or dimensions, and yet, on the other hand, it could also be described as being infinite potential. And the innate intelligence and awareness of this divine reality could presumably then wonder about itself?
@@mikefoster5277 that WOULD be something to wonder about!
Wrong.
There is only evidence of something. It is nonsense to say "Nothing Is something."
The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function.
Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something.
The Universe is a Natural System ... that was MADE & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL System, with unnatural laws and an unnatural intelligence ( ie God ).
@@abelincoln8885 wtf….
Nothing is always something. If we can think of something we call 'nothing' it means we know what nothing can be, so it is something.
Okay, let's take for granted that there are necessary truths like the ones in logic and mathematics and also the one you're talking about.
Why is there anything else?
@@mazolab If you know what 'nothing' is, It means It is something you can define.
@@firstaidsack' nothing' is a physical and logical impossibilit. It doesnt exist. There always was and always Will be something. Never a nothing.
@@Alwaysdoubt100
Why is physical nothing impossible?
@@firstaidsack do you have any example of something as "nothing" that we can examine? Apart from something imagined?
Is nothing only nothing when compared to something?
A Yid talking to a yid about another Yid.
For those who understand the cadence of, " And if there was nothing 🎵🎶🎵......... you'd still complain ❕"
It just made me chuckle. 😂
Who is the entity that distinguishes something from nothing?That has to be settled first.
Amazing ability to talk in circles
If there's nothing, we would not exist to ask that question. It's precisely because there's something that allows us to ask why this or that.
Yea Einstein, we all know that but WHY there's something rather than nothing.. your's not the answer just a lucky coincidence
@@optionmaster221 There would always be something that we must accept as a brute fact anyway, like in this case. Our wish to ask such type of questions is understandable, however not all questions have any practical meaning at all. So, this question may as well be meaningless. Any cause of something must be something else, so there could not be a reason for anything to be. Even if we postulate God as an answer - it is just another step - why there is a God rather than nothing is the same question.
P.S. Someone might say that God is neccessary, that is the answer. However it is another step as well: why is God necessary? Even if it is true it would be another unexplained brute fact. I just don't know how can we establish such a fact.
@@dmitriy4708 Excellently put. 👏🏻
@@visancosmin8991 Incoherent statement. What laws of logic did you use? "I am" does not mean anything.
@@visancosmin8991 If you say so, then your existence in itself is the brute fact in such context.
The first line of the Nasadiya Sukta answers this question. If you know how to interpret it.
@@visancosmin8991 Darn, too bad there's no Google in your ideal world, Mr. Consciousness.
But I'm kinda interested in the correct interpretation of that "in-between" state, original poster, please, as that's something new all right.
Is it possible "nothing" doesn't exist?
@Artem Down I agree .
Before there was something there was nothing
I would agree with this statement, except I would change it from the past tense to the present tense - i.e. "Before there is something there is nothing." Why? Because nothing clearly can't exist in time!
@@mikefoster5277 well said!
And the answer is let's talk and speculate.
My thought is it may not be important to need to know why but merely that "it is as it is" (more at set laws of physics) and the need is the current moment that you are aware of now before death or perhaps a "still image". For to do otherwise is to spend moving time with the limit of comprehension to know what is beyond ours and the need of understanding for survival that will assist you while you you are aware of this moment within time accepting time only exist here within this universe....
I don't see how absolutely nothing could be a reality, because nothing can only stand in contrast to something. Mr. Albert commented that "nothing seems like just another way things could have been," but I wonder....maybe not.
"nothing" is physically impossible.
Several discussions about Nothing on CtT. This was the best one. By far the best one.
What a fascinating speaker on this subject Thanks. He was logical, easy to follow, without raising all sorts of obfuscating red herrings and detail. I watched this looking for something to think about this afternoon, and have learnt some new ways of approaching this subject. Many thanks! I would like to have been at many of your lectures over the years!!!!!!!
This was a good one.
Heidegger, Parfit, Wittgenstein, then bringing it back to Hume to finish. Dr. Albert knows his stuff.
Existence is just so weird.
@@nsbd90now non-existence too
Why are there beings at all instead of nothing-Heidegger
Simply because something is more interesting than nothing.
Because of the power of powers.
Rambling gibberish
@@maxwellsimoes238 Energy utilized is gibberish to you.
Incredible question.
If nothing is just one of an infinity of other possibilities, one should not be surprised that there is something.
This!
Your multiple assumptions here are far too much to make. We have literally no information to decide the plausiblility of other realities including nothingness.
Just 4 shots and giggles 😃 What if ALL the NO THING is conscious of Itself?
If there were no sentient beings to be aware of it, cosmos or no cosmos is irrelevant.
He question his own question
This is a thought that I ponder alot.... not the meaning of life but why life at all.
same here, my heads would just go on spirals thinking about it. what is life? how is life? so many questions
@@ivymarryl3827 At the end of the day; all we have is life and those we love. That in itself is a blessing....😁
@@reaganmcguire3463 agree
At one point I thought maybe the human mind is a way of life observing itself; but now I am not so sure....
I'm glad they are people trying to explain this without making up supernatural causes.
Why are you glad?
@@rickm5853 Because supernatural explanations aren't explanations. They're a cop out, and reflect a human distaste for the unknown, which is why we invent myths.
Because there can't be "nothing" even "nothing" is "something" otherwise it would just be...
It is a fundamental fact of reality that there is something, there can not be reality without something. You can ponder upon there being nothing but it is purely imagination, reality consists of something.
@@thevulture5750 why ?
@@thevulture5750 This is a regressive argument. Then where does God come from?
@@thevulture5750 *"Can't come from nothing, needs God who can do anything."*
... Theism's God is ubiquitous and all-knowing. To argue God _must exist_ still begs the question "Why?" Logic states that if you can have God always existing, then you can also have a *minimalistic representation of "Existence" (data)* that has always existed - but is not all-knowing or ubiquitous from the get-go. Everything else that we observe today can evolve from that minimalistic representation of existence.
If you have to choose whether it's God or a minimalistic representation of existence (data), then Ockham's razor says to go with the least complicated explanation.
@@thevulture5750
I never we said the universe came from nothing , and even if i did , how do you know it can’t come from nothing ?
How many examples of nothing have we examined to justify your certainty?
@@thevulture5750 *"how would data exist by itself?"*
... If the juxtaposition of Existence and Nonexistence is as back far as one can regress while still adhering to logic, then we simply have to use that same logic to determine whatever that minimalistic sliver of data would have been.
*Example:* A mathematical "point" is nondimensional and is only known by its coordinates. This is a "sliver of data" that has no size, shape, weight, or form. It cannot be measured, observed, or studied in a laboratory. Even so, I argue that you can have even less data than that while still representing some form of "Existence."
An even smaller element of Existence would be "self-data." In other words, the smallest representation of Existence would be one bit of data that's higher than no data at all.
*BTW:* I do not believe in God, and my intent is not to tear down your faith. Your faith in your God is not affected by anything I write in a comment thread. All I'm doing is sharing my perspective.
the notion of nothing is related to your consiousness your pespective, the answer is it could be, just it won't be any sensible being to experience, not in your realm. And as soon as you sensible all of a fucking sudden there is meaning this is everything!
Nothing can't "be." To be is to exist.
@@lrvogt1257 i'm just using the langurage system of this realm, I can't simply remain silent to describe "nothing"..
@@dayone1992 Indeed. It's just part of the problem of conceptualizing "nothing"
Anything + nothing = everything. Everything exist - show me something that have no existing - you can't.
You did not exist before you were conceived.
@@ricomajestic
These two have existence: 1) alive and 2) not alive.
Before the conceived I have the existence 2) called potential existence, later on I have the existence 1) called realised existence.
This guy was great. I think the philosophers are closer to truth than the scientific method guys.
Cos science is becoming more like sci fi. Rushing to find sth without evidence and get money for projects.
@@mitch5222 That's kinda jaded Einstein, Newton and Maxwell, just to name a few, came to their great discoveries through simple thought experiments.
One of the more satisfying answers to the question 'Why something as opposed to nothing?', not because he knew anything more than anyone else but because he was honest in his answer.
Because it is not logical or rational to say there was nothing. There is no evidence that there was nothing but only evidence that there was something.
The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function.
Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something.
C'mon. Provide your evidence that there was nothing? You have ... nothing. lol.
Which was " why nothing instead of something."
@@visancosmin8991 one day a Jabiferous Toath pondered the universe while wallowing in the swamps of Ib. “I am” thought the Toath to himself, but then became dejected when he remembered that he wasn’t.
@@visancosmin8991 The fact that you exist simply proves that something exists, which was never in question. The question is why something exists. To which you cannot answer.
@@shaneacton1627 "why something exists. To which you cannot answer" ----
We have been given the answer: God is Love. A simple answer but of infinite complexity and significance.
Is there a language necessity?
Excellent
Here's the thing- if we're going to go back and try to explain the origin of the universe then- we have to start somewhere, from some initial state or intelligence. Because otherwise you have an infinite regress- I can always just say "Well where did that come from?" Even if you do away with all spacetime and thus every single ting that exists within it- you would have to have an intelligence, some kind of agency, or some phenomenon that starts everything- so where did that come from. It or they- however you explain it- has to be by definition more complex and improbable than the universe it or they created so- surely it or they must be explained as well. See what I mean- so we have to pick some arbitrary starting point and it would seem to me a good place to start would be deriving everything from the laws of physics. I am quiet comfortable not asking where they came from- at least not until we can derive everything from those laws. We can't even do that yet- in other words we don't understand the universe we live in- so don't you think it's a bit cocky to start asking where it came from and demanding we regress all the way back to what you guys are calling "nothing".
“Why are you depressed, Alvy?” Dr. Flicker asks.
“The universe is expanding,” Alvy says. “The universe is everything, and if it’s expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything.”
“Why is that your business?” interrupts his mother. Turning to the psychiatrist, she announces, “He’s stopped doing his homework!”
“What’s the point?” Alvy says.
“What has the universe got to do with it!” his mother shouts. “You’re here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!”
Dr. Flicker jumps in: “It won’t be expanding for billions of years, Alvy, and we’ve got to enjoy ourselves while we’re here, eh? Ha ha ha.”
The Universe is not expanding that is just mathematical nonsense. The redshift observed is caused by distance and the apparent surface area luminosity.
@@kos-mos1127 good thing I can find experts on social media comment threads who are smarter than all those annoying egghead astrophysicists out there
@@tinetannies4637 Astrophysicists have always known that the Universe was not expanding its just they get funding to lie. Research into the Big Bang Cosmology gets a lot of funding. If a cosmologist has research that demonstrates the Cosmos is not expanding and shows there was no Big Bang they would not get funded.
@@kos-mos1127 it's appropriate we use a Carl Sagan quote here: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And you're typical of today's "thinkers" who confidently make extraordinary claims.... presented as "fact".... with zero evidence. So....you say "astrophysicists have always known that the Universe was not expanding it's just they get funding to lie." Since you're making a sweeping statement across the entire field of astrophysicists you should have no problem pointing to a few specific examples. Please enlighten us with the names of a few astrophysicists who know the Universe is not expanding but lied to get funding. Who are they? And what was the funding that would have been withheld so we know they aren't just some quack flat Earthers but actually had been coerced? Give us names. Dates. Grants rescinded. Because I call BS. I say you invented all it and can't provide one shred of evidence. I predict that if you respond at all, you'll attack me, or throw out more general assertions, but what you won't do is actually defend your own assertions with any verifiable facts.
exactly!
The zooming effects are disturbing.
I currently think that nothing is impossible, or almost impossible.
There is only one way there could have been nothing, but an endless number of ways there could be something.
Also, since we have no evidence, that something can come from nothing, it seems that since there is obivously something, there was never nothing.
I agree. There BEING nothing is an impossible contradiction. If there would BE nothing, then nothing would have to be something.
The only reason this is a problematic question, is because theists poison everything with their ridiculous fantastical nonsense, their fallacies, and their general sloppy thinking.
Very accurate finally someone who understands, there was never nothing.
And, since ‘was’ and ‘never’ are time bound, something has to exist outside of time, or in other words, forever, constant, always.
@@ShyguyMM There are not many options left. Since an absolute nothing can not exist, there must always have been something.
The problem may be in the definitions.
Some people call “empty space” nothing. Scientists do not, neither do I.
The complete absence of everything (including empty space) is an incomprehensible proposition.
@@ShyguyMM the room is fool or air, if you tried to pull a full vacuum on the room it would implode. So philosophically you can consider a room empty but you can never achieve a state of nothingness because it will try to destroy its self. Nature abhors a vacuum, in fact it’s nearly impossible to even achieve a full vacuum on earth.
It is impossible.
The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function.
Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something.
These numbnuts have no evidence but only their beliefs in the unnatural. smh.
infinite time infinite possibilities...so why not
David Albert wrote a crushing review in The NY Times of Lawrence Krauss‘s book about why there is something rather than nothing. You should read it!
which shows how wrong he can be. Krauss is the one bringing real understanding, not Albert.
@@matswessling6600 In my view, Krauss is super arrogant and has almost zero understanding of philosophy, yet he keeps making bold philosophical claims.
@@funckmasta such as ?
@@matswessling6600 Such claims as that physics could explain why there is something rather than nothing. Read David Albert‘s review of Krauss‘s book in The NY Times.
Krauss also often talks about other philosophical issues such as free will and consciousness, even though he has zero expertise in these topics and clearly lacks relevant understand and knowledge of the current state of the literature on these issues.
@@funckmasta that physics can explain why there is something rather nothing is not wrong. If you go into an enpty room then you say here is nothing even though there is floor, walls, ceiling, air etc. "nothing" is not an absolute concept, its always related to what you are interested in: the something. Krauss is clear on what calls something: space, time and matter. This isnt in any way unreasonable because that is what we usually mean when we talk about reality and the universe.
I see Krauss view here much more reasonable that any philosophers misguided cry that "nothing" has to be understood as some "absolute nothing". A concept that obviously cannot have a reference in any context and thus is unreasonable.
problem is thay philosophers are in metaphysics. Krauss is in physics. He makes no claim to know everything, to have a philosphical system that gives all answers. He is a thouroughly honest scientist that look on what we know.
@Closer To Truth, I have the correct answer:
There exists only ONE object you can know.
It exists because you can know it.
You can know it because others exist.
You know because you know nothing
But everyone around you knows everything.
My best guess (which I believe is all it can ever be) is that existence is necessary, not contingent, and thus requires no further explanation. I'm yet to hear a good argument as to why it is unreasonable to assume that existence is necessary. Religious people have no trouble positing a necessary god - I have no trouble using Occam's Razor to cut the extra step and just assume existence (and all its contents) is necessary. It isn't obvious to me that things could have been any other way than they are.
Nothingness is a bliss. No problems to deal no pain, etc ...
Bliss "perfect happiness; great joy." Not sure I see how nothingness could be that.
@@lrvogt1257 i am just saying its just better than existence. No drama, no pain , no dumb questions, no wars, no depression , no anxiety....
If you dont exist there is nothing.
I had the same experience when I was quite young, a moment of realisation of nothingness and it scared me to death. Still decades later I avoid to going near there. Loved the conversation...
This sounds more like an encounter that you may have had with 'sleep paralysis'. I'm 50 and have only ever had it occur the once - damn scariest thing I've ever known. Individual experiences vary, but some people do report an unbearably infinite, black void. Try reddit for individual accounts. Hope you stay well, best of luck!
I have a question regarding that though. If there is nothing, then there wouldn't be fear either right?
@@simesaid I had these too, a few times. Indeed very scary the first two times, you are completely awake in your mind, but body will not respond to any commands.Later I tried to use the state to do something, like try to look around in the room, see if i can create a OOB experience or so, but always failed and just snapped out of it.
@@baodeus1 its the thought about it, not being there when i felt the fear. But the thought was intensely aware of what nothing means, actually just what if means when you are dead, then there is nothing, as if nothing ever existed.
When I was very young, I used to enjoy trying to submerge myself in the infinite nothingness that I thought lay beyond the boundary of the Universe.
"Why Is There Anything At All?" is purely a materialistic question, whereas, the questioner himself is non-materialistic in nature. Therefore, "sonething" and "nothing" go hand in hand.
This is based on an assumption. Even when I generously accept your assumption, this statement still seems meaningless.
Something and nothing are opposites conceptually (eg "I have nothing in the bag") but in reality nothing doesn't exist. I don't think we can know if there could be an absence of reality?
"the questioner himself is non-materialistic in nature"
How can one who asks questions be non-material?
If the universe isn't infinite, what's at the edge where the universe ceases to be? When the universe expands, what is it expanding into? What is nothing? IF you adhere to a cyclic universe, are we just an accidental formation on this, the nth iteration of a trillion year cycle?
How do you know there is something?
Because to deny that there’s something is to deny that anything exists which is absurd. “I think therefore I am” proves you exist. You are something…
I guess something is better than nothing
Nothing doesn't exist.
it's nice, asking questions, and talking about them.
"Because if there was nothing.... You'd still complain."
Life is very short and death is eternal. In my opinion there is no reason to waste you life wondering what happens when you die as we will all find out in time. By thinking or worrying about it you manifest anxiety by worrying about the future and just living in the present.
My intuition is that something is easier to explain than nothing.
It's kind of like muilitplying by -1 twice. The problem is if their were nothing then the concept of nothingness would not exist. In order for the concept of nothing to exist there has to be someone to conceptualize it.
True nothing is an empty set. The empty set always exists as the set of everything that doesn’t exist. Just as the empty set is a subset of every set, “nothing” is a subset of every possible universe. So the question isn’t why isn’t there nothing. There is always nothing, because nothing is a subset of everything.
Maybe there is nothing and this just nothing's dream.
From a statistical perspective the “chance” of there being nothing is 0% because if there were indeed nothing the question itself wouldn’t exist.
Nope. That is tautological. There is no necessity for existence
And probability of having something the way it is is also 0% 🤷
Apples and oranges in my opinion. We can imagine just about anything, even if it doesn't exist. Science fiction and fantasy does it all the time.
Beautiful explanation of the Limits of the Scientific method in ex-nihilo and infinity
Something rather than nothing, for me, is a pretty good argument for a past-eternal universe.
Could be... on the other hand there is nothing like a universe to reference. We don't know enough yet to do more than speculate.
@C L "Could the past be infinite? Not necessarily our universe, but time in general" - Richard Carrier (Paragraph 2):
"Second, all arguments against a past infinity of time commit the fallacy of circular reasoning, e.g. "if the timeline began infinitely long ago, we would have reached this point in time infinitely long ago" presumes that the timeline "began" which is exactly what isn't the case if time is past-infinite. If time is past-infinite, then all points in time exist, which means our point in time exists, too. So there is no difficulty in our being here. Just as there is no difficulty in seeing that the number "minus five" exists even when there are infinitely many numbers before it on the number line, so there is no difficulty in seeing that the time "now" exists even when there are infinitely many seconds before it on the timeline".
Wish I could have heard more of what Albert had to say and less of what the interviewer had to say.
The "nothing" idea/ feeling is a terrifying feeling and I think that is why people fear death, they are afraid it will be nothing. It's impossible. Nothing can not exist (by definition of the terms). I do not think there was ever "nothing," there was always everything!
The universe always existed, it just keeps changing. It is impossible for us to comprehend because the universe is always changing and it is basically the summation of trillions of things always constantly changing..... Our brain can not process that.
If you do not believe me, then present some actual evidence that proves there was "nothing" at some point. (Ha, ha)
From CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) wiki:
Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways:
Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator.
Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[32]
The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33]
Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.
The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[34] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.
If nothing exists you would have no knowledge of it
The distance between e and zero is greater than that between e and pi.
How can "nothing" require as much explanation as "something"? From my perspective, "nothing" needs no explanation at all. It doesn't even make sense to have an explanation for nothing.
I think they are talking about the alternative to something as opposed to just the concept of nothing. It's difficult for people not to think our universe must be expanding into something. It always seems like an endless void because the universe is expanding but not into anything.
@@lrvogt1257 I'm talking about the alternative to something as well. Imagine a universe (well, actually not a universe, because it's nothing) that is not only devoid of matter and energy but also spacetime itself. There would simply be nothing, and nothing to explain. To me this seems like the most logical default state. For there to be anything else, there must be some explanation.
@@montagdp You may be right or reality may be just a brute fact. We don't know enough yet.
Why was there imbalance between matter and antimatter study big Bang
Nothing cannot exist. Therefore all that is left is everything. It's the opposite way around from how we think. Buddhism teaches us this
Why does "nothing" have such a nature?
What ur saying is complete hogwash
But still it would be much better to not exist.
My nde was a fantastic experience that as a naive 17 year old was inconceivable. Since investigating for the last 53 years I believe my consciousness journeyed through my life and witnessed parts of my future, picking up the laws from the kybalion, having the life review and accounting for my deeds thereof. The blackness witnessed at another time was scary, intense dark, empty void but seemed to be born from the utter loneliness of the cosmic consciousness before breaking out into what could have indeed been as an explosion of mass intelligence. Imagination or cosmic conscious memory?
If nothing exists, it would have to be existence itself.
We only know a tiny fraction of an infinate multi dimensional reality. Its a shame civilisations get restricted to codes of behavoir that limit our awareness. The future is growth if materialism does not limit us.....thats the problem.
nobody knows
I think that is the most honest answer!
"Laws" are a misnomer - they are an expected geometric consequence. We just don't understand it well enough.
Law noun a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions
b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
An a cow has an antecedent and so does an apple and the universe. What is the antecedent for nothing? I am going with to side with Robert on this one at 4:32.
In the infinite number of universes that existed in the past, that exist now and will exist in the future, no sentient entity will be able to answer that question!
Not nothing; its, how much of something.
Consciousness is exploring itself and forgot who it is. Who it is is the one mind that Kastrup calls Mind at Large.
Regarding Nothing that takes us into a philosophical black hole because we can not conceptualize nothing, nothing is invariably something it is an unresolvable paradox.
As far as I can tell, this question is about imbalance. Perfect balance would be actual nothingness, but there's always some imperfections in nature.
Perfect balance is not nothing. Balance means everything is homogenous and uniform.
@@kos-mos1127 Well, from the distant memory when I read something on the subject, if matter and antimatter perfectly balanced each other, what would become of the Big Bang?
Can you think of an example of perfect balance in nature? Not near-perfect balance, but absolute, total perfection?
Even the term 'nature' assumes a something to begin with. True nothingness has no nature. This line of thought is irrelevant to the title question
@@AlmostEthical A state of total perfection would look blank.
David has shifted much in his philosophical stance on these issues since I last heard him which was maybe 15 years. Sounds more reasonable in what science can or can’t tell us or even inform us.