John Leslie - Why is There "Something" Rather than "Nothing"?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Support the show with a tax-deductible donation of any amount: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Here’s the ultimate question: what if it were true that everything always and forever had been ‘nothing’? Imagine that not a single thing ever existed-not emptiness, not blankness, not even the existence of emptiness, or the meaning of blankness. If you can image that, now ask yourself: why is there anything at all?
Watch more videos on the mystery of existence: shorturl.at/62rkK
John Andrew Leslie is a Canadian philosopher who focuses on explaining the world’s existence. Educated at Wadham College, Oxford, he earned a BA in Psychology and Philosophy, then an MLitt in Philosophy. He is University Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast to hear audio versions of your favorite interviews: shorturl.at/mtJP4
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I feel like people never take the idea of absolute nothing seriously enough.
This guy talks about possibilities still existing in nothing but to me there would be no possibility of anything.
Trying to wrap your head around the idea of absolute nothing is far more challenging than thinking about infinity or eternity imo.
I understand your point, we can consider nothingness as an absence of any state of affairs, or facts, or possibilities. However I think we can say that such a nothingness is impossible. We know that our universe is, and always must have been possible. So a state of affairs in which this is not so cannot pertain.
@@simonhibbs887 yes I agree, there could never have been absolute nothing given that there is now something, which means there always was and always will be something, it’s mind blowing really.
@@gallinho7268I have a lot of sympathy for the view that all that exists are possibilities. We know that our universe must be possible. In order to be possible it seems that it must be consistent. So the question then is, of all the consistent possible states of affairs, why does this one exist and not others?
Either there must be a specific reason why this possible universe exists and not others, or all possible worlds must exist. So to deny the latter conclusion we must believe there is such a brute fact. Occam’s razor advises us that we should prefer the simpler theory, that requires the fewest assumptions, and that brute fact is an assumption.
I’m going to post that at top level, hope you don’t mind.
What is nothing that is a problem I can’t understand. Empty space is something, black space and emptiness is something. There can never be nothing at least that is my feelings towards it. There has always been something I think.
Absolute nothing doesn’t exist, if it did it would be a something, you’re trying to make it into a something, that’s why you’re struggling with the concept.
I can demonstrate nothingness exists. Just look at my bank account.
Money is trust so it really not exist😂.
Comment of the day!!😊
Like many of you, I've watched Robert visit and revisit this question over the years. It may be that this question functions for him as the ultimate question...he says as much in this video. It was also one of my existential questions as a teen. Other questions like this are, 'What is Reality? Who am I? Where will I go after I die? Where was I before I was born?' If this is true, Robert will never find any satisfying answer from outside himself. He can ask all the great scientists, gurus, theologians, or philosophers, yet none of their answers will satisfy him. He will need to find it for himself. Just my 2 cents.
Yes, you make a good point. But then, and to be fair to Robert, _any_ question that we may pose, no matter how seemingly objective, can only be satisfactorily answered from _within_ ourselves.
You're right though, it's been a loooong journey, eh!
The universe periodically blinks into existence for a short while, then goes back to non existence…..
Our current universe is just one of these brief blinks..
Overall, the vast, vast majority of the time….there is Nothing….
Well there used to be nothing. Unfortunately it's a finite resource that was over-exploited to satisfy the demand for nothing burgers which are considered a delicacy in some cultures.
Heidegger saw this as the leading / fundamental question of metaphysics / philosophy, not because he thought on objective answer or purpose existed, which he saw as a misunderstanding of human being. But Carnap et al mocked him for seeing significance in 'the Nothing', despite how it has a role in how we understand 'being'.
“Why” questions are with “because” answers. If your because refers to yet another something, you’re back where you started.
In other words, the only thing that can be a solution to why are there things will also be a thing.
You seem to be pointing to an infinite regress to 'Why' questions.
We live in a universe of causation, therefore everything is the result of something else. But where does it end? Without a prime mover you do run into the problem of infinite regression.
@@100percentSNAFU In my naturalistic worldview, in place of a prime mover I have a premise; existence exists. Under this premise existence is primary and nonexistence, 'nothing', is secondary, derivative. Under prime mover (Is it part of existence or seperate form existence?), the ex nihilo is primary and existence is secondary. So under the premise model you have one thing, existence, and nothing is just a word that denotes the absence of something. Under the prime mover model you have three biggies; prime mover, existence (the universe), and the nothing that the universe is supposed to have came from.
Nothing means no consciousness. Very simple. Prove me wrong..
I think you're right, but what is consciousness? And WHAT is conscious?
But something gives rise to consciousness. Subjectively, there is no world without consciousness but objectively, we know there was a world before all the consciousness of which we're aware.
Prove yourself right first. Nobody is obligated to engage with a mere assertion. Smh.
@@DavidTraynierperhaps though consciousness is fundamental and all else emerges from it. Would you say that’s possible?
No
There is no nothing
But why?
@@smurug85 because there is something
@@blacklisted4885 but why is there always something?
Claiming that a host of logical possibilities and impossibilities still exist even in a physical nothingness is a bit of a thin gruel. There is a reasonable basis for claiming that logical statements are purely nominal, and thus could only exist in a world containing people to name them.
It could also be the case that the universe itself is a collection of abstract objects following logical rules, and that all the complexity we see emerges from this. If that’s the case, as soon these platonic entities exist, the universe does also.
Notably, these systems are all connected by Turing-Completeness, in a kind of connected graph. You could consider the nothing state to be disconnected by definition.
That could have been a compelling argument in the Middle Ages, but we have strong observational evidence now that the universe has existed a lot longer than people, or life have existed. We have no reason to believe life or conscious beings are fundamental, or are more that late developing contingent phenomena, and therefore not necessary for the cosmos as a whole to exist. Take the cosmic microwave background radiation. Its characteristics are consistent with it being generated some 9 billion years before our planet even existed.
@@seanpierce9386 That's pretty close to how I see things. Although, all of your abstract objects would need an abstract substrate in order to interact - something that interacts with all of them in some way. So I'd think they'd all have to be a part of the same meta-abstraction. Then you could have other abstract spaces that can't and will never interact with other substrates if they're born independently.
Parmenides is of great help here...
I'm actually on book 4 of 7 of Proclus commentary on Plato's Parmenides. The text is the pinnacle of the Platonic model in general and is the most difficult work to interpret. One needs Proclus commentary, the only English translation done by Morrow and Dillon. I wonder why Taylor didn't translate it.
I have the Hackett edition and Taylor's of the Parmenides, but one would be most wise to get Taylor's translation from prometheus trust.
Proclus is just a world-class intelligent and wise god....why persons today cannot acknowledge him and the Platonists is quite telling.
@@S3RAVA3LM Congratulations, that's really worth of studying. I suppose you understood that I was referring to Parmenides the philosopher, not Plato's dialogue. But of course it is closely related.
Here's my development on top of your "why something rather than nothing+some rules?"
Assume those rules and relationships include an ultimate goal for every "something". A sci-fiction example of this goal could be to achieve a special technology created by creatures in that world.
Now the question becomes: Why "to achieve this ultimate goal through this something" rather than nothing?
It seemed interesting to me.
Now we can make this model a bit more general. Like:
- having multiple choices of the ultimate goal, letting that "something world" come up with itself
- adding the probability of achieving the ultimate goal. If not achieved, restart the universe with new parameters.
Of course, a big assumption and question is: What are the ultimate goals of our world, if any goal at all?
Nothing has no meaning without something. They define one another. Any thing is defined by everything and is therefore not a thing😊
4:16 ... it's impossible to have purely nothing because you always have possibilities? JL: you always have possiblities you have facts about relationships between possiblities and you have the fact that certain possiblities are good and other possiblities are bad these are facts which you can't ge away from. 4:32
i think it's not really a realistic question to ask "why is there something" because it's semantics as well as there's always something...it would be more logical to ask "why is there something like that"
4 or 5 years young i panicked asking this question i was barely a five year old child❤
God created it
I have problem imaging what it would be 'nothing' as this kind of thinking is stupid. Nothing simply cannot be. So it is only logical that it does not exist. If you don't get it I'm sorry for you.
You simply can not have both something and nothing. If there is something, there can not be nothing. If there was nothing, you could not have something. Nothingness in our reality can only exist as part of the imagination. Something is synonymous with reality. Our reality(something) has always been and always will be.
But the question is why there is something rather than nothing...
@@TheAlpineAddict
Yes, I guess it is. I guess there is no better answer than that is the way God created things.
@@mickeybrumfield764 But God is also "something" and subject to the same queston, no?
@TheAlpineAddict
Yes, of course, I didn't say it was the perfect answer.
@@mickeybrumfield764 Fair enough. :)
That there is something rather than nothing is either a gift or a brute fact. Same goes for why I am something rather than nothing. The difference between the spiritual person and the atheist is that only the former can feel gratitude. The best the latter can do is feel lucky.
That assumes that needing to be grateful, wanting to owe another being a debt, is a preferable state of affairs.
we haven't had nothing for so long the question is in a way fundamentally wrong - the question patronizes the bible and religion and it assumes there may have been a time when there was nothing - there may have not been a time when there was nothing and even nothing is something - people these days want nothing to escape the hassles, nothing would be a relief but it would be pretty boring after a while - we are better off with lots of things, even now space is expanding and entropy is dropping - we may have to be happy with the current paradigm since things keep happening that give us a better understanding and more insight into cosmology #nothing vs everything all at once
If there was nothing there would be no question
dealing with nothing makes it something
I think the aregument is that lacking all possibilities would be something into of itself, therefore impossible. 0-0=0 is still something because it is a formula somewhere that came from something somewhere.
Consider just 0, no relationships. The equation you give is something you introduced. Actual nothing has no relationships by definition.
I think nothing is a result of comparison and not a thing in and of itself. You have something to eat, or you have nothing. The nothing is defined by the possibility of something. Without reality nothing doesn't exist.
If the opposite were true we would be asking the same question!
Nothing is nothing. Nothing works Nothing. Ideas and concepts like mathematics exist in the mind. Even those concepts are something. There is zero opportunity in Nothing. Nothing is meaningless. Anything you conceive in your mind is something. Nothing should be defined as senselessness lacking any and all possibilities.
I think the aregument is that lacking all possibilities would be something into of itself, therefore impossible. 0-0=0 is still something because it is a formula somewhere that came from something somewhere.
@@jvaldez1896 That is why it is impossible to have nothing. Something has always existed. The nature of that original something is what the discussion or the search is about. So the concept that evolution is the originator of everything is as senseless as the "nothing" we are talking about.
@@peweegangloku6428Yes, something has always existed, because nothing would only continue on as nothing, lacking any kind of catalyst to become something.
@@100percentSNAFU Very correct. Nothing else could be as simple and clear as that.
I feel at the very least, there would have to be the possibility that nothing exists. That's as close to nothing as possible as I see it
Nothing is the absense of the observer
Exactly....there is nothing if the light of consciousness is extinguished from the universe 😊
The phrase that always leap to my mind in listening to these kind of conversations is "bounded rationality" which begs the question what are the bounds of un-bounded rationality? Astrophysicists seem (in their thinking) to be 'operating' well outside the bounds of rationality given the concatenation of assumptions and the fact that their theories are merely based (at the simplest level) on radiation reflecting from metal.
Nomething rather than Sothing
Nom nom nom thing
The only answer I ever come across is that at the beginning there were theoretically equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles, but there must have been a slightly higher amount of matter. When the matter and ant-matter particles interacted, they annihilated each other, leaving behind the extra matter particles that eventually coalesced to form the stars and planets, etc.
That question, Why is there something rather than nothing? is more than a simple question. It assumes things, or it may assume things. To really answer the question one has to make explicit what the question is, or may be, assuming.
Nothing can not exist. You could define Nothing as Complementary of All and there will be always something unknown stoping us of knowing All.
Each moment of each individuated mind expresses the dual nature of Universal Mind. (A fractal instance, that or something like it.) WHY is a question that can only occur to the classical/programmed side, not to the spiritual/quantum side. Classical reality is a mere projection of quantum reality. It is not a good starting point for deep questions. Technically, nothing *does* exist in Universal Mind except Its own Nature, which has a tendency to project ItSelf until its branched entities (not sure what to call them) are mutually annihilated. Each individuated mind is a *point of view* within Universal Mind. So we can say that Mind alone exists. We can also say that consciousness is God's gift to ItSelf. These are all key concepts! It is extremely useful to understand our quantum nature. But I have to admit to not having answered the question; I've just reframed it. 🙂
Metaphysically nothing is absolute and singular , something is infinitely variable.
We don't know where the 'something' is,or why.There doesn't need to be a reason.'Nothing' also has to exist,somewhere.Humans going back to caveman think there must be 'gods' who oversee all.Just because we don't understand existence,it doesn't mean that is a valid argument.
We ask "why" there is something rather than nothing out of a logical conclusion that nothingness does not require anything, which then begs the question of why should there be anything then?
The issue with this sort of arguing is that you are unknowingly presupposing that logic itself can somehow come prior to existence, or, more precisely, that existence depends on logic, which I would argue is a falsehood.
Logic is what tells you that 0 is not 1, or 2 is not 5, apple is not a star, and so forth. Once you strip away this framework, all ontological differences and the separation between potentiality and actuality loses meaning, so you end up with a purely simple essence with no parts, that seemingly exists and does not exist simultaneously.
In other words, logic is why we have a diversity in existence, and without it we have a pure singularity of existence.
Want to also clarify on this: me and you, dear reader, are not identical; we possess ontological differences because of logic. It gives rise to my unique, limited essence, as well as yours, and so on. Your unique logical essence is what describes what you are.
Beyond logic, you have the purely simple Existence that just IS. Within logic, same said Existence appears in essence as the fullness of Existence, since it is the pure Existence, so would also be the logical fullness of what itself is.
And well, neither you, nor me, are the logical fullness of existence; however, since we can deduce that destructive habits in our life are bad for us, we are ought to strive to improve, that is, _imitate_ in our lives that which is perfect in essence (fullness of existence), despite always being logically less than the perfect Existence.
Nothing IS something
Why is there Something rather than Nothing?
The Something that Exists is the Nothingness itself; it is an Existence itself that cannot be removed/erased/deleted/annihilated/eliminated/destroyed.
That Existence is equal to the fact that there's Something.
That Existence is equal to Infinite Possibilities/Potentials.
That Existence is the Fundamental Field/Ground/Background/Screen; the spacetime field is not fundamental because the spacetime field is part of the Possibilities/Potentials. Even our existence is a part of those Possibilities/Potentials; even our physical appearance-the brain and body-is a part of that.
Nothingness is equally Whole and Complete, but it is still Limitless. The Nothingness has no beginning and no end, not being born or dying to eliminate itself; it will always be there, Eternally/Forever.
Spacetime has a beginning and end, birth and death, is always in a process of evolution, and is always incomplete. so it is not fundamental.
The Nothingness is the Source of Infinite Possibilities/Potentials, so the Everythingness will also be there. Both the Nothingness and Everythingness are already there, but the Fundamental is the Nothingness itself.
We exist, so we call it, Pure Consciousness the Fundamental.
Next is how we became conscious/aware of our existence.
Nothingness is the Source, so Everythingness will also be there, and this Everythingness is also like a Networks an Awareness/Spirit/Information/Energy (Awareness, Spirit, Information, Energy are Inseparable). We are part of that Everythingness-our brain/body/physical appearance. Our brains/bodies are designed to receive the information from that field, so if you are only aware of a small range of fields, like planet Earth, to galaxies, to the universes, to spacetime, and you identify yourself as flesh/body alone... that is a small range and conditioned mind/brain, a bounded awareness inside of spacetime alone. But if you accept Nothingness/Pure Consciousness as the Fundamental, you will See/Feel/Observe the Simplicity of Existence-that Everything is Already There, Whole and Complete, but still Limitless. This is the Perspective/Perception of Unbounded/Boundless Awareness.
Note: Why is there Something rather than Nothing? (The "Something" that exists is actually the "Nothingness" itself.)
Note: Incomplete and Experimental Observation Through Awareness
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can create the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something [One (1)] exists before Nothing [Zero (0)] can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).
Was there a forever 1?
If you want to get a broader philosophical understanding of this theory then try reading these two books. 1.Tao Te Ching , by Lao Tzu. 2.The True Name , by Osho. These two books are scientifically philosophical books.
for a number to exist (between 0 and 1) it just needs to be a polynomial root and have rational coefficients, which is a profound restriction in terms of possibility
@@gettaasteroid4650 in reality they are not numbers. They have been numbered by human mind somewhat based on their quality. They describe the fundamental atomic structure. 1:15
@@sujok-acupuncture9246(1:15) Nice! I agree there must be a reason but I think it's because there was an initial phase of the Universe
I love the way these two are asking questions and discussing answers as if they are separate entities from the universe 😂 As if they are independently self existing beings😂😂😂
It's the impossible question
From math possibilities to actual outcomes there must be a catalyst. Rich possibilities can't actualize without a personal agent changing it to something. Ergo, God.
I am attracted to the view that all that exists are possibilities. We know that our universe must be possible. In order to be possible it seems that it must be consistent. So the question then is, of all the consistent possible states of affairs, why does this one exist and not others?
Either there must be a specific reason why this possible universe exists and not others, or all possible worlds must exist. So to deny the latter conclusion we must believe there is such a selective brute fact. Occam’s razor advises us that we should prefer the simpler theory, that requires the fewest assumptions, and that brute fact is an assumption.
could God be "nothing" from which things are created so that there is "something"?
If you want nothing to have properties and interact with the world, then sure. But that’s not what most people mean, and you still have to contend with the usual definition.
It drives me nuts that people don't bother to figure out what Heidegger thought about this. I promise Being and Time WILL add something to the discussion you just can't have unless you figure out at least the broad outlines of what he was getting at. Our ideas about what is "stuff," i.e., the substance that these two are obsessed about, have a history, and if you just consider that the abstract concepts in our toolbox have a cultural and historical dimension, you conclude that we can't possibly care about the abstract question of why is there something rather than nothing unless we are already thrown into this human story that we're in. It doesn't "answer" the question these two are asking, but it humanizes it in a really meaningful way. IMHO.
Everybody knows this is nowhere. Define something. Is it some thing or a whole shitload of things (or stuff). And what is this "nothing" you speak of. Huh! Don't ya gotta have something? You can't have your thing without nothing, nor can you do your thing or shake your thing unless the thing is your thing in the first place. But there is no place without someting in it's right place. Right?
I was once nothing 13.8mrd years now I am something😂. How, when and why materia became aware. Step by step...🙏
I know this question could make you mad...my friend 😥.
The biggest fallacy is trying to explain NOTHING (pun inteded)
To the question Why is there something rather than nothing?, what is wrong with the answer 'Because there is'?
That is an observation, not an explanation.
Although to be fair, that may be the best we can do.
nothing is beyond the understanding of man because there’s nothing there to understand
Or maybe you, specifically, are not able to understand.
@@karagi101 I am happy to admit that i know nothing at all about nothing at all. But if you know something about it feel free to share.
There exists "nothing"... in average
There simply cannot be nothing.
Clearly that's true but why? that's the question they're probing.
When will you interview someone who actually knows why there is something rather than something? Try Elon Musk. He must know something, he's so goddamn rich.
I completely agree with galinho7268 , the previous commentator and would go further and say that - not only if there were to be only nothing then the possibility of any other thing , including a possibility is an absurdity - then the very fact that concepts such as 1 + 1 = 2 exist denies the notion of nothing . After all ,, if a 'fact' is not a ' thing ' then it is also not a fact and by definition is not at all , at least as a fact - or to rephrase that last phrase , then if a 'fact' is a 'thing' then something exists , i.e. that 'fact' . 'Things' can mean abstract things also . Or , to put it in yet another way the 'fact' that 1+1=2 , even if it is not a 'fact' but an error is de facto evidence of the existence of some 'thing' , even if the only thing that exists is an insupportable assertion . Or to put it yet another way , all that does exist includes all sets of things that may be abstract and also concurrently all set of all things that may not be abstract . In the context of what may exist , they are all things and so long as one thing may exist then there is one thing that exists and then in such a case nothing only exists in the sense of the possibility of the absence of that thing . But if we say that that thing exists then by definition nothing can not exist of itself - it can only exist as the possibility of that event not occurring in certain other given moments in existence .
Perhaps at sometime there was “nothing”. The “Why is there something” could be the action of a Creator. Completely unprovable of course. Then the next question would be “How did the Creator come to be”? These questions are enough to drive one “batty”. 🤣
Is it possible because that time already existed? 🤔 (Responding to the title)
The probability argument of infinite somethings vs a single nothing fails as probability itself is also a something.
Also consider that there is nothing to establish this probabilistic relationship. It implies that it is possible to choose a something state or a nothing state, but there is no established mechanism for doing this.
It’s like saying that John, an unknown entity with unknown interests, is offered a random doughnut. You have no idea which he will pick, and he could refuse. Since you’re given so little information, you can’t determine probabilities.
How, not why.
Why is manmade.
Nothingness cannot exists
Can someone give them a copy of Quran. Surely guidance is come from Allah but one has to have an intention, curiosity and desire for the truth.
Terrence Howard knows.
LOL That's a good one. He doesn't know enough to know that he doesn't know anything.
Esse es percipi
Sounds deep, but I dont feel that it is.
I understood nothing from this video.
That was sarcasm. Ultimately, I think the fact that we are here should give us compelling evidence that nothing was not a possibility because it never existed EVER.
No, its not because you think with something in the mind about something 😜
Was, man, I mean, like, did you ever really _look_ at your navel? I mean, like, _really_ look at it?
There's no such thing as nothing
Nothing would move without nothing
This is naval gazing at its finest.
This video is completely tautology. They are talking for nothing. It is meaning nothing. Absolutetly. Rambling vision of gramar of philosophy. Ridiculous.
Who Am I?
Unfortunately a human. Being????
I was homeless, did drugs, went into prison, where I got to know God. He changed my life. Now I have a home, a wife and a lovely year old daughter (zoe), and a stream of income that gats me $47,000 weekly. Plus a new identity - a child of God, Hallelujah!!!🇺🇲❣️♥️❤️
Hello, how do you achieve such biweekly returns? As a single parent i haven't been able to get my own house due to financial struggles, but my faith in God remains strong.
I'm inspired.
Please spill some sugar about the biweekly stuff you mentioned
I raised 75k and Kate Elizabeth Becherer is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her.Kate Elizabeth Becherer is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!
This is a definition of God's unending provisions for his people. God remains faithful to his words. 🙏 I receive this for my household
Wow 😱I know her too
Miss Kate Elizabeth Becherer is a remarkable individual who has brought immense positivity and inspiration into my life.
But why I play part of this simulation? Who am I really?'- Thomas Soler
God created it
Interestingly, WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING? when re-order it will reveal below:
GENESIS TO THOMAS THE TWIN RIGHT GENERATION