I miss these types of conversations with my grandfather. He was the only one that ever asked the same kind of questions that I ask in my family. We connected on a deeper level because of our wanting to understand the natural order of things.
My dad was like that too. He’d talk to anyone about anything in the hopes of learning something new. He loved hearing about what I and my brothers studied at the university. 3 engineers and a biologist. We had a great time together.
Go to the eastern way of thinking.. You will find the concept of nothingness in every school of thought. There is nothing say the Indian and Chinese thinking.. Advaita system in India and so does other systems.. Zero was invented in India!!
Truly knowledgeable and intelligent people are humble and careful and willing to be wrong. Fools are confident, arrogant, and get angry when questioned at all.
But, Big Fools seem to rule the world. A more important Question is:. How Can We LIMIT the Foolishness of our Govts & Leaders? ( And our own personal follies) ?
at the very beginning of the video , the difference between nothing and 'not quite nothing' ie. something, is so vast a gulf that its incomparable. Nothing to something albeit very small is so vast a gulf that the difference between the scale of a planck length to the universe doesn't even compare , as it is still something to something...
@@markcounseling hes clearly emphasizing the word 'nothing' over and over, going out of his way to argue that theres no need for a prime mover. In other words 'something out of nothing' but then again admits that nothing is not really nothing, yet this goes down the way of infinite regress, which is a logical fallacy. Same as all other prophets: "let me just have the first miracle and I can justify the rest of the story" ^
My mom made my dad buy a Worldbook set when i was 6. She was a matriarch: imo, nature provides us matriarchs; seems to me that about 1 in 12 women (and men too, why not?) are natural born matriarchs. Cheers, Dinesh; on this i think we understand each other. Thanks.
A well-balanced answer by a mentally balanced man. Speaking firmly of what he knows and at the same time admitting what we don’t know yet. Trusting “science” enough but not more than enough! Brilliant. Also credit to Robert for steering the interview well: polite, informed, and with clarity.
Science doesn't and cannot answer all questions. So if 'science' is your ultimate standard, your faith is misplaced. Even science begins with philosophy. And as the speaker admits, one doesn't start with nothing, but by presupposing that (at least) the laws of physics exist (even though such laws, in and of themselves cannot cause physical things to begin to exist). And that is where the naturalists philosophy and thinking begins to break down...
@RAYfighter Humans have been killing each other since the dawn of time; does that mean that there is a natural law which pre-exists humanity that causes humans to be murderous? No, of course not; human laws are simply an emergent property of human interaction. It's the same with physical laws. like charges repel is _not_ a 'law', it is simply a feature, a characteristic, of charged objects. It is not 'laws' that govern nature, it is the properties of extant material which govern it.
Such clear and humble exposition! Alan Guth is a giant figure in the field, yet he shares mind-bending ideas the way you *wish* your 9th grade science teacher had.
Agreed 10000% I have always loved all the sciences be it on earth or the universe, problem was 99% of all my teachers were the most boring, monotone (very much like ben stein) and looked absolutely miserable and had no passion whatsoever. If we had the people from alot of these UA-cam science channel videos I m confident to say the world would have alot more physicists, astronomers etc without a doubt
I have to chuckle when the really tough questions posed to Physicists are answered with "we don't know". I give them credit for their brilliance and their effort to extrapolate and surmise along with their determination to uncover the facts. All there is to know about our universe exits and is present. The job of these talented and creative Physicists is to peal back the layers if this big ball of knowledge.
Years ago I heard Alan Guth say something, it really doesn't matter what, that bothered me and I kinda ignored him for years. But recently I've been listening to him speak and have gained a lot of respect for him. Primarily because, unlike so many therotical physicists, he freely admits that there are things we just don't understand and what we think may be wrong, even inflation theory, his own creation. I'm becoming a fan.
@@allenrussell1947 Ok fair enough. Can you name those physicists that are proclaiming absolutes on topics contrary to Guth's views because I would be interested in viewing those.
@@allenrussell1947 You didn't name one so I'm pretty sure, you're talking nonsense. You said "...so many theoretical physicists..." However, I've never heard Feynman, Bohr or any other physicists make such outrageous absolutes of the kinds you're implying. The only types dumb enough to claim to know the origins of the universe are religious apologists whilst physicists will tell you they can't see past Planck time and as a consequence have no phucking clue. There's nothing special about Guth's position because it's the prevailing view of science.
I think philosophically and love the way this series gets science and philosophy back together-or at least, in the same room and, for the moment,on amiable, speaking terms. Scientists sometimes seem not to understand what’s being asked by “Why is there anything at all?” (Unlike here, where it’s very well understood and answered). When it’s misunderstood the idea is often to explain a beginning from absolutely “minimal materials” (or minimal laws). However minimal (as is pointed out in this video), whatever laws are requisite to get started _also_ require an explanation: where did they come from? Another misunderstood concept (I think) is the philosophers idea of “nothing”. Someone with an empirical leaning is likely to wonder why you would propose the idea of a ‘nothing’ that is so absolute but isn’t derived from observation. There is an answer. The answer is that _if there were nothing_ (in that sense: no minimal laws, no matter, etc.) that would _not_ require any explanation. So it’s helpful to think about in contrast to what we do find-which is so much (and all of it, even minimal starting conditions, requiring an explanation-a reason for being here).
The most important answers about the origin of existence and man's mission in it come from the Qur'an, that is, from the message of the Creator of this universe
I know some people look up to guys like Superman or Batman, maybe an athlete, maybe a world leader. But my hero has always been Alan Guth. Thank you for your contributions to science.
I was so glad to hear Alan say space is malleable so obviously it has substance. I've been thinking on this a lot lately I'd love to hear what Alan is working on and thinking about right now.
The best part or essence of most of comments is that every second person is opening a new gate of possibilities..and that's how the humanity kept growing atleast till now. Good to see that we are still curious enough and try to reason for most part of our concise except for "religion" part where mostly people deliberately shut down their thinking power
The brain is a *feeling* machine. Religious dogmatists ignore what incoherence feels like; the scientifically inclined learn what coherence feels like. The brain has been a comfort finder from the start and is only just now in us becoming a coherence detector: we are choosing the direction of our own evolution.
@@mediocrates3416 I like where you are going with this. But your usage of the words coherence and incoherence is setting off my woo woo detector. Could you provide some source or point to reading more? It would be arduous for you to explain all of it here.
@@N0Xa880iUL Huh. I see my definition is circular, relying on "what makes sense". ... I'm not using them in any special way. ... Lasers have coherent photons; they add together, they support each other. Facts are coherent with each other if they don't contradict. A statement that's true must be coherent: a statement that's coherent with the facts *might* be true. A coherent idea is consistent with observed facts, imo.
"All I need is the laws of physics and a little matter.” But where did the laws and matter come from? I appreciate Guth’s intellectual honesty to admit this, and his willingness to say physics isn’t even close to answering this question.
Another way to look at it is this. Try to imagine nothing. It's actually really hard. I bet it's black right. And large? Well that's something right? So try again. Is it colourless and infinite? That's also something. Keep trying. And you might come to realise "nothing" is an impossible state.
@@hmq9052 Nice. Although it may sound like deferring the question to : Why is it impossible? Or why is anything impossible? And an answer, with this understanding, may be "It's impossible because it's a true nothing, and we can't excpect a nothing to be possible, since by definition it's not. I.e if it "appears" at all, it won't be a true nothing after all." And this may highlight the/a semantic aspect of this conversation.
You need Energy to produce matter in the first place .. (directed and manipulated energy - information is at the heart of the Universe and its implementation) - there also has to be a reason. In science nothing (no thing) is random - it only appears to be so because the human mind has limited comprehension. Even in eternity humans will never fully get to know the workings of the Universe - "he [God] sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen" : Professor Stephen Hawking. Ecclesiastes 3:11, 8:17, 11:5 will hold true for all eternity [written before 1,000 years B.C.E]
@@hmq9052 .. by definition 'nothing' (no thing) would be the state of an absence of time, space & matter - also the absence of energy and Law(s) From that state nothing would have a reason or cause to happen, to bring about a change of state (from nothing to something) - logically, something had to 'cause to become' since the evidence shows that it did. - Genesis 1:1
The most important answers about the origin of existence and man's mission in it come from the Qur'an, that is, from the message of the Creator of this universe
Isn’t the simplest possibility that ONLY consciousness exists? Everything else (the universe) could just be a perception or construct of that consciousness. The question of why there is consciousness would still need addressing, but maybe that’s the place to start in some of these philosophical discussions. Unless of course someone can categorically prove something other than consciousness exists; and I don’t believe they can?
An infinitely intelligent being not subject to time itself who has no beginning and no ending, who is immutable, perfect, omnipotent and omnipresent created the laws of physics (all laws are created after all). We will never understand the universe at His level while we are trapped in these physical bodies, being completely opposite to all of His attributes, it’s just not possible for us. Find comfort in knowing that He exists I love this video! For me, asking these questions and seeking these answers brings me closer to the truth, the Creator.
I really enjoy listening to scientists like Alan Guth, Lisa Randall and Paul Davies. All have very measured responses to deep philosophical or speculative scientific questions. Yes, Leibnitz's famous "Why is there something , rather than nothing?", question is the most puzzling of all.
I tend to look at it this way. Something can’t come from nothing. The fact we are here at all experiencing this “something” proves that nothing is an impossibility. Whether this “something” is just the way things are and have always been or there is something more divine going on, is a question no one can truly answer.
You could you use one word to make yourself feel better though and then give it some spice with language;] Try to use non human attributes or other language to get a good result.
A k, you are a poet slave to the numbers, so you don't have the logos. You got dead words. But if the numbers have the logos, you telling the truth. No nice movie man. Is the piece of logos. Sorry my bad English. Pois em verdade eu te digo pobre homem, és um louco em fazeres dos números o criador, e fazeres do verbo uma fantasia. ...não é no princípio é o matemático criador... É no princípio é o verbo criador...a tua postura é dum idiota pedante criminoso.
The progression of better, more complete, understanding (I e. from my grandfather's day to this) is meaningful to me - even if all eventually proves to be meaningless. To live in this time, a time when so many can "stand on the shoulders of Giants" and glimpse that lofty view - well, I feel fortunate and more than slightly impressed.
The right question is : why would there be nothing, rather than everything ? Because all mathematical equations exist regardless of the existence of universes, it is nothingness that cannot be. Mathematical equations exist before we, or other beings, discover then. Mathematical equation don't need any media to exist, they are, and they cannot not exist. So why would there be no mathematical equations rather than an infinite number of mathematical equations ? Each mathematical equation is all we need to describe a universe, so the infinite set of all mathematical equations is all we need to describe all universes. Each mathematical equation can be transformed to describe a set of mathematical equations that are true consequences of it. Each one of these consequential equations describe a feature of the universe they collectively describe. Collectively, the set of all these consequential equations describe the set of all features of the universe they describe. While most of the infinite set of universes described by the infinite set of mathematical equations do not describe intelligent life, most of the universes described cannot reach a consciousness capable of discovering or understanding the universe that describe them. These universes never become conscious of themselves. However a small subset of the infinite set of all mathematical equations that describe all universes, describe universes that give rise to consciousness capable of discovering and understanding the universe they are a part of. These universes become conscious of themselves much like we are the universe that become couscous of itself. As physicians discover the laws of physics, they discover that our universe and the mathematical equations that describe it cannot be distinguished. In other words there is no possible distinction between our universe and the equations that describe it. Our universe is the set of mathematical equations that describe it. Much like all universes are the set of mathematical equations that describe it. No universe has the luxury to not exist because no mathematical equation has the luxury to not exist. So it is nothingness that is a luxury, it cannot be, not the opposite. That is why we are, because mathematical equations are. Now discovering the set full set of mathematical equations that describe our universe is hard, very hard, but it is the ultimate goal of every conscious civilisation. Some civilisations reach this level of consciousness, and many vanish before reaching this ultimate level of consciousness. And those that do and do not are described by mathematical equations. We don't need to know now the set of mathematical equations that describe our universe to understand that our universe, and all other universes, are described by mathematical equations, and that all these universes do exist because they cannot not exist.
I've found a like mind for once, excellent. Yeah, it's a trip I was talking to my partner about this the other day it's mind bending when you really go in on the topic.
Same over here, Jordan! It has been happening for a while now... since I've been a kid, actually. I think someday we will come to an answer that brings us comfort because, as you see here, not even the most intelligent people in the field know the answer.
I always come back to the same starting point, which is simpler. And it begins by asking “What do we actually know?” and I think the answer is that we know just one thing for sure. We know that consciousness exists. Beyond that, nothing is certain. All we experience could all be a kind of dream or construct of that consciousness. So before we invite the physicists to the table, we maybe need to look much more closely at consciousness?
Yeah this one just popped into my head one day and it's been turning my brain into a pretzel ever since. If you ask the question of "Why is there something" from a certain angle your head will start swimming. You'd think the default setting would be nothing at all, but it's not.
One way to think about it is that "nothing" was never an option. We can, with difficulty, imagine nothing, but that doesn't mean it was ever a possibility.
@@hmq9052 That doesn't make any sense. Whats POSSIBLE is parameters in a construct of rules, meaning rules already exist that dictate whats possible. You can't say nothing is an impossible state because there should be no framework where a rule is even present to validated or violated.
Thats because you have to twist your mind into illogical absurdities to explain reality without a creator (God). Why is there something rather than nothing, because SOMETHING had to exist with the power and mind to will it as the first uncaused first cause. Our universe cannot perpetually exist or pre-exist itself to cause itself, the creator of time is the designer of rules and reality and that must be called God.
Something always was. Logically there is no other explanation. But knowing how much quantum behavior defies logic, how good of a guide _is_ logic? When I ponder "always was", it seems necessary that whatever "always was" will also "always be". What kind of thing is that?
The concept of absolute "nothingness" probably contains some sort of fundamental contradiction that renders the whole question meaningless...like the concept of a set of all sets that don't contain themselves.
Precisely. There is simply no such thing as "nothing". And why should there be? It is an abstraction... this negation of something. An asymptote. Same reason you can never realize absolute zero. It's infinitely unstable. You never get there.
It doesn't exist as a concept, because it isn't a form -- that's the contradiction. But it does exist experientially, which is why it is equated with the subjective pole of experience.
I disagree I dont think the idea of absolute nothing/nonexistence is contradictory or that it is abstract. Because you can ask the question of whether something exists in the context of other things existing. So it makes no sense to start from the idea that some stuff HAD to exist. I dont grant that premise at all.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Your comment brought up a reflection which I'll share, hoping it's of interest to you. I believe you're talking about a relative nothing/nonexistence, rather than an absolute one. That's what it means when one has already granted the premise of things existing. Relative to that premise, that things exist, a certain thing can exist or not exist. That nonexistence is not absolute nothing/nonexistence. Absolute nothing/nonexistence is the negation of the premise that things exist, at all. I say "premise" here because usually we take for granted that things "absolutely exist", without thinking much about what that means. Sure, they exist, but how, in which way? When try to answer the question, "why is there something rather than nothing" usually they don't specify exactly the way that that something, exists. We just know there's something here, because obviously. But they also don't specify what the "nothing" is that, they presume, could have been here instead of the something, or preceding the something. They have an * idea* about that nothingness, a kind of infinite nonbeing with no things ever, but this idea is built up from our *practical experience* of what "nothing" is, which is an absence. A tree was there, it is cut down, and now we feel it's absence. There's nothing there anymore. But -- here's a main point -- THAT experience of nothingness is built up from our previous experience of somethingness. The premise existence has already been taken for granted and hides in the background. Then we make an imaginative leap from what we currently know about nothing. The problem is that this knowledge is not absolute nonexistence, but about relative nonexistence. We actually don't have a proper intuition for absolute nonexistence. We may think we do -- the tree is gone -- but again, that's not absolute nonexistence, which would involve the state before/behind/prior to the premise of existence. Our minds cannot grasp that, only theorize about it. This is why western philosophy has problems with the idea of something coming from nothing, because there's no apparent way to get to "absolute existence" -- the idea that things actually exist -- from "absolute nonexistence", that they don't. But according to Indian philosophy, this understanding is making the category errors I suggested. It's not properly grappling with what absolute existence and nonexistence are or could be. There are various ways to handle this problem. Buddhism refutes BOTH the idea of absolute existence and absolute nonexistence, defining both "existence" and "nonexistence" as different ways of speaking about the interdependent nature of seemingly existing things. Hinduism, or at least Advaita Vedanta, is very descriptive about what the "something" actually is that we experience, locating it neither in material or consciousness, but in what is called the Self, which must be realized to be understood. It posits absolute existence (satchitananda), but teaches that the world as it appears is merely relatively existing, like a dream or an illusion. So "absolute nonexistence" here is the unreality of the world, as it appears. This anyway, is my understanding of these views.
@@markcounseling That was a great read. I like to argue a similar point with things in that we're bound by our own limited perspective and experience with everything essentially. So therein lies the problem, which I think you stated. It's like when we imagine aliens, or alien worlds, they're still ultimately bound by some variation of pre-existing forms we already have an understanding of, however abstract or eccentric they may be, so there's always a limitation in how 'alien' they can really be. I like to think that something truly alien and/or true nothingness would simply be beyond our comprehension, so much so that if we experienced it somewow we wouldn't recognize it, let alone understand it. Similar to the limitation of our conception of nothingness, which is conceived, yet bound by our somethingness. Regardless of this elusiveness, it's fascinating territory to contemplate and discuss.
The horizon of visible universe is delineated to us by the time it has taken for light to reach us balanced by the rate of expansion. We truly have no idea how large the universe actually is or for that matter how old.Why does energy exist is indeed a fascinating question. Surely millennia will pass before we're even close to understanding why anything at all exists.
There are many answers to the question of why there is anything at all. The answers all have one thing in common: each one exists in and of itself as an answer to question. There is no alternative to existence from outside existence. For to be an alternative would to in and of itself exist. Recognizing the necessity of existence leads to the understanding that Nothing is not in opposition to existence but is instead a function of existence; that without existence there would not even Nothing.
I believe that all these brilliant scientists will one day meet their Maker, the greatest scientist of all time. Then they will get the answers to the questions that have perplexed them their entire life.
@@MissAstorDancer That's the irony of it all. We all believe. Some believe in God the creator. Others believe that everything came from nothing. Of course the big bang is now being questioned because of this. Whether it's parallel universes, or string theory, or the universe had no beginning, its all FAITH based. The religions of God, or the religions of the Nothingness.
@@franciscoherrera1219 I dont think it can be called Faith if you are still striving to find true answers. It only becomes faith when someone says it is like this and somebody else just blindly follows. I dont think there is a true scientist in the world who would say they know how it all began but it takes Faith to say god/s did it and hang up your hat there
There just is. Matter and energy have always been, as are other things that we have yet to understand. We see the universe from our perspective and that has always been a limitation.
So by “nothing” he means “something”. And even if he truly meant nothing, then he would be saying it within the presuppositional boundaries of nothing that can be conceived of that is within his conceptual field. There are so many ontological questions that physics and philosophy can’t answer.
@@Bob-of-Zoid "They go right to..." That is not how people get to believe in God. There are reasons and it is a plausible explanation. Both sides must make an assumption to the "status quo" - the perpetual initial conditions. The god side believes that state is a conscious entity, the other believes is just energy. Energy alone can't produce information. This universe is an information system. Simulation theory is proposed in theoretical physics. Going straight to "there is no God" as absolute truth is irrational. You can't ever prove an existential negative for which you don't even know the necessary conditions. "Pascal's wager" is the smart thing to do in this case. So yeah, people that go straight to God, are a bit more cautious. Yeah, yeah, but "religion bad". No, that's fake news. "People bad", not religion.
I really like this guy...smart, articulate, honest. I believe, without knowing it, that he is tracking on something resembling a Source....others would say...a Creator...just a thought.
@@robbiep742 If there is no one in charge the place should look like one where no one is in charge ,run down and messed up everywhere you look . It must be that someone took control before we arrived here ,nature is highly organized predictable and in part self sustaining ,a well organized zoo .
@@rovidius2006 How can you find it so easy to imagine a single entity that has infinite power and knowledge? One we cannot even observe. What explains that absurdity's existence?
@@robbiep742 How do you get to organized if no one knows how to do it? If we evolve and self create why not so for our creators ? They get to have more rights ,right? Long live democracy !
Even if we grant that the laws of physics existed 'before' the big bang, what creative power did these laws of physics actually posses? And even if we grant that they did - and by extension still do - possess these creative powers, what did they work with to bring about matter, energy, space and time from nothing? If the laws of physics could create a universe from nothing way back then, then why don't we observe them doing so now today? What was so special about back then?
Really is amazing that Allan can hypothesize how a universe came into being,we are wonderful creatures in situations like this,and to think about 100 yes ago we didn't even know the universe existed,mind blowing!!!!
An assumption that “the laws of physics existed prior to the universe” is a kind of an astonishing assumption. Basically you are saying there are parameters in place “prior” to the existence of space/time that are not anchored to or manifested by energy, matter or time - A non physical software program, so to speak, that facilitated the physical universe. From my perspective it comes down to what was the first actual thing to happen? Given consciousness seems to collapse wave function potential into actuality - perhaps this catalyst for the origin of the universe is consciousness itself - whatever that may be.
That question is no different than the question of why. And the answer is the same: we'll never know. Certainly not in the form and arrangement of energy we call human.
@@allwheeldrive Our particular arrangement of energy seems uniquely compelled to ask why. That profound capacity to question has led to the emergence of religion, mysticism, philosophy, science and art. The answer may lie in the existence of the question. If the universe has evolved a life form that contemplates the mystery of its own origin then its logical to assume there may in fact be an answer within that life form. As Eckart Tolle said, “You are the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while.” Perhaps the fundamental laws of the universe are such as they are (finely tuned for expressing conditions favorable for life and space/time evolution) because they are inexorably intertwined with consciousness and the emergence of life.
@@LiteShaper1 that quotes awesome, helps to not fear death so much. Also the quote "we arent humans who have spiritual experiences, we're spiritual beings having a human experience."
@@LiteShaper1 Everything is a maybe till it can be proved in the lab ,there is always a good answer for every question as impossible as it may seem .New laws of physics may be generated as we speak for someone to work on latter on ,everything is vastly unexplained even though most disagree .
A lot of people are starting to hypothesize that consciousness creates reality and maybe the universe only exists because you do. And maybe everyone else is a construct of our consciousness (isolationism) or maybe we're each our own universe. Who knows?
It's difficult to wrap your mind around the concept of creation because we think about everything in terms of time. "what was before", "what happened at the beginning" - but these questions make no sense when time itself is part of the thing being created. We have no mental reference frame outside of time
@Brew Bronski There wouldn't be empty anything if there wasn't full or occupied ..one cannot exist without the other....again the truth is beyond concepts or maybe "Before" is a better word.
@Brew Bronski That's not what I'm getting at ...again this is difficult to put in words ..this is something that has to be experienced to understand ..our reality consists of concepts either something Is or isn't.. what I'm trying to convey is the phenomena before the concepts ,and word fall short .
There are no "laws of physics", just agreed-upon" phenomenon. We have projected our ideas and maths onto an energetic Conscious universe, like blind men describing elephants and we believe we understand it. the best we can do is describe our apparent universe....
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. by Satoshi Kanazawa - an evolutionary psychologist at LSE The Scientific Fundamentalist
@@dongshengdi773 " Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof." Clearly you have zero understanding of what this means when you spit up nonsense like this gem of ignorance: "Science has never proven Anything. Everything is just Speculation." Seriously, do you use a random phrase generator to make your posts? Because you exhibit no consistency or internal cohesion in your thought processes. And no courage in your convictions. At least be an honest Theist. Stop sneaking around pretending to be rational.
We don't just need the laws of physics, we also need mathematics and the incredibly finely tuned constants of nature. And I don't believe physics will ever answer these
How did this dimension open up and get rooted into existence and then how did energy turn into matter to fill it , why is there equations and science behind everything, when is the last time a great explosion created something organized and functional like a habitable home with light running water and plenty of food and things to enjoy plus providing consciousness for us to take it all in
Look at it this way, when we say nothing, it implies their must be something, because how could you have nothing without first their being something? Because our mind can only deal with the finite, it has a very tuff time trying to imagine that there has always been something. That is why we really should understand that maybe it is not the tool that should be used for the infinite. The infinite is not material, but is in the material, it forms and tells the material what it should be and how it should behave. The infinite is using itself, what else could it use? For the infinite there is no time, time was created along with the universe. The infinite is ultimate superior consciouseness and is pure light, it is possible for us to experience it inside of us, but not through the mind, only when the mind is still can we experience it. It lies inside in the part of us which makes us human, as apart from a robot. We are not our brain, but our brain is a part of oure body which we possess. It is possible for us to go beyond thought, and enter the realm of the most beautiful, which when experienced makes us feel humble and quiet, it comes like an answer without words, it is the ultimate experience of any human being to have, it is knowledge of the true self.
The conversation kind of misses the point. The question was "Why is there anything at all (instead of nothing)?" The conversation twists the question around into HOW something could possibly be created out of nothing, and it only manages to reduce everything to a "pseudo-nothing" or "almost-nothing" (i.e. empty space, which is not quite 'nothing' because it warps, stretches, etc.).
The frontier between physics and metaphysics is sometimes blurry. Physics mainly describes the measurable part of the behaviour of the one and only instance of world that it can concretely study and measure. Namely the entity we observers are all part of: our universe. Measuring and finding repeating patterns ("laws; with a largely unspecified enforcer") is the measurable part of the story - not more and not less. The set of questions physics studies is (said somewhat unpolitely) infinitely more narrow, than the sets one could classify under philosophy or mathematics, but exremely valuable for those fields and forms the solid base for engineering, thus even deeper measurement and insight. Physics or physics research funding is in the tradition of making stuff predictable and repeatedly work... first more concretely interested in bread itself, than the Gods who may have created bread.
A lot of these videos are like that--they don't address the question in the title. The basic answer is likely two-part. One is that nothingness was never an option--there was always something, even if just the quantum vacuum with some underlying physics. The current universe arose from that in some probabilistic fashion. So, no reason, just that it could happen, and did.
I appreciate his honesty about the fact that science doesn’t have an answer as to the origins of the laws of nature. However, I do disagree with the part where he kept on saying that the question is not beyond the scope of science. I do believe it is for the following reason. Science (at least as we understand it right now) is the use of the laws of nature (some regularity in the universe) to understand how the universe works and to discover more laws of nature. That implies that science begins with a fundamental assumption of the laws of nature. Science, in principle, couldn’t work without such an assumption. So, the question of the origin and existence of the laws of nature is by definition beyond the scope of science because of the simple reason that one can’t explain the origin of the laws of nature with the laws of nature themselves. Since science always has to fall back to the laws of nature for anything it does, it follows that science can’t explain the origin of the laws of nature. For that, one has to turn to philosophy (meta-physics) and then to theology.
You are, I believe, incorrect. The Scientific Method allows for the redefinition of any 'law', including those of fundamental physics. Additionally, I believe Mr. Guth stated that we may, eventually, know the origins of these laws. Unstated, but implied, is that we may not.
@@TheRealBozz Your comment seems to be unrelated to what I said. What does the “redefinition of a law” have to do with explaining the origins of the laws of nature? The point I made was that science depends on a fundamental assumption of the laws of nature, in other words, science begins with the laws of nature. Unless you disagree with that, in which case, I would love to know your reasons. So, it then follows that science can’t explain the existence of the laws of nature simply because you couldn’t explain the existence of something with the very same thing. You would have to appeal to something else. Also, I know he didn’t say that science would definitely be able to answer it. He implied it was a “may or may not” situation. I agree with you on that. However, the point I made was that it isn’t about a “may or may not” situation, the question is simply beyond the scope of science. It is not a scientific question and so can’t be answered by science.
@@charlesudoh6034 Or you could just ask him, has he really read the vedas himself. In modern conservative Indian rhetoric, it is assumed and propagated that Vedas contain all knowledge there is. I've myself heard about numerous claims but presented with no actual evidence or related text. It's harder still to know by yourself as the texts are in old sanskrit and hence very inaccessible because of it. Also translation allows for so many interpretations that you can never be sure. The problem is remarkably similar to the claims of the Quran. Or maybe any "old books of the peoples" in general.
There is something because nothing or nothingness doesn't exist. Everything what we know is something. Now you think maybe dark matter and dark energy but if those exist those are also something.
There is one famous old song in Bollywood ..." Duniya banane wale ..kahe ko tune duniya banayi" . I guess this is one of the first question which would have come into human mind once he went conscious enough..and ironically..still unanswered. Ain't this amazing!!🤔🤔🤔
@@carpballet infinitely intelligent mind is not in a place, place itself is created by mind. The paradox, or seeming one at least, is how did this mind begin.
Well, this is highly speculative physics, so most claims can be objected by some logic, since there's no way anybody could do the required measurements and prove ides wrong. But it's not that simple, this is everything we know exist we talk about, so whatever somebody might come with as counterargument is also subject to examination. There are so many particles and energies, not many physicists can keep the entire picture in their heads. Guth is one of those very few who solved the puzzle, the only one so far who broke sacred rules of a Big bang model. The global scientific community thought they have the perfect idea, but Guth managed to expand on their construct with the idea of inflation, by not braking any of the rules cast in a scientific model of creation. There's another one on his way, Sir Penrose with his cyclic model of creation, community doesn’t seem to be able to find a flow in his chain of reasoning. So we have 2 and a half scientific gospels, carefully designed to explain how everything exist, according to all real world scientific evidence they could find. It took humanity tens of thousands of years to build up to a holistic vision of everything, i don't think many people can comprehend how marvelous that achievement really is. We went from purely subconscious, over imaginative, then subjective, and finally we have a material, mechanical description of... probabilistic creation or something, not sure how to call that blend of opposing concepts. It started with no thoughts, then people begin to notice the world kinda exist and doesn't change much, leading to the idea of a process, a meaningful purpose to all this, then completely abandoning this idea and replace it with magical infinitely small energetic dots, emerging from arcane force fields, only to do the only thing they can do, being this entire universe. And particles are magical because they exist in infinite multidimensional multiverses, or Guth's model can't actually work. But it's OK, inflation is such a good idea scientific community gladly except something extra besides, space magic is still way better than Big bang creation without an inflationary stage. Theory of scientific creation is so beautiful and powerful, nobody likes to go back in caves, afraid to be stomped by a giant foot from The Big Man living the sky. But belief in an infinite reach of the magical energetic entities, existing in other dimensions of reality, is not much better. The only good thing i can find is all that powerful magic and forces from another dimensions can't touch us, we're kinda separated by that great wall of space time. There can be no one eternal law above all laws, so all laws are meant to be broken, where one law ends another begins. The global scientific community is waiting for another hero, it could come as a man, but it could also come in a form of an intelligent machine, a mechanical prophet who will teach us how to punch another hole in reality and pull something out nobody in entire history has seen before.
It seems impossible that everything came into existence from nothing, and it seems impossible that something existed forever in the past that might have caused everything to come into existence. It seems there is no other possibility, yet both possibilities seem impossible.
@@mikhilsaju6929 They're both contradictory. If something must have a cause, then its cause must also have a cause. What cause could precede an eternal universe? Turtles all the way down. Proposing something like an uncaused cause which conveniently though inexplicably defies that logic, and which coincidentally happens to resemble your religion's central anthropomorphic figure, seems too much like special pleading to be worth consideration, in my humble opinion. Also imho, I think the problem is in our understanding of time. Probably "before and after" don't really mean what we think they mean. Maybe time started in the middle and is "now" (so to speak) in the act of extending infinitely forwards and backwards. Backwards from the big bang means effects make causes - and it works the opposite way going forward. So you could pick any moment and everything would look okay, with causes seeming to precede effects from the vantage point of an observer moving forward - and vice versa, for observers moving backwards, if such could exist. Or maybe a grumpy old Jewish God, who magically has no origin, did it.
The physical universe, including the pre-existing laws of physics, exist within infinite consciousness. Infinite consciousness transcends the laws of physics within our universe.
Julian Barbour has the concept of the Janus point, essentially a big bang with both a positive and negative direction of time. The universe that headed in the negative direction behaves the same as ours in terms of causality...no tea cups self assembling out of shards of porcelain on the floor. To them, our universe is the negative universe. Richard Fineman famously stated that positrons can be interpreted as electrons moving backwards in time. Putting these two theories together explains the missing antimatter of our universe. All the antimatter is on the other side of the Janus point, heading in the negative time direction. That also means that matter and antimatter are the same, just heading in opposite time directions.
The Vedic tradition, many thousands of years ago, through the cognitions of the Vedic seers, said that all creation arises from the internal dynamics of a field of pure consciousness beyond time and space. And, just as Alan Guth posits, the Vedas proclaim that all the laws of nature exist virtually within that transcendent reality and are referred to as Smriti (memory). As consciousness, in the process of being aware of itself, remembers it's infinite dynamic nature within it's infinite dynamic silence. This explanation did not arise through the exercise of human intellect,, but, was the result of direct experience of this ultimate reality and the Vedas are not human creations but cognitions experienced as sound...the primordial, eternal vibrations of consciousness which give rise to all manifest reality. Funnily enough....string theory posits that all elementary matter and forces are creations of infinitesimal vibrating strings, so to speak.
@@dawnpisani7465 What matters, is that this absolute field of pure consciousness can be known by any human being whose nervous system is functioning in the way it was designed. Having gained that status, a person exhibits the infinite energy, intelligence, creativity and bliss of that field in thought and action, thereby eliminating any kind of suffering for that individual and allowing that individual to be of maximum benefit for themselves and others. Scientific studies on people practicing systematic, Vedic techniques for developing consciousness...specifically Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, show that with regular practice, health, mental functioning, happiness and integrated personalities all improve in direct correlation to length of practice. You can see some of these studies at www.tm.org.
I think "why" questions might only make sense once you have a universe changing over time. So it might just be that there is no answer to why is there something rather than nothing and no good reason to expect one.
WHY would "why" questions (that Dawkins says are silly) only makes sense after you have a universe changing over time? And did you just abandon both science and reason?
@@jessebryant9233 Because ordinarily "why" questions relate to changes over time. What we're ordinarily looking for is reasons why the process went one way rather than another possible way. It just maybe the question makes no sense outside of that context. No I didn't abandon science and reason just thinking maybe science is confined to explaining change over time.
I would probably agree. In a 'timeless / tense less' universe, which is how Einstein and most relativists think of it, it makes no sense to talk about true nothingness. There was never a 'time' when the universe didn't exist, just as there is not a 'time' when it will end and no longer exist. In 4D spacetime, all events in time exist contemporaneously. Nothing ever changes. Of course, the eternal block universe idea might be wrong. Lee Smolin and other 'temporal naturalists' think time might be fundamental and have interesting ideas about how the universe might have emerged and evolved.
@@stephenlawrence4821 Oh, you mean purely in the naturalistic/scientific sense, not any kind of philosophical way - like the kinds of fundamental questions we humans tend to ask about our own existence and purpose. Gotcha. But then, WHY is there something rather than nothing (no thing/the absence of anything)? The answer to that may very well be something science cannot provide and that might change everything! _Don't you think?_ But then, if nature is all there is, then ultimately, the answers don't matter anyhow. _How could they?_
@@jessebryant9233 On why we exist if nature is all there is then I wouldn't expect there to be any answer to why is there something rather than nothing. And why not just ask why this version of the universe is actual rather than some other version without human life? On our purpose, the answers lie in philosphy of life. Cerrainly no answer will come from asking why is there something rather than nothing. I'd say the Buddhists are right, our purpose is to be happy :-)
and so we still sit in our caves, freezing to death, because nobody knows how to make fire.....hand axe not invented because nobody knows anything...too bad, if we only would know something.
@@yvesetang8456 -- The dialogue is no more nonsensical than reality itself once we've drilled down to this level. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
'Why is there anything rather than nothing?' Is the equivalent of what is the meaning of life? A mind bender that Science, maths , philosophy, youtube vids etc will NEVER fathom. The non -answer isnt going to make our little lives any richer anyway
I'm 71 and I would love to hear the proper answer to this question before I shuffle off this mortal coil. How does existence come from nothing? It is a stupefying mind-fucking question. If the answer is beyond our physics then maybe the answer is only found after death. Something to look forward to.
How does existence come from nothing? The bible, the very Word of God has all the answers, but I must add that it's the only book that unless you know the author (God Himself), it'll be foolishness to you. Seek Him now before it's too late, sir.. you're soul is at stake. Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ, who said in John 14:6...."I am the Way,the Truth and the Life"
He seems to imply here (at least as I understand it) that the laws of nature are all that is needed to create a universe. In other words, given certain laws of nature, a universe would follow. The problem I have with that is the laws of nature themselves are not causative in any sense of the word. Laws are basically descriptive and predictive of things, not causative. A blueprint of a building wouldn’t give rise to the building. The blueprint describes the building and could even be used to predict how the building would function but certainly can’t cause the building to be. The laws of nature can be seen as the blueprint of the universe. To get a universe going, you need not just the laws of nature (the blueprint) but some causal factor as well.
and a lot of luck... An initial set could have give birth to a cloud of hydrogen ...to 3 atoms floating ... to an universe evaporated in few years.... So a pre existing fact (laws of nature) , a causation AND a perfect path (thats because the multiverse theory was invented) .... Perfect path include perfect values of many things (temperature, entropy, gravity ...)
1. Something can be produced. 2. It is produced by itself, something or another. 3. Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing. 4. Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself. 5. Therefore, by another A. 6. If A is first then we have reached the conclusion. 7. If A is not first, then we return to 2). 8. From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite. 9. An infinite series is not possible. 10. Therefore, a Creator God exists. (We just have No way of knowing who or what He is because He resides outside our universe When He initiated the Big Bang) Like a Computer programmer making a character inside a Computer. Like someone who makes an Ant Farm or a Fish Tank but the ants or the Fish can't see nor investigate outside of the Tank .
@@dongshengdi773 But if that Creator seeks relationship with those who are within His Creation, and gave us a measure of free will in order to make that possible, do we respond ? Do we dance with Him and let Him lead us into new ways of knowing ? If not, why do we turn away ?
@@dongshengdi773 The obvious rebuke is "who/what created God?". The other objection is that something can conceivably exist without being created, such as mathematics. It's possible the laws of physics derive from such abstract reality, without needing to be "invented". More fundamentally, it is logical to posit that the bedrock of reality must be simple, i.e., made of very few and simple components. The concept of God is itself a very complex one, and would therefore have to be made of simpler "things". God (in the Western sense) is just not a very compelling hypothesis.
The more intelligent we try to sound the more ignorant we expose ourselves to be.. That you are able to utter questions is an answer. That you are aware, cognizant, animated, expressive, emotional are all answers. Al that is, IS, has always been and will always be. This is like listening to two babies babble, it's cute. Don't cry.
"Everything" began with an uncaused FIrst Cause (a Vibration of Awareness) that neither begins nor ends. Eventually that First Cause spawned other causes that shaped the metaphysical realm. The metaphysical then imagined the physical realm (including the laws of physics) and then caused the actual formation of physical matter/the multiverse.
@@franciscoherrera1219 Consciousness doesn't will itself into existence from nothing. So if one did believe in God, that God would have to have always existed. In a space outside of space and time.
Something I like to think about sometimes is how long the universe existed before there was human consciousness. All of this was here existing for millennia and nobody to appreciate any of it.
@TheSystem it's a kind of platonic reasoning that i tend not to dwell on. I think of mathematics as an emergent tool, not as universal. And let's us note that, for my understanding of phisics (and I'm not a specialist) although it works quite well, enough to replicate in our engineering projects with great success, we will always have to take all scientific work with a pinch of salt. As there is always some knowledge to improve upon. Thus we call it science and not religion. At this very moment there are competing theories, that also work quite well onto explaining reality, and some do not even require time at the most basic level. And if it doesn't require time, or with time and space being an emergent property then all the laws of phisics utilized by this gentleman must be reinterpretated. So to get better engineering at least. So if the later theories are correct then this gentleman must make a choice of which theories he believes to preexist, so to make his findings correct. And of course he was claiming about an existing balance he said we can observe between all energy, and thus reclaim as universal. But is it universal? Aren't all of those claims mere conjuctures? Because who knows what lies beyond what we'll ever be able to observe? I think that he is probably well aware of this information, but this is a small conversation to inform people from his ideas, he has few time to go so deep. Sure, i won't be so obtuse as to look to deny him of more investigation, right or wrong (in my limited knowledge), the more people thinking and researching, the best it is for all of us humans.
The anthropic principle would be an effective counter argument but is unnecessary. It is sufficient to note that either a consciousness created the laws of physics or one did not. In either case, the notion of an active celestial entity is not supported by our understanding of our universe, is thus not necessary and is therefore irrelevant. Thank you Occam's Razor. Also, invoking "God" answers no questions. Therefore, even if God exists, it is, once again, irrelevant to the discussion concerning the laws which govern how our universe transitions from one arrangement of particles into another. This is true for the 1st arrangement as well as all subsequent arrangements. For these reasons, and many more, I will take an incomplete theory over "God does it!" any day. Your rebuttal sir?
@@danielkanewske8473 Your God Does not exist. The same god of the Atheist. To others it is the Creator God , because Everything we know has a cause as opposed to the fixed state universe especially because infinity Does not compute. the initiator of the Big Bang. The One who wrote the laws of physics. the One who owns the Computer of This simulation. He could just be a 5-year old kid from a super advanced Alien civilization, in his basement , who made our universe. ( Neil deGrasse Tyson surmised many times) The Ultimate Observer of the first matter in our universe (quantum physics, collapse of the wave function) The Source of the Life force Consciousness, Spirit , mind , etc The One who wrote the Instructions of every particle , every DNA The One who made Time , Consciousness, And many non-physical elements that exist in the universe that we haven't discovered yet. the First Cause The unmoved mover the Prime mover etc
We will never be. Our very existence and the awareness of it is highly focused and exceptionally narrow. This 100% unavoidably-human problem will never go away. Everything we develop must start from our own abilities to interact with our surroundings: see, hear, think, smell, feel, intuit... We are finite in our structure, both physical and otherwise. The concepts of infinity and origin are functionally impossible to fully understand. We all hope once we "die" we'll get it. That really is the only possible scenario, and it's not a good bet.
I miss these types of conversations with my grandfather. He was the only one that ever asked the same kind of questions that I ask in my family. We connected on a deeper level because of our wanting to understand the natural order of things.
My dad was like that too. He’d talk to anyone about anything in the hopes of learning something new. He loved hearing about what I and my brothers studied at the university. 3 engineers and a biologist. We had a great time together.
You were lucky to have such a grandfather. As was I
Go to the eastern way of thinking.. You will find the concept of nothingness in every school of thought. There is nothing say the Indian and Chinese thinking.. Advaita system in India and so does other systems.. Zero was invented in India!!
ua-cam.com/video/fzo5xJ05Wbk/v-deo.html Why Everything Exists? It’s All Inevitable
Every man, scientist, priest and philosopher king who ever walked this earth and pondered these questions died without knowing, too.
Truly knowledgeable and intelligent people are humble and careful and willing to be wrong. Fools are confident, arrogant, and get angry when questioned at all.
I quite agree. Unfortunately, such people end up learning nothing.
I agree.
However you're talking about trump
But, Big Fools seem to rule the world.
A more important Question is:.
How Can We LIMIT the Foolishness of our Govts & Leaders? ( And our own personal follies) ?
at the very beginning of the video , the difference between nothing and 'not quite nothing' ie. something, is so vast a gulf that its incomparable. Nothing to something albeit very small is so vast a gulf that the difference between the scale of a planck length to the universe doesn't even compare , as it is still something to something...
This is one the better ones I’ve seen. What a wonderful physicist, so clear and so little ego. And Robert Kuhn facilitated extremely well. Great job!
He and Justin Brierley of 'Unbelievable?' Two of the best in the biz.
Really? I saw nothing in here that advanced anything for me.
@@jimhowaniec What would advance things for you?
@@jessebryant9233 v
@@markcounseling hes clearly emphasizing the word 'nothing' over and over, going out of his way to argue that theres no need for a prime mover. In other words 'something out of nothing' but then again admits that nothing is not really nothing, yet this goes down the way of infinite regress, which is a logical fallacy. Same as all other prophets: "let me just have the first miracle and I can justify the rest of the story" ^
Btw.. missing my father so much on this question...He used to be my Encyclopaedia for all such questions since my early childhood
😢 My parents never talked about the deeper stuff, while I was all the more engrossed in it.
My mom made my dad buy a Worldbook set when i was 6. She was a matriarch: imo, nature provides us matriarchs; seems to me that about 1 in 12 women (and men too, why not?) are natural born matriarchs. Cheers, Dinesh; on this i think we understand each other. Thanks.
Your father sounds like he was one cool dude.
LUCKY TO HAVE HAD such a Father. Pass On advice/wisdom he gave YOU to others.. in this way he's still here.
🖖
Sri-vitu,Ananda!
A well-balanced answer by a mentally balanced man. Speaking firmly of what he knows and at the same time admitting what we don’t know yet. Trusting “science” enough but not more than enough! Brilliant.
Also credit to Robert for steering the interview well: polite, informed, and with clarity.
Science doesn't and cannot answer all questions. So if 'science' is your ultimate standard, your faith is misplaced. Even science begins with philosophy. And as the speaker admits, one doesn't start with nothing, but by presupposing that (at least) the laws of physics exist (even though such laws, in and of themselves cannot cause physical things to begin to exist). And that is where the naturalists philosophy and thinking begins to break down...
@RAYfighter
Theologians = nowhere? Clearly you do not know your history!
@@birddog0
Presupposing his own position even though it provides zero scientific basis for his own position is 'mentally balanced'? Uhm... Okay...
science is an illusion of arrogant and dumb people. on both sides of the fence. always was. always will be. long live stupidity.
@RAYfighter Humans have been killing each other since the dawn of time; does that mean that there is a natural law which pre-exists humanity that causes humans to be murderous? No, of course not; human laws are simply an emergent property of human interaction. It's the same with physical laws. like charges repel is _not_ a 'law', it is simply a feature, a characteristic, of charged objects.
It is not 'laws' that govern nature, it is the properties of extant material which govern it.
Such clear and humble exposition! Alan Guth is a giant figure in the field, yet he shares mind-bending ideas the way you *wish* your 9th grade science teacher had.
Agreed 10000% I have always loved all the sciences be it on earth or the universe, problem was 99% of all my teachers were the most boring, monotone (very much like ben stein) and looked absolutely miserable and had no passion whatsoever. If we had the people from alot of these UA-cam science channel videos I m confident to say the world would have alot more physicists, astronomers etc without a doubt
Alan Guth makes discussion of these mind bending questions totally graspable. Very enjoyable to watch.
I have to chuckle when the really tough questions posed to Physicists are answered with "we don't know". I give them credit for their brilliance and their effort to extrapolate and surmise along with their determination to uncover the facts. All there is to know about our universe exits and is present. The job of these talented and creative Physicists is to peal back the layers if this big ball of knowledge.
This is the best ever Closer To Truth presentation, by a long shot. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Years ago I heard Alan Guth say something, it really doesn't matter what, that bothered me and I kinda ignored him for years. But recently I've been listening to him speak and have gained a lot of respect for him. Primarily because, unlike so many therotical physicists, he freely admits that there are things we just don't understand and what we think may be wrong, even inflation theory, his own creation.
I'm becoming a fan.
*"...unlike so many ... physicists..."*
That is just nonsense, pretty much all of science will tell you there are things they simply don't know.
@@kingsman428 I hear several speak in absolutes all the time. So it's not nonsense, just observation.
@@allenrussell1947 Ok fair enough. Can you name those physicists that are proclaiming absolutes on topics contrary to Guth's views because I would be interested in viewing those.
@@kingsman428 ummmmm, every physics UA-cam channel pretty much. 😂
@@allenrussell1947 You didn't name one so I'm pretty sure, you're talking nonsense. You said "...so many theoretical physicists..." However, I've never heard Feynman, Bohr or any other physicists make such outrageous absolutes of the kinds you're implying. The only types dumb enough to claim to know the origins of the universe are religious apologists whilst physicists will tell you they can't see past Planck time and as a consequence have no phucking clue. There's nothing special about Guth's position because it's the prevailing view of science.
I think philosophically and love the way this series gets science and philosophy back together-or at least, in the same room and, for the moment,on amiable, speaking terms.
Scientists sometimes seem not to understand what’s being asked by “Why is there anything at all?” (Unlike here, where it’s very well understood and answered). When it’s misunderstood the idea is often to explain a beginning from absolutely “minimal materials” (or minimal laws). However minimal (as is pointed out in this video), whatever laws are requisite to get started _also_ require an explanation: where did they come from?
Another misunderstood concept (I think) is the philosophers idea of “nothing”. Someone with an empirical leaning is likely to wonder why you would propose the idea of a ‘nothing’ that is so absolute but isn’t derived from observation. There is an answer. The answer is that _if there were nothing_ (in that sense: no minimal laws, no matter, etc.) that would _not_ require any explanation. So it’s helpful to think about in contrast to what we do find-which is so much (and all of it, even minimal starting conditions, requiring an explanation-a reason for being here).
The most important answers about the origin of existence and man's mission in it come from the Qur'an, that is, from the message of the Creator of this universe
I know some people look up to guys like Superman or Batman, maybe an athlete, maybe a world leader. But my hero has always been Alan Guth. Thank you for your contributions to science.
Wonderful discussion, I really enjoy listening to Alan Guth .
I was so glad to hear Alan say space is malleable so obviously it has substance. I've been thinking on this a lot lately I'd love to hear what Alan is working on and thinking about right now.
The best part or essence of most of comments is that every second person is opening a new gate of possibilities..and that's how the humanity kept growing atleast till now. Good to see that we are still curious enough and try to reason for most part of our concise except for "religion" part where mostly people deliberately shut down their thinking power
Exactly my understanding here as well. We are on the same quest that the ancients were, albeit with more scientific facts and jargon at our disposal.
The brain is a *feeling* machine. Religious dogmatists ignore what incoherence feels like; the scientifically inclined learn what coherence feels like. The brain has been a comfort finder from the start and is only just now in us becoming a coherence detector: we are choosing the direction of our own evolution.
@@mediocrates3416 I like where you are going with this. But your usage of the words coherence and incoherence is setting off my woo woo detector.
Could you provide some source or point to reading more? It would be arduous for you to explain all of it here.
@@N0Xa880iUL Huh. I see my definition is circular, relying on "what makes sense". ... I'm not using them in any special way. ... Lasers have coherent photons; they add together, they support each other. Facts are coherent with each other if they don't contradict. A statement that's true must be coherent: a statement that's coherent with the facts *might* be true. A coherent idea is consistent with observed facts, imo.
@@mediocrates3416 Oh ok. Then is cognitive dissonance the opposite of coherence?
Why is awareness/consciousness not mentioned as a vital component? Without it nothing has existence. Surely this is top of the list.
Because it's silly.
"All I need is the laws of physics and a little matter.” But where did the laws and matter come from? I appreciate Guth’s intellectual honesty to admit this, and his willingness to say physics isn’t even close to answering this question.
Another way to look at it is this. Try to imagine nothing. It's actually really hard. I bet it's black right. And large? Well that's something right? So try again. Is it colourless and infinite? That's also something. Keep trying. And you might come to realise "nothing" is an impossible state.
@@hmq9052
Nice. Although it may sound like deferring the question to : Why is it impossible? Or why is anything impossible? And an answer, with this understanding, may be "It's impossible because it's a true nothing, and we can't excpect a nothing to be possible, since by definition it's not. I.e if it "appears" at all, it won't be a true nothing after all." And this may highlight the/a semantic aspect of this conversation.
.....yet
You need Energy to produce matter in the first place .. (directed and manipulated energy - information is at the heart of the Universe and its implementation) - there also has to be a reason. In science nothing (no thing) is random - it only appears to be so because the human mind has limited comprehension. Even in eternity humans will never fully get to know the workings of the Universe - "he [God] sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen" : Professor Stephen Hawking.
Ecclesiastes 3:11, 8:17, 11:5 will hold true for all eternity [written before 1,000 years B.C.E]
@@hmq9052 .. by definition 'nothing' (no thing) would be the state of an absence of time, space & matter - also the absence of energy and Law(s)
From that state nothing would have a reason or cause to happen, to bring about a change of state (from nothing to something) - logically, something had to 'cause to become' since the evidence shows that it did. - Genesis 1:1
My early teen years (Part 1):
"I hate you!"
"I never asked to be born!"
"Why is there anything at all!"
The feeling of existence needs the real existence to ask, why there is existence.
The most important answers about the origin of existence and man's mission in it come from the Qur'an, that is, from the message of the Creator of this universe
Isn’t the simplest possibility that ONLY consciousness exists? Everything else (the universe) could just be a perception or construct of that consciousness. The question of why there is consciousness would still need addressing, but maybe that’s the place to start in some of these philosophical discussions. Unless of course someone can categorically prove something other than consciousness exists; and I don’t believe they can?
An infinitely intelligent being not subject to time itself who has no beginning and no ending, who is immutable, perfect, omnipotent and omnipresent created the laws of physics (all laws are created after all). We will never understand the universe at His level while we are trapped in these physical bodies, being completely opposite to all of His attributes, it’s just not possible for us.
Find comfort in knowing that He exists
I love this video! For me, asking these questions and seeking these answers brings me closer to the truth, the Creator.
There is no creator. Don't kid yourself.
I have been asking this question myself for decades. thank you for this glimpse into the subject.
I really enjoy listening to scientists like Alan Guth, Lisa Randall and Paul Davies. All have very measured responses to deep philosophical or speculative scientific questions. Yes, Leibnitz's famous "Why is there something , rather than nothing?", question is the most puzzling of all.
I love all of your interviews, and love seeing all the different viewpoints of our reality.
I tend to look at it this way. Something can’t come from nothing. The fact we are here at all experiencing this “something” proves that nothing is an impossibility. Whether this “something” is just the way things are and have always been or there is something more divine going on, is a question no one can truly answer.
The simple answer is that something could have always existed but you don't know why that is. Thats the honest answer my friend.
You could you use one word to make yourself feel better though and then give it some spice with language;] Try to use non human attributes or other language to get a good result.
"...you have shown..." No you haven't! Thinking about these things is interesting, but actually "showing" is another matter entirely...
This is my fav channel.
Just yesterday night I had a bout of this madness. It hits you anytime, anywhere, without warning.
A k, you are a poet slave to the numbers, so you don't have the logos. You got dead words. But if the numbers have the logos, you telling the truth. No nice movie man. Is the piece of logos. Sorry my bad English. Pois em verdade eu te digo pobre homem, és um louco em fazeres dos números o criador, e fazeres do verbo uma fantasia. ...não é no princípio é o matemático criador... É no princípio é o verbo criador...a tua postura é dum idiota pedante criminoso.
@@nelsonpinheiro1148 Very humbling.
Yup.----
The progression of better, more complete, understanding (I e. from my grandfather's day to this) is meaningful to me - even if all eventually proves to be meaningless. To live in this time, a time when so many can "stand on the shoulders of Giants" and glimpse that lofty view - well, I feel fortunate and more than slightly impressed.
I love how humble Alan Guth is!
I know of only one certainty: It is impossible for the human mind to contemplate Infinity.
5MEO DMT helps
Quiet your mind, dwell in the space between the thoughts that will work insidiously to prevent you from doing this.
The right question is : why would there be nothing, rather than everything ?
Because all mathematical equations exist regardless of the existence of universes, it is nothingness that cannot be.
Mathematical equations exist before we, or other beings, discover then.
Mathematical equation don't need any media to exist, they are, and they cannot not exist.
So why would there be no mathematical equations rather than an infinite number of mathematical equations ?
Each mathematical equation is all we need to describe a universe, so the infinite set of all mathematical equations is all we need to describe all universes.
Each mathematical equation can be transformed to describe a set of mathematical equations that are true consequences of it. Each one of these consequential equations describe a feature of the universe they collectively describe. Collectively, the set of all these consequential equations describe the set of all features of the universe they describe.
While most of the infinite set of universes described by the infinite set of mathematical equations do not describe intelligent life, most of the universes described cannot reach a consciousness capable of discovering or understanding the universe that describe them. These universes never become conscious of themselves.
However a small subset of the infinite set of all mathematical equations that describe all universes, describe universes that give rise to consciousness capable of discovering and understanding the universe they are a part of. These universes become conscious of themselves much like we are the universe that become couscous of itself.
As physicians discover the laws of physics, they discover that our universe and the mathematical equations that describe it cannot be distinguished. In other words there is no possible distinction between our universe and the equations that describe it.
Our universe is the set of mathematical equations that describe it. Much like all universes are the set of mathematical equations that describe it.
No universe has the luxury to not exist because no mathematical equation has the luxury to not exist.
So it is nothingness that is a luxury, it cannot be, not the opposite.
That is why we are, because mathematical equations are.
Now discovering the set full set of mathematical equations that describe our universe is hard, very hard, but it is the ultimate goal of every conscious civilisation. Some civilisations reach this level of consciousness, and many vanish before reaching this ultimate level of consciousness. And those that do and do not are described by mathematical equations.
We don't need to know now the set of mathematical equations that describe our universe to understand that our universe, and all other universes, are described by mathematical equations, and that all these universes do exist because they cannot not exist.
I ask myself this question all the time and then i give myself an anxiety attack trying to comprehend it all. Lol
I've found a like mind for once, excellent. Yeah, it's a trip I was talking to my partner about this the other day it's mind bending when you really go in on the topic.
@@michaels9388 did you get an answer
Same over here, Jordan! It has been happening for a while now... since I've been a kid, actually. I think someday we will come to an answer that brings us comfort because, as you see here, not even the most intelligent people in the field know the answer.
I always come back to the same starting point, which is simpler. And it begins by asking “What do we actually know?” and I think the answer is that we know just one thing for sure. We know that consciousness exists. Beyond that, nothing is certain. All we experience could all be a kind of dream or construct of that consciousness. So before we invite the physicists to the table, we maybe need to look much more closely at consciousness?
It's refreshing to hear experts say we don't know....
Yeah this one just popped into my head one day and it's been turning my brain into a pretzel ever since. If you ask the question of "Why is there something" from a certain angle your head will start swimming. You'd think the default setting would be nothing at all, but it's not.
Try to imagine "nothing" though. You'll find you can't. I don't think that "nothing" is a possible state.
Obviously the default setting is "stuff."
One way to think about it is that "nothing" was never an option. We can, with difficulty, imagine nothing, but that doesn't mean it was ever a possibility.
@@hmq9052 That doesn't make any sense. Whats POSSIBLE is parameters in a construct of rules, meaning rules already exist that dictate whats possible. You can't say nothing is an impossible state because there should be no framework where a rule is even present to validated or violated.
Thats because you have to twist your mind into illogical absurdities to explain reality without a creator (God). Why is there something rather than nothing, because SOMETHING had to exist with the power and mind to will it as the first uncaused first cause. Our universe cannot perpetually exist or pre-exist itself to cause itself, the creator of time is the designer of rules and reality and that must be called God.
Something always was. Logically there is no other explanation. But knowing how much quantum behavior defies logic, how good of a guide _is_ logic? When I ponder "always was", it seems necessary that whatever "always was" will also "always be". What kind of thing is that?
The concept of absolute "nothingness" probably contains some sort of fundamental contradiction that renders the whole question meaningless...like the concept of a set of all sets that don't contain themselves.
Precisely. There is simply no such thing as "nothing". And why should there be? It is an abstraction... this negation of something. An asymptote. Same reason you can never realize absolute zero. It's infinitely unstable. You never get there.
It doesn't exist as a concept, because it isn't a form -- that's the contradiction. But it does exist experientially, which is why it is equated with the subjective pole of experience.
I disagree I dont think the idea of absolute nothing/nonexistence is contradictory or that it is abstract. Because you can ask the question of whether something exists in the context of other things existing. So it makes no sense to start from the idea that some stuff HAD to exist. I dont grant that premise at all.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Your comment brought up a reflection which I'll share, hoping it's of interest to you.
I believe you're talking about a relative nothing/nonexistence, rather than an absolute one. That's what it means when one has already granted the premise of things existing. Relative to that premise, that things exist, a certain thing can exist or not exist. That nonexistence is not absolute nothing/nonexistence. Absolute nothing/nonexistence is the negation of the premise that things exist, at all.
I say "premise" here because usually we take for granted that things "absolutely exist", without thinking much about what that means. Sure, they exist, but how, in which way? When try to answer the question, "why is there something rather than nothing" usually they don't specify exactly the way that that something, exists. We just know there's something here, because obviously. But they also don't specify what the "nothing" is that, they presume, could have been here instead of the something, or preceding the something. They have an * idea* about that nothingness, a kind of infinite nonbeing with no things ever, but this idea is built up from our *practical experience* of what "nothing" is, which is an absence. A tree was there, it is cut down, and now we feel it's absence. There's nothing there anymore.
But -- here's a main point -- THAT experience of nothingness is built up from our previous experience of somethingness. The premise existence has already been taken for granted and hides in the background. Then we make an imaginative leap from what we currently know about nothing. The problem is that this knowledge is not absolute nonexistence, but about relative nonexistence.
We actually don't have a proper intuition for absolute nonexistence. We may think we do -- the tree is gone -- but again, that's not absolute nonexistence, which would involve the state before/behind/prior to the premise of existence. Our minds cannot grasp that, only theorize about it.
This is why western philosophy has problems with the idea of something coming from nothing, because there's no apparent way to get to "absolute existence" -- the idea that things actually exist -- from "absolute nonexistence", that they don't.
But according to Indian philosophy, this understanding is making the category errors I suggested. It's not properly grappling with what absolute existence and nonexistence are or could be.
There are various ways to handle this problem. Buddhism refutes BOTH the idea of absolute existence and absolute nonexistence, defining both "existence" and "nonexistence" as different ways of speaking about the interdependent nature of seemingly existing things.
Hinduism, or at least Advaita Vedanta, is very descriptive about what the "something" actually is that we experience, locating it neither in material or consciousness, but in what is called the Self, which must be realized to be understood. It posits absolute existence (satchitananda), but teaches that the world as it appears is merely relatively existing, like a dream or an illusion. So "absolute nonexistence" here is the unreality of the world, as it appears.
This anyway, is my understanding of these views.
@@markcounseling That was a great read. I like to argue a similar point with things in that we're bound by our own limited perspective and experience with everything essentially. So therein lies the problem, which I think you stated. It's like when we imagine aliens, or alien worlds, they're still ultimately bound by some variation of pre-existing forms we already have an understanding of, however abstract or eccentric they may be, so there's always a limitation in how 'alien' they can really be. I like to think that something truly alien and/or true nothingness would simply be beyond our comprehension, so much so that if we experienced it somewow we wouldn't recognize it, let alone understand it. Similar to the limitation of our conception of nothingness, which is conceived, yet bound by our somethingness.
Regardless of this elusiveness, it's fascinating territory to contemplate and discuss.
It is 100% impossible that we are here….but yet we are. That is magic.
Who would ask the question if there was nothing?
:)
Simple answer to a stupid question. Should have a lot more likes.
The horizon of visible universe is delineated to us by the time it has taken for light to reach us balanced by the rate of expansion. We truly have no idea how large the universe actually is or for that matter how old.Why does energy exist is indeed a fascinating question. Surely millennia will pass before we're even close to understanding why anything at all exists.
My obligatory "Closer to Guth" comment
Haha, nice.
I was here, Gandalf. I was here, when this comment had only 12 likes.
I don't know you but I am pretty sure I like you. :)
We all appreciate your service o7
There are many answers to the question of why there is anything at all. The answers all have one thing in common: each one exists in and of itself as an answer to question. There is no alternative to existence from outside existence. For to be an alternative would to in and of itself exist. Recognizing the necessity of existence leads to the understanding that Nothing is not in opposition to existence but is instead a function of existence; that without existence there would not even Nothing.
I believe that all these brilliant scientists will one day meet their Maker, the greatest scientist of all time. Then they will get the answers to the questions that have perplexed them their entire life.
We hope so, don't we?
;)
In the words of Carl Sagan: "oops You do really exists".
@@MissAstorDancer That's the irony of it all. We all believe. Some believe in God the creator. Others believe that everything came from nothing. Of course the big bang is now being questioned because of this. Whether it's parallel universes, or string theory, or the universe had no beginning, its all FAITH based. The religions of God, or the religions of the Nothingness.
@@franciscoherrera1219 I dont think it can be called Faith if you are still striving to find true answers. It only becomes faith when someone says it is like this and somebody else just blindly follows. I dont think there is a true scientist in the world who would say they know how it all began but it takes Faith to say god/s did it and hang up your hat there
There is absolutely no evidence for a magical Sky Daddy.
"It's hard to even know for sure if we... if the word `before` is applicable" 8:19 Precisely this...
There just is. Matter and energy have always been, as are other things that we have yet to understand. We see the universe from our perspective and that has always been a limitation.
Always good to listen to Alan Guth
So by “nothing” he means “something”. And even if he truly meant nothing, then he would be saying it within the presuppositional boundaries of nothing that can be conceived of that is within his conceptual field. There are so many ontological questions that physics and philosophy can’t answer.
Yep, our presuppositional boundaries are the final, and unreachable, frontier. We can't go any further...
@@lukeskywalker7461 But, Luke, have you forgotten? You must strive to reach the SOURCE of the FORCE....there you will find your answer...
Well some just go right to "God did it", and call it the absolute truth.
@@moranplano A Jedi is wise enough to understand that that is impossible...
@@Bob-of-Zoid
"They go right to..." That is not how people get to believe in God. There are reasons and it is a plausible explanation.
Both sides must make an assumption to the "status quo" - the perpetual initial conditions. The god side believes that state is a conscious entity, the other believes is just energy. Energy alone can't produce information. This universe is an information system.
Simulation theory is proposed in theoretical physics.
Going straight to "there is no God" as absolute truth is irrational. You can't ever prove an existential negative for which you don't even know the necessary conditions.
"Pascal's wager" is the smart thing to do in this case. So yeah, people that go straight to God, are a bit more cautious.
Yeah, yeah, but "religion bad". No, that's fake news. "People bad", not religion.
I started asking this question at 10 years old and still astonished there is something.
My logic is, by default there should be nothing. Something either proves an intelligent reality or reality is like tv static - constant on and offs.
I really like this guy...smart, articulate, honest. I believe, without knowing it, that he is tracking on something resembling a Source....others would say...a Creator...just a thought.
What creates the creator? First cause is covered extensively on this program. The cosmological argument has glaring logical flaws.
@@robbiep742 If there is no one in charge the place should look like one where no one is in charge ,run down and messed up everywhere you look . It must be that someone took control before we arrived here ,nature is highly organized predictable and in part self sustaining ,a well organized zoo .
@@rovidius2006 if there's someone in charge, how did they learn to organize things in the first place?
@@rovidius2006 How can you find it so easy to imagine a single entity that has infinite power and knowledge? One we cannot even observe. What explains that absurdity's existence?
@@robbiep742 How do you get to organized if no one knows how to do it? If we evolve and self create why not so for our creators ? They get to have more rights ,right?
Long live democracy !
This is a very sensible conversation.
Even if we grant that the laws of physics existed 'before' the big bang, what creative power did these laws of physics actually posses? And even if we grant that they did - and by extension still do - possess these creative powers, what did they work with to bring about matter, energy, space and time from nothing? If the laws of physics could create a universe from nothing way back then, then why don't we observe them doing so now today? What was so special about back then?
I expect we operate on timescales irrelevant to the universe and whatever greater processes may be in play.
Why does the concept of existence exist? How does the concept of existence exist? Why is there anything instead of true nothingness?
Really is amazing that Allan can hypothesize how a universe came into being,we are wonderful creatures in situations like this,and to think about 100 yes ago we didn't even know the universe existed,mind blowing!!!!
An assumption that “the laws of physics existed prior to the universe” is a kind of an astonishing assumption. Basically you are saying there are parameters in place “prior” to the existence of space/time that are not anchored to or manifested by energy, matter or time - A non physical software program, so to speak, that facilitated the physical universe.
From my perspective it comes down to what was the first actual thing to happen? Given consciousness seems to collapse wave function potential into actuality - perhaps this catalyst for the origin of the universe is consciousness itself - whatever that may be.
Respect
That question is no different than the question of why. And the answer is the same: we'll never know. Certainly not in the form and arrangement of energy we call human.
@@allwheeldrive Our particular arrangement of energy seems uniquely compelled to ask why. That profound capacity to question has led to the emergence of religion, mysticism, philosophy, science and art. The answer may lie in the existence of the question. If the universe has evolved a life form that contemplates the mystery of its own origin then its logical to assume there may in fact be an answer within that life form. As Eckart Tolle said, “You are the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while.”
Perhaps the fundamental laws of the universe are such as they are (finely tuned for expressing conditions favorable for life and space/time evolution) because they are inexorably intertwined with consciousness and the emergence of life.
@@LiteShaper1 that quotes awesome, helps to not fear death so much. Also the quote "we arent humans who have spiritual experiences, we're spiritual beings having a human experience."
@@LiteShaper1 Everything is a maybe till it can be proved in the lab ,there is always a good answer for every question as impossible as it may seem .New laws of physics may be generated as we speak for someone to work on latter on ,everything is vastly unexplained even though most disagree .
A lot of people are starting to hypothesize that consciousness creates reality and maybe the universe only exists because you do. And maybe everyone else is a construct of our consciousness (isolationism) or maybe we're each our own universe. Who knows?
Robert is a great interviewer.
It's difficult to wrap your mind around the concept of creation because we think about everything in terms of time. "what was before", "what happened at the beginning" - but these questions make no sense when time itself is part of the thing being created. We have no mental reference frame outside of time
It does seem logical for me and important to objectively address reality without mysticism.
All I know is. And only is. I think; therefore I am.
The sages would say there "is and Isn't" both at the same time and place . This cannot be reasoned, this has to be experienced.
The rantings of a diseased mind. Disturbing to think such people were once held in high regard.
@@TheGuiltsOfUs How do you know that ??
@Brew Bronski There wouldn't be empty anything if there wasn't full or occupied ..one cannot exist without the other....again the truth is beyond concepts or maybe "Before" is a better word.
@Brew Bronski You're not understanding what I'm trying to say...It is and isn't at the same time !!
@Brew Bronski That's not what I'm getting at ...again this is difficult to put in words ..this is something that has to be experienced to understand ..our reality consists of concepts either something Is or isn't.. what I'm trying to convey is the phenomena before the concepts ,and word fall short .
There is something above the laws of physics which is above the human ability to understand. We have to accept that.
There are no "laws of physics", just agreed-upon" phenomenon. We have projected our ideas and maths onto an energetic Conscious universe, like blind men describing elephants and we believe we understand it. the best we can do is describe our apparent universe....
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
by Satoshi Kanazawa - an evolutionary psychologist at LSE
The Scientific Fundamentalist
@@dongshengdi773 I like evolutionary psychologists.
@@dongshengdi773 " Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."
Clearly you have zero understanding of what this means when you spit up nonsense like this gem of ignorance: "Science has never proven Anything. Everything is just Speculation."
Seriously, do you use a random phrase generator to make your posts? Because you exhibit no consistency or internal cohesion in your thought processes. And no courage in your convictions.
At least be an honest Theist. Stop sneaking around pretending to be rational.
Excellent interview, Robert great host as always
We don't just need the laws of physics, we also need mathematics and the incredibly finely tuned constants of nature. And I don't believe physics will ever answer these
To quote Kilgore Trout: “Why not?”
How did this dimension open up and get rooted into existence and then how did energy turn into matter to fill it , why is there equations and science behind everything, when is the last time a great explosion created something organized and functional like a habitable home with light running water and plenty of food and things to enjoy plus providing consciousness for us to take it all in
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy “( Hamlet)
Look at it this way, when we say nothing, it implies their must be something, because how could you have nothing without first their being something?
Because our mind can only deal with the finite, it has a very tuff time trying to imagine that there has always been something. That is why we really should understand that maybe it is not the tool that should be used for the infinite. The infinite is not material, but is in the material, it forms and tells the material what it should be and how it should behave. The infinite is using itself, what else could it use? For the infinite there is no time, time was created along with the universe. The infinite is ultimate superior consciouseness and is pure light, it is possible for us to experience it inside of us, but not through the mind, only when the mind is still can we experience it. It lies inside in the part of us which makes us human, as apart from a robot. We are not our brain, but our brain is a part of oure body which we possess. It is possible for us to go beyond thought, and enter the realm of the most beautiful, which when experienced makes us feel humble and quiet, it comes like an answer without words, it is the ultimate experience of any human being to have, it is knowledge of the true self.
All I know is that my auntie matters.
I like your answer a lot. Explains it all.
Family is important! I’m kinda partial to my Uncle Herbie….Good on you mate!
@@maverick744 I think it was an
awful physics pun lol but bless your uncle herbie all the same
Alan Guth and Laurence Krauss are my favorite
The conversation kind of misses the point. The question was "Why is there anything at all (instead of nothing)?" The conversation twists the question around into HOW something could possibly be created out of nothing, and it only manages to reduce everything to a "pseudo-nothing" or "almost-nothing" (i.e. empty space, which is not quite 'nothing' because it warps, stretches, etc.).
The frontier between physics and metaphysics is sometimes blurry.
Physics mainly describes the measurable part of the behaviour of the one and only instance of world that it can concretely study and measure. Namely the entity we observers are all part of: our universe. Measuring and finding repeating patterns ("laws; with a largely unspecified enforcer") is the measurable part of the story - not more and not less.
The set of questions physics studies is (said somewhat unpolitely) infinitely more narrow, than the sets one could classify under philosophy or mathematics, but exremely valuable for those fields and forms the solid base for engineering, thus even deeper measurement and insight.
Physics or physics research funding is in the tradition of making stuff predictable and repeatedly work... first more concretely interested in bread itself, than the Gods who may have created bread.
A lot of these videos are like that--they don't address the question in the title. The basic answer is likely two-part. One is that nothingness was never an option--there was always something, even if just the quantum vacuum with some underlying physics. The current universe arose from that in some probabilistic fashion. So, no reason, just that it could happen, and did.
Thank you for your honesty.
I appreciate his honesty about the fact that science doesn’t have an answer as to the origins of the laws of nature.
However, I do disagree with the part where he kept on saying that the question is not beyond the scope of science. I do believe it is for the following reason.
Science (at least as we understand it right now) is the use of the laws of nature (some regularity in the universe) to understand how the universe works and to discover more laws of nature.
That implies that science begins with a fundamental assumption of the laws of nature. Science, in principle, couldn’t work without such an assumption.
So, the question of the origin and existence of the laws of nature is by definition beyond the scope of science because of the simple reason that one can’t explain the origin of the laws of nature with the laws of nature themselves. Since science always has to fall back to the laws of nature for anything it does, it follows that science can’t explain the origin of the laws of nature.
For that, one has to turn to philosophy (meta-physics) and then to theology.
You are, I believe, incorrect. The Scientific Method allows for the redefinition of any 'law', including those of fundamental physics. Additionally, I believe Mr. Guth stated that we may, eventually, know the origins of these laws. Unstated, but implied, is that we may not.
There is answer to this in vedas and it is purely applied maths.
@@TheRealBozz
Your comment seems to be unrelated to what I said.
What does the “redefinition of a law” have to do with explaining the origins of the laws of nature?
The point I made was that science depends on a fundamental assumption of the laws of nature, in other words, science begins with the laws of nature. Unless you disagree with that, in which case, I would love to know your reasons.
So, it then follows that science can’t explain the existence of the laws of nature simply because you couldn’t explain the existence of something with the very same thing. You would have to appeal to something else.
Also, I know he didn’t say that science would definitely be able to answer it. He implied it was a “may or may not” situation. I agree with you on that.
However, the point I made was that it isn’t about a “may or may not” situation, the question is simply beyond the scope of science. It is not a scientific question and so can’t be answered by science.
@@sumedha1ster
I don’t quite understand. Could you expand on that?
@@charlesudoh6034 Or you could just ask him, has he really read the vedas himself. In modern conservative Indian rhetoric, it is assumed and propagated that Vedas contain all knowledge there is.
I've myself heard about numerous claims but presented with no actual evidence or related text. It's harder still to know by yourself as the texts are in old sanskrit and hence very inaccessible because of it. Also translation allows for so many interpretations that you can never be sure.
The problem is remarkably similar to the claims of the Quran. Or maybe any "old books of the peoples" in general.
What an incredible mind this ma has. The interviewer is also excellent.
There is something because nothing or nothingness doesn't exist. Everything what we know is something.
Now you think maybe dark matter and dark energy but if those exist those are also something.
There is one famous old song in Bollywood ..." Duniya banane wale ..kahe ko tune duniya banayi" . I guess this is one of the first question which would have come into human mind once he went conscious enough..and ironically..still unanswered. Ain't this amazing!!🤔🤔🤔
God wanted to be identified by us by his signs...thats only & only a single purpose of making this universe
Very humble understanding! And thought provoking.
This is Reality:
When an infinitely intelligent mind tries to resolve an impossible paradox.
Haha! To this mind, the impossible paradox is what, "Where did my intelligence come from?"
@Michael W haha how does it work? Any way I want, my reasoning creates it!
Where is this infinitely intelligent mind you speak of? And what is the impossible paradox?
@@carpballet infinitely intelligent mind is not in a place, place itself is created by mind. The paradox, or seeming one at least, is how did this mind begin.
@@No-oneInParticular Oh for Christ’s sake. Stop with the mumbo jumbo.
The question should be why is there awareness. I find it reasonable to assume that nothing exists without awareness to create it.
Right! The awareness is the mind of a living thing. Without life and the mind we will not know or see anything exist.
Well, this is highly speculative physics, so most claims can be objected by some logic, since there's no way anybody could do the required measurements and prove ides wrong. But it's not that simple, this is everything we know exist we talk about, so whatever somebody might come with as counterargument is also subject to examination. There are so many particles and energies, not many physicists can keep the entire picture in their heads.
Guth is one of those very few who solved the puzzle, the only one so far who broke sacred rules of a Big bang model. The global scientific community thought they have the perfect idea, but Guth managed to expand on their construct with the idea of inflation, by not braking any of the rules cast in a scientific model of creation. There's another one on his way, Sir Penrose with his cyclic model of creation, community doesn’t seem to be able to find a flow in his chain of reasoning.
So we have 2 and a half scientific gospels, carefully designed to explain how everything exist, according to all real world scientific evidence they could find. It took humanity tens of thousands of years to build up to a holistic vision of everything, i don't think many people can comprehend how marvelous that achievement really is. We went from purely subconscious, over imaginative, then subjective, and finally we have a material, mechanical description of... probabilistic creation or something, not sure how to call that blend of opposing concepts.
It started with no thoughts, then people begin to notice the world kinda exist and doesn't change much, leading to the idea of a process, a meaningful purpose to all this, then completely abandoning this idea and replace it with magical infinitely small energetic dots, emerging from arcane force fields, only to do the only thing they can do, being this entire universe. And particles are magical because they exist in infinite multidimensional multiverses, or Guth's model can't actually work. But it's OK, inflation is such a good idea scientific community gladly except something extra besides, space magic is still way better than Big bang creation without an inflationary stage.
Theory of scientific creation is so beautiful and powerful, nobody likes to go back in caves, afraid to be stomped by a giant foot from The Big Man living the sky. But belief in an infinite reach of the magical energetic entities, existing in other dimensions of reality, is not much better. The only good thing i can find is all that powerful magic and forces from another dimensions can't touch us, we're kinda separated by that great wall of space time. There can be no one eternal law above all laws, so all laws are meant to be broken, where one law ends another begins. The global scientific community is waiting for another hero, it could come as a man, but it could also come in a form of an intelligent machine, a mechanical prophet who will teach us how to punch another hole in reality and pull something out nobody in entire history has seen before.
You should write a meta review. Oh wait, this already is.
Why is guth's nothingness not really really nothingness it seems unsatisfactory
Our universe is not new- it comes from something that existed before it.
Is this your contribution to physics and or philosophy?
It seems impossible that everything came into existence from nothing, and it seems impossible that something existed forever in the past that might have caused everything to come into existence.
It seems there is no other possibility, yet both possibilities seem impossible.
Second option is logically possible
First option from "nothing" Nope
There's contradiction in 1option
@@mikhilsaju6929 They're both contradictory. If something must have a cause, then its cause must also have a cause. What cause could precede an eternal universe? Turtles all the way down.
Proposing something like an uncaused cause which conveniently though inexplicably defies that logic, and which coincidentally happens to resemble your religion's central anthropomorphic figure, seems too much like special pleading to be worth consideration, in my humble opinion.
Also imho, I think the problem is in our understanding of time. Probably "before and after" don't really mean what we think they mean.
Maybe time started in the middle and is "now" (so to speak) in the act of extending infinitely forwards and backwards. Backwards from the big bang means effects make causes - and it works the opposite way going forward. So you could pick any moment and everything would look okay, with causes seeming to precede effects from the vantage point of an observer moving forward - and vice versa, for observers moving backwards, if such could exist.
Or maybe a grumpy old Jewish God, who magically has no origin, did it.
The physical universe, including the pre-existing laws of physics, exist within infinite consciousness. Infinite consciousness transcends the laws of physics within our universe.
This is the ultimate question. I personally suspect it is the one that can not ever be answered.
Julian Barbour has the concept of the Janus point, essentially a big bang with both a positive and negative direction of time. The universe that headed in the negative direction behaves the same as ours in terms of causality...no tea cups self assembling out of shards of porcelain on the floor. To them, our universe is the negative universe. Richard Fineman famously stated that positrons can be interpreted as electrons moving backwards in time. Putting these two theories together explains the missing antimatter of our universe. All the antimatter is on the other side of the Janus point, heading in the negative time direction. That also means that matter and antimatter are the same, just heading in opposite time directions.
The Vedic tradition, many thousands of years ago, through the cognitions of the Vedic seers, said that all creation arises from the internal dynamics of a field of pure consciousness beyond time and space. And, just as Alan Guth posits, the Vedas proclaim that all the laws of nature exist virtually within that transcendent reality and are referred to as Smriti (memory). As consciousness, in the process of being aware of itself, remembers it's infinite dynamic nature within it's infinite dynamic silence. This explanation did not arise through the exercise of human intellect,, but, was the result of direct experience of this ultimate reality and the Vedas are not human creations but cognitions experienced as sound...the primordial, eternal vibrations of consciousness which give rise to all manifest reality. Funnily enough....string theory posits that all elementary matter and forces are creations of infinitesimal vibrating strings, so to speak.
All of the above. What is the point. Reasons. Validations. Science. Theories. Figuring everything out. In the end what does it all matter.
@@dawnpisani7465 What matters, is that this absolute field of pure consciousness can be known by any human being whose nervous system is functioning in the way it was designed. Having gained that status, a person exhibits the infinite energy, intelligence, creativity and bliss of that field in thought and action, thereby eliminating any kind of suffering for that individual and allowing that individual to be of maximum benefit for themselves and others. Scientific studies on people practicing systematic, Vedic techniques for developing consciousness...specifically Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, show that with regular practice, health, mental functioning, happiness and integrated personalities all improve in direct correlation to length of practice. You can see some of these studies at www.tm.org.
I think "why" questions might only make sense once you have a universe changing over time. So it might just be that there is no answer to why is there something rather than nothing and no good reason to expect one.
WHY would "why" questions (that Dawkins says are silly) only makes sense after you have a universe changing over time? And did you just abandon both science and reason?
@@jessebryant9233
Because ordinarily "why" questions relate to changes over time. What we're ordinarily looking for is reasons why the process went one way rather than another possible way.
It just maybe the question makes no sense outside of that context.
No I didn't abandon science and reason just thinking maybe science is confined to explaining change over time.
I would probably agree. In a 'timeless / tense less' universe, which is how Einstein and most relativists think of it, it makes no sense to talk about true nothingness. There was never a 'time' when the universe didn't exist, just as there is not a 'time' when it will end and no longer exist. In 4D spacetime, all events in time exist contemporaneously. Nothing ever changes.
Of course, the eternal block universe idea might be wrong. Lee Smolin and other 'temporal naturalists' think time might be fundamental and have interesting ideas about how the universe might have emerged and evolved.
@@stephenlawrence4821
Oh, you mean purely in the naturalistic/scientific sense, not any kind of philosophical way - like the kinds of fundamental questions we humans tend to ask about our own existence and purpose. Gotcha. But then, WHY is there something rather than nothing (no thing/the absence of anything)? The answer to that may very well be something science cannot provide and that might change everything! _Don't you think?_ But then, if nature is all there is, then ultimately, the answers don't matter anyhow. _How could they?_
@@jessebryant9233
On why we exist if nature is all there is then I wouldn't expect there to be any answer to why is there something rather than nothing. And why not just ask why this version of the universe is actual rather than some other version without human life?
On our purpose, the answers lie in philosphy of life. Cerrainly no answer will come from asking why is there something rather than nothing. I'd say the Buddhists are right, our purpose is to be happy :-)
Learning things like this should be the only thing on UA-cam instead of some girl showing her bits or some rapper showing a stack of money.
In summary: nobody knows anything about anything
and so we still sit in our caves, freezing to death, because nobody knows how to make fire.....hand axe not invented because nobody knows anything...too bad, if we only would know something.
But now we all know everything there is to know about nothing.
Wrapped up in nonsense dialogue
@@yvesetang8456 -- The dialogue is no more nonsensical than reality itself once we've drilled down to this level. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
We all now we exist 😊
'Why is there anything rather than nothing?' Is the equivalent of what is the meaning of life? A mind bender that Science, maths , philosophy, youtube vids etc will NEVER fathom. The non -answer isnt going to make our little lives any richer anyway
I'm 71 and I would love to hear the proper answer to this question before I shuffle off this mortal coil. How does existence come from nothing? It is a stupefying mind-fucking question. If the answer is beyond our physics then maybe the answer is only found after death. Something to look forward to.
How does existence come from nothing? The bible, the very Word of God has all the answers, but I must add that it's the only book that unless you know the author (God Himself), it'll be foolishness to you. Seek Him now before it's too late, sir.. you're soul is at stake. Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ, who said in John 14:6...."I am the Way,the Truth and the Life"
@@dannyboybabb3875 Sorry, not buying it. Saying 'God did it' is simply not explaining anything. Btw man wrote the bible, not god.
Amazingly, in your own body virtual particles are flashing in and out of existence all the time.
@@johnmurphy7316 At least we are lucky enough to live in an age when science is giving us SOME of the answers!
It's really easy, there is no such thing as nothing. Why? who knows... but why waste time thinking about it?
These are just astounding thoughts
He seems to imply here (at least as I understand it) that the laws of nature are all that is needed to create a universe. In other words, given certain laws of nature, a universe would follow.
The problem I have with that is the laws of nature themselves are not causative in any sense of the word. Laws are basically descriptive and predictive of things, not causative.
A blueprint of a building wouldn’t give rise to the building. The blueprint describes the building and could even be used to predict how the building would function but certainly can’t cause the building to be. The laws of nature can be seen as the blueprint of the universe.
To get a universe going, you need not just the laws of nature (the blueprint) but some causal factor as well.
and a lot of luck... An initial set could have give birth to a cloud of hydrogen ...to 3 atoms floating ... to an universe evaporated in few years.... So a pre existing fact (laws of nature) , a causation AND a perfect path (thats because the multiverse theory was invented) .... Perfect path include perfect values of many things (temperature, entropy, gravity ...)
@@francesco5581
Agreed
I’ve always been thinking the same ! Why there’s something? Why there isn’t nothing at all?
Still waiting for one of these "geniuses" to tell me where these laws of physics came from.
They were always there
Why are they talking about "almost nothing" as a starting point? Did the singularity contain "almost nothing"?
Why is it easier for us to imagine NOTHING than SOMETHING ? I think that is just how our figure/ground brain works.
It's much more easier to imagine something than nothing. For instance, try to imagine your experience before you were born.
@@AceOfSpadesX I should have said Infinite Something as opposed to Infinite Nothing.
1. Something can be produced.
2. It is produced by itself, something or another.
3. Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing.
4. Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself.
5. Therefore, by another A.
6. If A is first then we have reached the conclusion.
7. If A is not first, then we return to 2).
8. From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite.
9. An infinite series is not possible.
10. Therefore, a Creator God exists.
(We just have No way of knowing who or what He is because He resides outside our universe When He initiated the Big Bang)
Like a Computer programmer making a character inside a Computer.
Like someone who makes an Ant Farm or a Fish Tank but the ants or the Fish can't see nor investigate outside of the Tank .
@@dongshengdi773 But if that Creator seeks relationship with those who are within His Creation, and gave us a measure of free will in order to make that possible, do we respond ? Do we dance with Him and let Him lead us into new ways of knowing ? If not, why do we turn away ?
@@dongshengdi773 The obvious rebuke is "who/what created God?". The other objection is that something can conceivably exist without being created, such as mathematics. It's possible the laws of physics derive from such abstract reality, without needing to be "invented". More fundamentally, it is logical to posit that the bedrock of reality must be simple, i.e., made of very few and simple components. The concept of God is itself a very complex one, and would therefore have to be made of simpler "things". God (in the Western sense) is just not a very compelling hypothesis.
The more intelligent we try to sound the more ignorant we expose ourselves to be.. That you are able to utter questions is an answer. That you are aware, cognizant, animated, expressive, emotional are all answers. Al that is, IS, has always been and will always be. This is like listening to two babies babble, it's cute. Don't cry.
"Everything" began with an uncaused FIrst Cause (a Vibration of Awareness) that neither begins nor ends. Eventually that First Cause spawned other causes that shaped the metaphysical realm. The metaphysical then imagined the physical realm (including the laws of physics) and then caused the actual formation of physical matter/the multiverse.
"Everything"began with an uncaused FIrst Cause".. What a ridiculous concept, and notion to iterate.
This is more ludicrous and hillarious than saying "God has always existed".
@@franciscoherrera1219 Consciousness doesn't will itself into existence from nothing. So if one did believe in God, that God would have to have always existed. In a space outside of space and time.
Something I like to think about sometimes is how long the universe existed before there was human consciousness. All of this was here existing for millennia and nobody to appreciate any of it.
What an insanely glib and trivial thought and mentality.
"For this theories to work, it need to have pre-existing laws of physics"
A man if faith i see
@TheSystem the rule of God more precisely
@TheSystem it's a kind of platonic reasoning that i tend not to dwell on. I think of mathematics as an emergent tool, not as universal.
And let's us note that, for my understanding of phisics (and I'm not a specialist) although it works quite well, enough to replicate in our engineering projects with great success, we will always have to take all scientific work with a pinch of salt. As there is always some knowledge to improve upon.
Thus we call it science and not religion.
At this very moment there are competing theories, that also work quite well onto explaining reality, and some do not even require time at the most basic level.
And if it doesn't require time, or with time and space being an emergent property then all the laws of phisics utilized by this gentleman must be reinterpretated.
So to get better engineering at least.
So if the later theories are correct then this gentleman must make a choice of which theories he believes to preexist, so to make his findings correct.
And of course he was claiming about an existing balance he said we can observe between all energy, and thus reclaim as universal. But is it universal? Aren't all of those claims mere conjuctures? Because who knows what lies beyond what we'll ever be able to observe?
I think that he is probably well aware of this information, but this is a small conversation to inform people from his ideas, he has few time to go so deep. Sure, i won't be so obtuse as to look to deny him of more investigation, right or wrong (in my limited knowledge), the more people thinking and researching, the best it is for all of us humans.
The anthropic principle would be an effective counter argument but is unnecessary. It is sufficient to note that either a consciousness created the laws of physics or one did not. In either case, the notion of an active celestial entity is not supported by our understanding of our universe, is thus not necessary and is therefore irrelevant. Thank you Occam's Razor.
Also, invoking "God" answers no questions. Therefore, even if God exists, it is, once again, irrelevant to the discussion concerning the laws which govern how our universe transitions from one arrangement of particles into another. This is true for the 1st arrangement as well as all subsequent arrangements.
For these reasons, and many more, I will take an incomplete theory over "God does it!" any day. Your rebuttal sir?
@TheSystem One can still just experiment n come to conclude the validity of laws ..But still can't create the rules..So who let the dogs out🤔🤔
@@danielkanewske8473 Your God Does not exist. The same god of the Atheist.
To others it is the Creator God , because Everything we know has a cause as opposed to the fixed state universe especially because infinity Does not compute.
the initiator of the Big Bang.
The One who wrote the laws of physics.
the One who owns the Computer of This simulation.
He could just be a 5-year old kid from a super advanced Alien civilization, in his basement , who made our universe. ( Neil deGrasse Tyson surmised many times)
The Ultimate Observer of the first matter in our universe (quantum physics, collapse of the wave function)
The Source of the Life force
Consciousness, Spirit , mind , etc
The One who wrote the Instructions of every particle , every DNA
The One who made Time , Consciousness, And many non-physical elements that exist in the universe that we haven't discovered yet.
the First Cause
The unmoved mover
the Prime mover
etc
It’s one thing to ask that question… But it’s entirely another thing to feel that question. I feel that question every day and it drives me nuts.
Observe and appreciate all the things that exist including your feelings of curiosity.
I’ve always thought we are not yet evolved to the point where we can understand existence.
We will never be. Our very existence and the awareness of it is highly focused and exceptionally narrow. This 100% unavoidably-human problem will never go away. Everything we develop must start from our own abilities to interact with our surroundings: see, hear, think, smell, feel, intuit... We are finite in our structure, both physical and otherwise. The concepts of infinity and origin are functionally impossible to fully understand. We all hope once we "die" we'll get it. That really is the only possible scenario, and it's not a good bet.
Thank you to our host and guest of stature. Learned a lot. That is a profound question. And, before there was light, what was the law of speed?