As a child this question assaulted me many times, leaving me in a state of utter despair, terror and even feelings of vertigo! I had to just stop the thought else I don't know where I'd wind up. I was a weird little kid.
I envy those who are not troubled by such thoughts. For they can enjoy life to the fullest extent. In the end we all end up in the same destination. Our lives may all be worthless in the end but they are all we have whilst we have it. The worst thing you can do is descend into nihilism. In the end the old truth about enjoying life while we have it is all we can do.
Everything makes sense if you simply accept God created Man in his image, with a body & spirit, to live forever ... but ... only if he obeyed on simple rule/Law. Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things (of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & design. Religions are actually a Natural Phenomena and will always be observed because Man knows the origin of rules & Laws and things with clear function, design, purpose. Atheism is also a religion, but has simply replaced an "Almighty" intelligence ... with the theories, beliefs, opinions, ideologies of a "puny" intelligence called "human." Your struggles with this question are due to what you have been taught & believe.
You're asking the kind of question as a transient being is not out of Ordinary, if you're a robot likewise your name that question become irrelevant so sentences start with why how what are meaningless....
@@anxious_robot OK. Let me eloborate what I'm getting! We're already constructing A.. I.... with the help of Nano technology in future we might be able upload full genome of human structure, (Inc. Brain) into a higly develop machinery(quantum computers) then some how if all HUMAN POPULATION wiped out from the scenery, this super Androids will rule the roost, as they are indestracrable they will not asking questions begin with when how why etc.... So as far as they concern the perennial questions will be moot point or impertinent for them to be delved into. 'WHY THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING'
@@anxious_robot and its possible actual reality may belong to immortal beings and they can play down the laws of nature manipulate transient existence....
@@suatustel746 oh yeah isn't that what ray kurzweil advocates? uploading our brain into a computer. that would be cool. i hope it happens while i'm alive.
I like that this guy would at least recognize the questions and not try to talk around it. A lot of guests asked this talk around it or deny it. I'm fine if people say they don't know or even say we can't know, but to pretend its not a question is so annoying.
Exactly! he recognizes the question and no matter how hard it is to do he still attempts to answer it instead of changing the original question or simply disregarding it completely and talking around it
Whenever I ponder this question I end up feeling nothing but gratitude just for being part of existence. There could just as easily have been nothing. As rough as life can be sometimes, I’m glad it is there in the first place.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
@@vhawk1951kl I think I know what you’re getting at, but please don’t disconnect that one word from its context. Also keep in mind that English is not my native language so I am sometimes searching for the right words and no doubt use the wrong ones plenty of times. With ‘feeling nothing but gratitude’ I mean just that, experiencing thankfulness. Do you know how it feels to be so grateful for something that it’s almost overwhelming? That you could just cry because it strikes you at the core of your very being? That’s what I mean by that sentence.
There was never a first "something" because that would mean there was "nothing" at one point. This is the kind of thing that really lights my brain on fire. love it.
The answer is that space is infinite, has properties as an energy-wave medium, and that the energy-waves create a ‘particle’ effect. The ‘particles’ accumulate in ‘mass’ to produce what we measure as ‘matter’.. spaceandmotion
@@YMe-hp7hi No, government funded people with debts and 'needs' say otherwise. 'Science' can only reveal that which actually exists, regardless of any Human 'interpretation'. Why do people believe that 'experts' can know anything? 'Experts' are those strange creatures that believe they can cook the most delicious meals imaginable by using only the one ingredient that they just happen to have at hand..(and that someone else will pay them to keep repeating). Your timing is interesting, though..
The absolute worst answer I have ever heard to this question is that from Laurence Krauss. I actually bought his book, "Something from Nothing", which turned out to be a ramble, shackled by irrational adherence to the false notion that science can answer every question. I want my money back!
He books are rambling giberish because he not knows phich ,he abusurds untrue setence. It emerges he knows misticism like unicorn or plato Haven . Nerd challatan.
*"I actually bought his book, "Something from Nothing", which turned out to be a ramble, shackled by irrational adherence to the false notion that science can answer every question."* ... Sell it and buy my book. I ramble much more fluently than Krauss!
Only an intelligence ... has free will ... to think, believe, say & do as he/she wants .. do good or evil, .. and make abstract & physical constructs. Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things ( of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, function & design. Laws are made for a reason & purpose, and provide structure, direction, certainty & order to an existence. Laws are enforced by the intelligence that made them ... for an intelligence. Remove all Laws of Man .. and there would be complete chaos & disorder. Remove all Laws of Nature .. and there would be complete chaos & disorder. Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe. There is only two existences/realities: 1. Physical -- where matter & energy must obey the Laws of Nature within time & space. 2. Non-physical -- domain of the MIND of an intelligence. Man's mind is believed to only be the physical brain, but this is false as Man's brain has clearly been "fine tuned" to separate the MIND & consciousness of Man from that of animals especially the Chimp which shared 99% of Human DNA. The Mind of an intelligence ... is non-physical ... and eternal. This is the only way to use the Laws of the Physical, to prove a soul/spirit, angel or demon and of course .... God. Everything in the Universe comes from the MIND of an "almighty" intelligence. Religion is a natural phenomena where Man has always known that Universe has an Unnatural origin by a very very powerful intelligence. Atheism is also a religion, but has simply replaced God & Bible ... with ... Theories, Ideologies, Methodologies, beliefs & opinions of the only known intelligence in the Universe. smh. Man has always known that there is a supernatural existence & intelligence like Man who made it all. This is who most people today & in the future will always believe in "the gods." Either all the religions are wrong about the identity of the Creator ... or there is one religion that has the correct answer. Again. An intelligence makes Law .... for a reason ... for an intelligence ... and enforces the Laws otherwise there will be chaos & disorder. There is a a reason why the greatest Man in all of History ... is a Jew .. who said he is the promised messiah and Son of God ... sent by his Father to be a sin sacrifice ... to save the eternal souls of anybody who believes ... from God's just nature to punish all who sin ( break The Law). Man has free will ... to think,believe say & do what he/she wants ... about Jesus Christ or Yeshua ( Salvation). Make your choice.
I love the question as put by Dean Rickles; “why is there existence at all?” I find this question fascinating. I suppose for an atheist it might be a bit “bedeviling” but for those who know God and know His purpose for things then this question is not necessary at all. To simplify the question we could look at a sneeze, indeed just a random sneeze on its way across the room. Scientifically we could calculate its velocity, how many droplets of moisture there are, we could even deduce from where in the room it started. But unless scientists are willing to say that the sneeze originated from someone who did the sneezing then the question of “where did it all come from” will forever plague humanity. Sneezes do not arise on their own and nonexistence does not bring forth reality. Robert, I believe you are indeed getting closer to truth. I pray that you will arrive there one day. -John
This is the one, the question that has haunted me for years. It comes and goes, that overwhelming weight, that comes with this question. It happens to be heavy on me lately. An ultimate feeling of futility also accompanies this question. But maybe that's just it...in a very abstract, non-logical way, maybe that's the...something...The weight of the unknown and eternity.
I used to think a lot about this question in my childhood through pre teen years and have always been somewhat of a thinker....im 37 now and my conclusion is that i dont think we are supposed to know...this is why we keep getting new and perplexing discoveries..as if the architect or creator of our reality adds another layer right as we get to the edge of a new understanding...
I'm 37 too and after years of chasing dragons down various rabbit holes, only to always end up back at square one...I've come to precisely the same exact conclusion.
@@SmConnally1984 thanks for sharing...do you know why you thought about this question?...i have had another question that is why do i think of these deep questions and not just go about life like most people...not watching documentaries or reading books and thinking and thinking....the best as i can tell one of my earlierst memories arround 3yrs old sitting by grandmothers knees and she is telling me that she will eventually die and that we will all die eventually...she made me cry because she was my world...i was raised by her...and i just dont know if that really was traumatic or just for me...in other words was i too young to know of death? When do most people experince the sense of loss?...anyways have to keep this short...
@@HIRED7DAYS I had a similar experience, ironically enough. I found a family friend, dead, when I was 4 years old. I didn't know people died. I had no way of thinking that. The family friend was old and I just thought he was asleep. I touched his hand and arm, tried to wake him up. He was stiff and cold. Anyways... later that day, when my dad got home from work, he had to sit me down and explain me, as best he could, what happened and what wi happen to us all. He said we all grow and age and eventually, our bodies get tired and we pass away. He told me that's why I had never met his mom, since she had passed a year before I was born. He told me that he would die, my mom, me, everyone, eventually...and that he didn't know for sure what would happen to us. He said he pictured it like going into a dream. I panicked and freaked out. My 4 year old mind somehow came too close to reckoning the weight of it all and I flipped out. All these years later, all the doctors and therapists agree that this was the planting of a seed that would grow in me forever. So yeah, we probably ask these questions for very similar reasons. And that's just the beginning for me, so much more has happened. It all plays a role.
@@SmConnally1984 This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
If you will forgive me because this question may not ever have occurred to you, what exactly do you mean by think or thought? Who are what is "we"? - You and who else in particular or specifically
For the premise, I always thought about it as needing to define nothing. What is nothing? Something that can't be measured, and is essentially below the plank scale, that bears no consequences. So you can have a partial quantity pop into existence, that violates no physical laws. That partial quantity must, however, be part of an overarching structure. Thus any associated quantity must take a null and infinite value. In doing so, almost all these quantities cancel themselves out, because their counter opposites spontaneously exist as well. There must be, however, instances where these quantities cannot cancel themselves out, and thus take off into infinity, or such a large operation that it appears to be infinite. So my thought, is that existence is the mathematical structure of infinities, only one of which we experience.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
An interesting and intelligent question but as with all "what is" questions, there is only one way to approach them, and of course because you are capable of asking interesting and intelligent questions, you don't need me to tell you. The important thing is to ask "what is" questions - just so long as they are alive for you, rather than contrived or entirely artificial questions, as asinine as the question posed in the video, which has to be just about the most asinine question is possible to ask- It doesn't even begin to question the premises of the question itself and it is precisely that which makes it asinine, contrived, artificial, and arbitrary.
@@vhawk1951kl I've been of the mindset, lately, that one needs to define terms that they speak of, or they speak of nothing at all. A thing can be discrete by its nature, but one should still have to show why that is. If I say I believe in God, and in the next breath say by his vary nature he cannot be defined, I speak of nothing, and thus have no belief. Just a statement with the word belief in it. That's not to say anything on God, or anything, because I don't know, but it frustrates me to see so many people freely talk about truths he or she can't prove, and create real world conflicts with those fake truths. That is truly asinine...
"Nothing" is both a universal (and all universals can only be imaginary) *and* what I call a Blurb, which I use as a particular term of art and thus attach t it a particular equivalence or meaning, with which I will not trouble you unless you specifically ask me to do so. Whether or not blurbs are as imaginary as universals and similar in nature, involves enquiring into - or peering into the fog or miasma of the associative apparatus , and quite what instrument one might use to go about that, I would be interested to learn of your opinion or the results of any investigations that you have made of it. By Plank, I'm going to guess that you refer to one Maximilian Planck, who I'm told was a German guesser. Because "nothing" is self-evidently a blurb, it follows as the night the day that whoever employs any blurb simply cannot possibly have any idea what he means by it, because that is what a blurb is - by definition (or certainly my definition) is, namely a word/image/idea that conveys nothing whatsoever to whoever employs it, and from my own research and experience, much of which seems to involve using a mirror to examine itself( or possibly reflect itself) the associative apparatus of men (human beings) or what appear to be creatures roughly similar to myself( although I have no way of determining whether or not or how similar they are), appears to be populated almost entirely by blurbs, or, as is said, littered with them, if they do not themselves constitute the fog or my asthma. I have to say that I wonder quite how or why anyone might come up with, or arrive at, such an asinine question as "why is there something rather than nothing ?" - Other than as a result of boredom or some sort of narcotic or perhaps just simply a form of psychic cinque contra uno.
@@vhawk1951kl My guess is that what you call a blurb is what physicists call emerging properties. Like when you started talking about creatures. Really what you have are the natural elements, in motion. What emerges from that pattern of motion is what we consider life and us. Regardless, I think your overall statement is too complex. I think you must think about it in simplest terms as possible. The definition of nothingness is all you need to create existence. The side note to that, would be that what exists, are those partial quantities. They cancel out mostly, but due to emergent properties, they become separated from their counterpart and cannot cancel out. So all you really need is a definition of nothing, and hold that any existence must have a total intrinsic value of zero. My guess, is that entanglement happens below the quanta, or whole property a full charge. It would be the combination of superposition and entanglement that bring about the emergent property. There have been some math papers on this. I'll give it a shot, but I am sure I'll mess this up a bit, but hopefully the idea in general is received. Let the definition of nothing be anything that is not measurable and has no consequence (remember there is evidence for this with virtual particles, though not exactly how people think, but I'd have to go back and study Feynman Diagrams to explain it). Regardless, let that be the definition. So you can have a partial quantity, but it must exist in a whole set. Time and space is not part of this set, just the quantities, or bits or widgets, whatever you want to call them. If represented in a vector, those quantities must take all values possible, so it would look like: That vector would exist on top of itself in an infinitely cancelling out at all points. Under the right pattern, maybe due to entanglement, one property could mirror another, and you get a dead spot in the ability for a quantity to cancel. At which point to revert back to cancel you need to interject a small amount of space and time. The 2 point become separated, and enough of these separated points become a whole, and move in a quantum foam in random ways. One of those patterns flattening out and taking off in what Alen Guth called Eternal Inflation. I will note that Guth does not validate any ideas of information like this being the most fundamental component. Neither does Sean Carrol, both of whom are much smarter than I. Max Tegmark does believe that information is the most fundamental component, but he has never been specific in the sense of giving a proof. There is also an Israeli mathematician with the last name Azizi, but it's been 15 years since I looked up that paper and cannot find it now. Regardless, all those names are worth looking up. They are the ones that will be known in centuries to come. I'll throw Susskind in there. He and Guth put their class lectures online. It's worth watching.
Why? Can you define it? I think you can. I'll post what I stated before For the premise, I always thought about it as needing to define nothing. What is nothing? Something that can't be measured, and is essentially below the plank scale, that bears no consequences. So you can have a partial quantity pop into existence, that violates no physical laws. That partial quantity must, however, be part of an overarching structure. Thus any associated quantity must take a null and infinite value. In doing so, almost all these quantities cancel themselves out, because their counter opposites spontaneously exist as well. There must be, however, instances where these quantities cannot cancel themselves out, and thus take off into infinity, or such a large operation that it appears to be infinite. So my thought, is that existence is the mathematical structure of infinities, only one of which we experience.
@@firstaidsack No, because people get the idea of the observer wrong. Nothing is simply anything that doesn't have an intrinsic value. As far as we can tell the intrinsic value of the universe is zero. I also don't think consciousness is anything special, there has to be a mathematical definition to consciousness. We define what something and nothing are, we need to stop doing that and let existence define it. Besides, existence doesn't care what our definitions are.
@@travishalvorson6377 Consciousness is as special as what we call "zero" or the middle/center. All of them are both something and nothing at the same time.
@@Jarell1661 That negates the idea of wave function collapse, the way you said that. At a quantum level you are correct, but the true nature only comes about once all variables can be fully known in the classical sense. The idea of intrinsic value being zero, means that those variables, both positive and negative, would cancel themselves out if brought together, but due to emergent properties are separated enough not to be cancelled out for at least a period of time. Conciseness must exist in the state of known variables. Otherwise, it would encompass all states, and you could possibly have memories of other existences, simultaneously to your most relative state. Thus it must be in one state at a time - observed by our own conscience experience. Does the state revert back? I don't know. Alan Guth shows that we are in a universe with eternal inflation, this might be proven soon if primordial gravitational waves are found. And, though Sean Carrol and Alan Guth have stated they believe the universe will expand forever, I wonder if the speeding expansion doesn't just lend itself to our universe expanding so quickly that it ends up matching the inflationary epoch of what we call the big bang (really just the inflationary epoch) and in the process erases everything that is current, to just only rebuild new just as before. I still haven't heard a good argument from Guth or Carrol on what it means if all mass converts to pure energy and there is essentially no more clocks and thus a way for the universe to measure itself, and while I don't believe it is a cyclic cycle as Penrose imagines, I don't see why we wouldn't see a full destruction of what is, and a full birth of what will be... Not rebirth. A brand new birth, with no past associated to it... (though technically we would never see that, and any future you or us would be exactly as we are now - it's not like there would be a ID in a database that matches up to an older instantiation - it would be as original an instantiation as before, since technically there was no before_.) The point being, we could have had this conversation an infinite number of times, but truly only one time, since those past times would no longer exist in a real sense, they are destroyed fully, and thus existed, but have no past or relative structure. Truly not existing, just as at some point we won't truly exist just as those states don't (calling them past states doesn't make sense, since there exists nothing and thus no relative state that can be compared to our current state), so only the current state exist, and will exist again, but is not relative to the future or any past state in any way, since those states truly are nonexistent, between nothing were emergent properties keep values from canceling at the moment. It's like a data structure, where the pointer is cut off from the previous set of nodes, and the new set matches fully the old set, but the old set is truly erased, along with any pointers to it or from it. Meaning the old set now has no cause or effect on the supposedly new set in any way. Thus only one set. You must not think of it in terms of time either.Time would be the pointer, and emergent. Thus, once time is cut, it has no bearing on anything. Which makes me wonder if time and gravity are truly and fully just emergent, and thus there is no quantum solution for either, since both are what bring us from the quantum state, into the classical state we experience. Thus, no definition for quantum gravity. Only a definition for how quantum states interact to form an emergent gravity/time. This to me is interesting, since that idea would also keep entropy from ever having to revert. Since it would just be destroyed, and a separate set, equal to the first but not having cause and effect from the first, would have it's own entropy, not associated with anything.
I don't comment often but this clip really got my braincells tickled. I love it. Thank you so much, Robert. Keep searching. You are not alone on your quest.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
I think this is a very important question. I’m glad this guy takes it seriously and doesn’t try to dismiss the question. His suggestion of using mathematics is quite interesting.
@@johnhoolihan9452 Very well, you are merely confirming to me the you have not the faintest idea. I have to say that comes as no surprise to you me because the question is utterly incoherent both to you and everybody and anyone else. Had I any idea that your sensibilities were so delicate, and your amour propre so fragile, I might perhaps not have been so forthright Why is X important is a simple enough question which few but shrinking violets and hothouse flowers such as yourself would encounter any great difficulty in addressing. Why is there something rather than nothing?" Is self evidently an arbitrary contrived and asinine question - not to say and utterly incoherent question, little little different from where is the where the where the where?, and that is plain to all but the meanest of intelligences I merely asked you why you supposed that asinine question to be what you call "important", which was a reasonable enough question was it not? The long are short of it is that in your little tantrum you tell me that you have not the faintest idea how or why it is important which is no more than what anyone would have expected - if not the tantrum which latter are generally reserved to the few rather than the many.
The question was why is there anything at all?...why is there something rather than nothing. His argument consisted of arguing that you cant get "to" nothing "from" something, which was NOT what was asked...he defined an irrelevant term.
There is an easy solution to this: 1) Possibility is defined by the limitations put upon it. Specifically, there needs to be some law, rule or restriction to make something impossible. This is called the Totalitarian Principle: “Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory.” 2) If there was “nothing”, then by definition there would be no laws, rules or restrictions-thus possibility would be infinite. All things that could happen would happen. 3) We find ourselves in one of the infinite multiverses born out of that infinite possibility. There is no fine tuning or skillful creation, quite the opposite. We are here because this multiverse is conducive for us to be here. This is the Anthropic Principle.
After years of studying philosophy, I'm starting to think the answer to this question can never be known because the answer is beyond human comprehension. We should instead focus on learning to love each other and trying to make the world a better place for everyone. Easier said than done I know but just my 2 cents.
I’ve come to the conclusion that existence has no beginning and no end and that’s just a brute fact. Existence itself is where the shovel hits bedrock.
@@brandocommando7079 “no beginning and no end” doesn’t imply “brute.” Feser’s 2017 defense of PSR would apply to existence itself, although reasonable people can disagree about what qualities can be deduced of this foundational aspect of existence.
Smith Not just human comprehension. There may be life out there that is millions even billions of years more advanced than ours and I would propose that this question is beyond them as well. This argument about something from nothing is just confusing the issue. The problem of infinite regression can be understood by a child. Even the greatest of philosophers cannot say much more than a child can. Religious people may try to wiggle out of the problem by suggesting a spaceless and timeless and immaterial creator that somehow created itself. But most of them do it to justify believing in their particular god. Most people put the idea there is no answer and there cannot be an answer to the backs of their brains because its almost too much to handle.
What you mean by "the universe? You have not the faintest idea? - This my left pocket bets my right pocket you are about to demonstrate or illustrate by signally failing to set out exactly what you mean by or how you define "the universe", and you cannot because it is a blurb - A word/idea equivalent of an unfocused photograph. I should tell you that you can't define anything by reference to cognates and/or synonyms or psychological algebra or X=Y=X, or simply substituting for one undefined term another undefined term or a series of undefined terms, or substituting for one unfocused photograph another unfocused photograph or lots of unfocused photographs, So there is your challenge define or set out what you mean by universe without using any other undefined terms or cognates or synonyms. You are about to demonstrate that you cannot meet or satisfy that challenge, because like everyone else you cannot focus an unfocused photograph, and thus you have absolutely no idea what you mean by "the universe" without reference to cognates and synonyms or psychological algebra- Or circular definitions such as X is a Y sand all Y's are X's-- and you cannot stand on your own shoulders or jump over your own knees either.
we as what we call humans are absolutely obsessed with putting everything into words however on many occasions what we seek is beyond words and beyond our somewhat limited thought process we need to go beyond words and beyond thought so we can connect with who and what we really are.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
Why are you "obsessed" with "turning everything into words"?- Or by "we", do you mean Anyone *but* you yourself? Given that there are several billions(Supposedly) of what you call "humans", how many of them have you canvassed that you are in a position to speak for them all? Behold the pitfalls of universals
@@maxwellsimoes238Lots of misspelling in your commentary, yet you want us to agree with you in calling a philosophical viewpoint "stupidity". "The existence of numbers are a necessity"...sounds pretty scientific to me.
He did answer the question. His answer is there is something rather than nothing because it can’t be any other way. I came to the same conclusion myself a while ago. On top of the fact that the argument becomes circular if you try to explain why there is something rather than nothing. I had realized The question seems deep only because it presupposes nothingness is the default state. Hence the fact that there is something requires an explanation. Au contraire, look around and it becomes obvious that existence is default state. We can’t even conceive of nothingness. What would actually requires an explanation is nothingness.
He said there is a non-physical existence before the Physical came to be. There are only two known existences/realities: 1. Physical -- with matter & energy obey the Laws of Nature 2. Non-physical -- the "eternal" domain of the MIND of an intelligence. Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe ... with free will ... and can make physical & non-physical constructs. Most have assumed Man's MIND is only the physical brain but this is not so because Chimps have 99% of Human DNA but can not think or do 1% of what Man's mind & body has done. Man's mind can only make abstract constructs. Man's body make physical constructs from the abstract. Man has always known of a supernatural existence & possessing a spirit form ... because only an intelligence like Man ... makes Laws of Nature and everything in the Universe with purpose, form, function & design. Is there a religion that has an "almighty" intelligence, making the Universe for Man, made Man in His Image, made Man with a body & spirit and to live forever ... so long as Man obeys one simple rule? Only an intelligence ... makes a Law ... for a reason .. for an intelligence .. and then enforces it.
This is my thinking as well. We may never now, like a fish in a bowl. Probably existence doesn't have a cause, like the absolut root fact of cause and effect. Perhaps, complete nothingness is an impossibility hence existens just is.
i thought about that and came to the same conclusion which is kinda fulfillling in a sense. Nothingness is a just a hypothetical and even the hypothetical is not really "nothing". Existance needs conciousness to literally make sense, "nothing" is not a thing.
Thumbs up for recognizing the importance of consciousness. Not many are able to make that link. I would like to follow on that and state that consciousness IS existence (or at least a part of it)
I'm 72 years old and have a good memory. For a long time, I have tried to reach the meaning of nothingness, of existence etc., through trying to remember my very first moments of consciousness, lying in a crib, in a certain room with the first feelings (or pre-feelings) that emerged at that particular time. But I'm not going very far, it looks like piercing a hole towards nothingness.
The thought goes through my head every day how crazy all this is. Is consciousness fundamental? Or is this just some weird emergence? Also, consciousness is either confined only to earth or consciousness is abundant in the universe. I don’t really see how it could be any other way.
This discussion reminded me of three things: 1. The show Counterpart 2. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem - specifically that some truths exists that cannot be proven. So the proof necessarily cannot exist. Doesn’t mean other things can’t exist. But does it allow that in other worlds (i.e. systems of math) such a proof might exist? Or is the proof nonexistent in all possible worlds? 3. Cantor’s infinity argument. As I understand it, Cantor proved that some infinities (such as real numbers) are greater than others (such as integers). To me that implies a nonexistence argument - a missing mapping between the two sets. But not only missing, it can never exist. These all seem to be counterfactual or alternate possibilities arguments. But at least given the reality we perceive, the idea of total nothingness seems immediately disproved. Even if our reality is a simulation, that simulation exists etc. As in the cogito ergo sum argument by Descartes.
When you say "proven", proved or proven *to whom*? and to what standard, and what*exactly*do you mean by "proof" and equally*exactly*, proved or proven *to whom*?-You, or some specific identifiable other?
@@andyschultheiss5128 *"It means nothing."* ... And yet others will claim, "It means everything." The reason why this ends up as opposing determinations is because one determination offers clarity for the other.
Ever since I first seriously contemplated the question many years ago in my 20's, I hypothesized that that a state of nothingness cannot exist--not just because of the physical laws in our universe, but as a more foundational notion. There always must be something. The only reason I can think of for this notion is probability--the probability for something to exist is exponentially greater than the probability for nothing to exist. But that reason is not completely satisfying to me. It presupposes that probabilities always exist, that probabilities are the ultimate foundation of existence and preclude the existence of a state of nothingness.
There are 3 notions: 1) Some-thing 2) No-thing 3) Existence I think you are confusing 3 with 1 and 2. You see 1 and 2 are opposites and number 3 is something entirely different.
@@youssefalaoui4286 but aren’t 1 and 3 the same? i mean it’s either existence or not. if you have “Something” you have existence and if you have existence you have something. it’s either all of existence or nothing. what he is saying makes complete sense
@@albertaoridge Some-thing is a “thing” by definition. I don’t think existence has to be a “thing”. In other words; it’s not “an existing thing”. Analogy; It’s like sleep and wake state which are 2 states. Now death doesn’t have to be either, it can be a third state.
'Seriously' is the state where understanding is achieved.. We either have the will to understand, or it is lacking, and some 'other' agenda is occurring.. Answers are commensurate with the quality of the question.. spaceandmotion
It's curious that so many of us are surprised by there being "something" rather than nothing. In other words, it's curious that many of us assume that "nothing" ought to be the default state, in some odd sense of "ought" (in the first place, the default state of ...WHAT?). I think there's something wrong with the initial question: it may be another case of a question where there's a "category-mistake" made. On the other hand, it may be sensible to seek scientifically for echoes or hints a source or "cause" of the Big Bang (Physicist Paul Steinhardt has done this in his book with Neil Turok, ENDLESS UNIVERSE (2007), as well as in some "Closer To Truth" interviews here on UA-cam with Robert Kuhn). Hats off to Robert for bringing so many excellent presenters of these topics to us.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
What's mind boggling is the stupidity of academics and atheists. Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things ( of the Universe) with clearly purpose, form, function & design. Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, with a clearly fine tuned to separate the MIND of an intelligence from those of Animals. All Law come from the MIND of an intelligence ... has a purpose, reason .. brings structure, direction, consistency & order ... is made for an intelligence ... and is enforced by an intelligence. Man has known for thousands of years that the Universe has an unnatural origin by an intelligence, more powerful than Man. Religions are a natural phenomena, will always be observed, obeys the Laws of Nature and has a scientific explanation. Atheism is also a religion but has simply replace "the gods" with the theories or ideologies of a "puny human" intelligence. And only the Jews & Christians have identified the "Almighty" intelligence that obviously made everything ... is will be enforcing the Laws that have been broken by Man, in due time.
in a sense "nothingness" is seen by ppl as an easier status thus suggesting its >EXISTANCE< but in reality EXISTANCE is the easy scenario because nothingness is just a conceptional human error - quite literally the deepest of all.
Sometimes I sit and ponder the thought of true nothingness. As I delve deep into the trail of thought. It gets scarier and scarier to ponder to me. Imagine nothing existed. There is no creation to give thought and there never will be. Not a single molecule. Now if you get yourself there. Stay there for a bit and let the thought of nothingness sink in, if you can. This is where I began to ask myself unusal questions about existence. I wonder if you would too. Or am i just crazy? lol.
God is the necessary existence that is not contingent upon anything else.Once you have gotten over that, life becomes much less crazy. Alhamdulillah for Islam
If the Big never Banged, if "nothing" existed, not a single molecule, would 1+1 still equal 2? What about Truth, would it still exist? What about statements like "nothing exists," would it still be the truth even if there was no knower to know the truth?
1. If things could be otherwise? No. Because then you’re back to where you started having to explain why something happened one way and not another. That reason has a reason. So that’s never gonna work-and a professor / philosopher would know that. Now… Question: Why is There Anything at All? A. An absence of ‘all’ things would include ‘the absence of all things.’ That’s a something. B. To go from an absence of all things to something would require a reason. That reason is a something. To a specific something has a reason. We now have another something. C. You only need one assumption (which was already granted in the dialogue): Impossible things are, well, impossible. Paradoxes are impossible. ‘An absence of all things’ would constitute a paradox. Therefore, ‘the absence of ‘all’ things’ is impossible. There simply must be something.
Another way to think about is: in order to explain anything, we must put it into a context and/or explain how it emerges from simpler structures. So... the problem is: as soon as you explain something... now you have to explain THAT thing. For instance, if you say God did it, then you ask: "Where did God come from?" What we're looking for is something that doesn't need to be explained: the most basic thing which forms the foundation of existence itself. We can skip ahead to the conclusion that existence exists, just because we are here. After reading a lot of Max Tegmark, I think about it like this. There is a type of existence that exists without any substrate. Some words to describe that kind of existence are: IDEA, CONCEPT, MATH. This is the existence of things that are simply TRUE. If an idea is TRUE, it exists. We have a gut feeling that nothingness should exist, because it would be simpler than existence, and simpler things are more likely to exist than complex things (at least that's our experience). We can get around this by imagining that, a universe where nothing exists, DOES exist, except, it doesn't exist HERE. The world of ideas, perhaps, has a certain structure to itself.. ie 1 is next to 2.... red is next to orange... etc... and so... Nothingness... is perhaps... at the very "center" of everything that exists... but all the interesting stuff happens everywhere else. :)
I believe existence is inevitable because the alternative "is" non-existence, which "is" by definition not a thing and cannot last so something must replace, or rather "place" a state of non-existence instantaneously in the form of quantum fluctuations or otherwise.
I think the problem is because we use "there" as a part of question. When we say "there" we refer to the space-time, where the space-time is the object itself. If we take a simplest possible mathematical object - the point, we can see that this object has no structure, and if the point is in the blank dimension, there is no space for other point. "there" in the question is a hidden statement.
Hmmm. Why is THERE something, rather than nothing. I see. That could be the problem right there. What is the alternative? Maybe "Why something, rather than nothing?"
@@rayfletcher8759 I think the question why it's the logical question, which presume the existing of the deterministic reason, while the beginning point has no reason by the definition. If it's correct, then the logic cannot be applied for the description of the starting point. Some people put a god above the world to solve the problem, but this trick introduces the problem of a god's existence, just shifting the problem on the one level up. There are three solutions, that I was able to find. The first one is that all mathematical objects are alive by themselves. The second one is we live in the multiverse. The third one that the universe collapses and rises infinity times. As a person with the positive scientific word view, I do prefer to answer "we don't know, but we will solve this puzzle"
Have you noticed how what would appear to be human beings have in their associative apparatuses what can only be called Blurbs - vague dreamy generalised unfocused associations? - Exactly like out of focus photographs and it is impossible to determine of what any one of them is a photograph? Their associative apparatuses are apparently littered or full of blurbs like universe, world, meaning, exist own, thought,think, believe, feel, nothing, everything...., and I'm sure you can add any number of blurbs to the list?- A Blurb being for my purposes -or defined by me as, any word/idea/image that the user of it simply has no idea what it means, or if it were a photograph, of what it is a photograph. No doubt you would cite to me the following from Lewis Carroll: "When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things?” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master?-that's all.” And I would adopt the assertion of Humpty Dumpty. The question is merely a random jumble of blurbs, or another way of putting that is, gibberish and asinine artificial and contrived gibberish. Is pretty much a standard approach in all examples of academe, never to accept the premises of any question. Did not occur to you to challenge or question the premises of that gibberish question?
"In the midst of the word he was trying to say, In the midst of his laughter and glee, He had softly and suddenly vanished away- For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."
It all relies on the fact that Absolute Nothing simply can never be. It means there can only "be" something. And only a singlular something, at that, since "nothing" can not separate this something in any way shape or form, or else it would be an "it" and something. There "Is" and that is the all of it. Things like size and distance and any "border" between two things, when looked at through the idea of a singular something, all break down into illusions in the face of this concrete fact. Somehow, this singlular "thing", which should have no definition whatsoever, in any way, has yielded what we are experiencing. The fact that there are "things", plural, that there is a you and I and stars and distance and anything, does not match the fact of there being only one something, yet, there is. The illusion is. And that's pretty wild.
Nothingness has no laws that prohibit something to replace nothing. The replacement of nothing by something isn't facilitated in any way. It is just possible in the sense that it is not impossible. And there is no waiting time for the possibility to be realized, because there is no time in nothingness.
Isn't anything that can't be measured and that bears no consequence nothing? We see this with virtual particles for example, which cancel out due to their counter part. If you can define nothing in that way, why can't you have these inconsequential bits be there? They by themselves are nothing, but once they start to "entangle" and they also start to develop emerging properties, maybe then you get what we consider something???
If we approach this question in the other way around trying to find something that could turn into nothing and when I say this isn't any kind of shape of Lavoisier premise such E= mc^2. What I'm trying to refer is some kind of phenomenon that makes possible the lost of information and when we go along this journey we fall in black holes. With Hawkins radiation all the black holes going in nothing direction. So with this we can assume that nothing it's possible from concrete existence things. Therefore it means we can go from something to nothing! So it seems to me that the question isn't properly formulated but instead of "Why" the one that should be done it's "How"... That's what comes to my mind!
This is essentially the same question as when did existence begin and assumes existence had a beginning and isn't some type of loop. It's like the video a few weeks ago when that guy talked about branching light cones and how one could loop back to cause itself, a mind boggling thought but it could be close to the truth.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
If I'm correct, Space-time is a construct of Intrinsic Consciousness. (but not as we think of in the limits of our own conscious experience) If I'm correct, Intrinsic Consciousness is a Non Process. If I'm correct, Process does not exist outside of a construct of Intrinsic Consciousness. The actual problem of existence itself as touched upon in the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is itself a question of "Why is there a process?". The question suggests that it is process that does not actually exist but is rather perceived as existence. I think that some have hinted at this, perhaps without knowing it. Albert Einstein "People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Space-time is a construct of something that exists without it but can make it. Something that can make it, without a process to do so. And the way to "do" (lol) that, is that process never exists. It's only perceived. Another way of looking at is, "to have anything at all you have to have everything". In a sense, "something exists because everything exists". That in my view suggests "infinite mind". Existence as we know it and perceive it would be the compartmentalization of a perceived process. God (not ego god in the sky), creates by establishing the perception of moments. Timelessness creates through making the perception of time and process, and places versions of self in those moments to create within that vantage point. Just thinking.
there is no guarantee that the logical structure of the universe must remain in shape, but it does , i know it sounds crazy but think about this, if qualia has been that unexplainable, it means that qualia could do much weirder things, think about the qualia interface of a shrimp mantis, it can actually see more colors, yes he would need more names to name more colors, alot of qualia arent even accessible to humans, let alone, qualia that is more abstract and does not neccessarily reside upon logic, that is hard to imagine but i would guess that some kind of qualia could totally reasonably provide a perfectly satisfactory answer to the entirety of the questions proposed in the video, it would just sound like The answer to the ultimate question is 42, with humans failing miserably at attempting to perceive their desired qualia, that seems to be because of the strict consistency of The structure that seems to be maintained to give rise to that limited range of qualia accessible to humans, humans seem to be strictly trapped inside this structure somewhy, this structure is logic. as for a human, he must engage in and attempt to bring about the desired qualia and be succesful hopefully to be happy and i wish you and everyone does just that without affecting the qualia of others in any immoral way. that way i demonstrate why it is "wrong" to expect illogical or your wishful answers from this question and realize the limitations and the low likelihoods of your performance as a machine such as connecting black or white to nothing and ill defining infinity to link it to nothing, that is a trap in the form of qualia accompanied by encouragment emotions and hence the confidence in belief.
Why is there anything at all, may be the pillars for questions, for curiosity, for investigating, as a training for the mind, to develop to evolve philosophically. Then existence is only realized by a conscious mind, but, there are differences depending on what informations an individual has about existence. So, an answer depends on how much knowledge an individual has gathered and what his conscious mind can add as a logic consequence to the question. If we all know that we are made of atoms, but dont fall apart when a strong wind blows, then, the logic should be, we're in a state of a product, and a table that is also made of atoms, but, that we constructed, is also in a state of product. So the purpose of our being, was to develop consciousness, and be aware of all that exists, and witness why there is anything at all. We are in a level of continuity, who knows what future generations may access with more developed informations.
I feel that the most obvious answer to this question is just too uncomfortable to many. By looking at basic logic itself we should see that the existence of nothing is a prerequisite to the existence of something and vice versa which is analogous to the necessity of the existence of something but the latter is just one half of the truth. The question therefore is not "to be or not to be" because it is to be *and* not to be. If the universe is indeed flat and thus infinitely large, then it is also a necessity that even just a slightly varying copy - and even an infinite number of absolutely identical copies - of everything exists in this incomprehensibly large realm of nothingness. In Buddhism this whole logic is known as the concept of emptiness, so also just a slightly varying terminology but essentially the same idea: There is not one without the other.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
something and nothing are dependent on each other. they must coexist by necessity. much like light/dark, matter/space, up/down ect. they define each other and "create" each other.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
What in blue blazes does the preposterous and pretentious "counterfactual" mean, or what you seek to convey when you use that particular word? My left pocket bets my right pocket that you have not the faintest idea, and are about to illustrate that by signally failing to set out what you seek to convey by that particular utterly meaningless word.
@@vhawk1951kl I wouldn’t have thought it was that strange a word. “Counterfactual” describes what is not the case. Rickles says that he wants to investigate the being not only of the actual universe, but also of possible things (“The song that was not played at the concert”). It seems to me that this puts him in the rather strange position of saying that “being” embraces both what does exist and (some? all?) things that DON’T exist! It makes me wonder if Rickles is enquiring into is really being - or just linguistic meaning?
@@vhawk1951kl Many facts are not so controversial, surely! In the sentence “If I had been born a gorilla, my mother would have been surprised”, the “if-clause” paints a counterfactual.
One thing is for sure. If there was nothing then we wouldn't know of something. But since we experienced something then we can talk about nothing from a perspective of something. What was your experience before you were born. Most of us would say nothing. Was that a real experience? If so, it would be something.
Why there is something rather than nothing is a question that would be impossible to solve as long as we're not able to define the nature of our own consciousness as being nothing outside but something inside which exists eternally. The reason why there is a universe is that there is a mind which manifests it and the reason why there is a mind is because of the natural will of consciousness to experience itself to the fullest. How is it possible for consciousness to possess a natural will to experience itself when this can not be accomplished?
@@Agent707, how is it possible for consciousness to have a natural will to know/experience itself when this will can not be accomplished? It must've been the absolute conviction of the primordial consciousness that its natural will to know/experience itself is the fundamental force that governs all that is and could ever be. The existence of the mind which includes all of its manifestations must be the result of this fundamental spiritual force.
Mathematical objects do not instantiate without consciousness. It too is therefore contingent in a way. Everything points to the need for the existence of something that is necessary without explanation.
When you apply intellect in way of Reason, you no longer are below or of the sense world. It's great to see people from different thought circles answer similar question, it reveals a lot. That being how you look at something, changes what you get out of it -- this is scientifically proven. If you want to find the answer via defining and quantum, you're going to stay right there. It's not about right vs wrong, is about being above that, questioning the question and applying them in their rightful place. If you want to be only logical, you are limited to the sense world and the body, because the intelligible world and intellect exceed, reason and logic may come from Intellect but the intellect is not they. Science is very limited to the material, and things are defined not entirely by themselves rather in contrast to other things that are separate and different or devided. How are you supposed to find the answer there, you cannot. Existence is only known from what is non existence in contrast and what exists physically is not beyond which is immaterial -- not the best method of thinking because non existence is improper. It's all very incredible and I appreciate. Some claim to be after truth, I only know truth to be a direction to grow in, and what reveals is
If something must exist by necessity, then it stands to reason that the 'Universe' as a whole is infinite and has always and always will exist, whether that be in parallel universes, cyclic universes, or some other form.
@@youssefalaoui4286 No, that's what I was referring too as well. "Universe' is everything in this context. They explain in the video what they mean by this as well.
@@pauljohn1979 Our known visible universe had a beginning is what they are talking about. We don't know if God exists, you'd have to prove all of that before proclaiming it, and it has nothing to do with the science and what we're talking about here anyway as God himself would still need to be explained for existing.
@@videosbymathew The evidence for God is all around us. The problem is with Mankind in his fallen state he refuses to acknowledge the obvious that is in front of his eyes.
Asking why there is something rather than nothing is assuming that there must be a reason for the existence of something. "Reasons" are just abstract models we come up with to describe reality. Really needs to reasons. It just is what it is. Existence might not be contingent. Just because we can imagine "nothing" that doens't mean that "nothing" is possible or that a reason for existence is required. Reality needs no reasons to be. It just is. We should confuse our need to create models to explain nature based on a abstract "chain of reasons" with the actual existence of reasons in nature.
This is like asking what's the cause of the ultimate cause or what's more general than the most general. Observing of the univers around us show us a consistent pattern according to which large and complex is less probable than small and simple. Therefore we are baffled by the idea that the infinitely big and complexe should be very unlikely and that it's the infinitely small and simple, smaller than a dot, nothing that is, that should be certain instead. I think that this is a case where we make abusive generalisation by thinking that the infinitely small must be certain and the infinitely big should be impossible. So that's for the part of "rather than nothing". For the first part of the question "why is there anything at all", I suspect it also to be an abusive generalisation of the idea that we can order everything in a hierarchical causal tree. Some existing beings might not be causally linked to other beings and we may not have an answer to a "why" question about them. There might actually be an ultimate cause that doesn't have a cause that we may call existence. Therefore there would be no answer to "why existence exist" .
Define something. Some physical thing? Some abstract thing? Some absolute thing? Some contingent thing? Some non contingent thing? Some personal thing?... Some virtuous thing? Some honorable thing? Some wise thing? Everything is given to us.
Why do we *believe* things like logic and mathematics must be necessary in all possible worlds? I can certainly imagine domains of reality where the laws that govern logic and math to be very different or even entirely non-existent. Of course I can't imagine what such worlds would look like, but it seems to be an act of faith to state that all worlds are governed by laws we're familiar with......or even by laws. There may be domains of reality where 2+2 = purple....or where the number 2 simply doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Because of this, we run into some serious issues. Logic and reason seem the only tools available to us to describe and discuss reality. If there are domains not governed by the laws of reason/math/logic, then (at best) we can only use logic to describe things inside our own particular corner of reality, but not reality itself.
I wrestled with this question as a young adult, ...and couldn't really come to any conclusions...as is the case with philosophy , each question usually arises more questions..but if I had to take a stab at an answer, I would say there is something rather then nothing because that is the more probable of the two, as in the simple probability that there could be something,, is enough for ther to indeed be something, I know , doesn't really answer it..but it's all I have..
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
It almost seems like a linguistic quirk. 'nothing' is a word that is supposed to mean 'something'. I don't see that numbers have to exist either. Thank you for this post.
1. You exist. You always have, always will. death is an illusion (Non-existence cannot exist by itself. In order for the non-existence to EXIST, there has to be existence. Existence cannot be partial. By the fact that anything exists at all indicates that everything must exist.) 2. Everything is here and now. [ time / space / memory of the past ] are illusions (Since if THERE exists other than here, here does not exist in THERE. If THERE exists, it violates #1.) 3. The one is the all, and the all is one. [ separation / limitation ] are illusions (Only one thing exists, the existance itself. Everything else is an illusion.) 4. What you put out is what you get back. (Reality is the reflection of your consciousness, which is an illusion.) 5. Everything changes except the above 4. (Change is the only constant.)
Since “Anything Is Possible” there should be many things that exist to make possible all those states of affairs and actions, that could be. Where as, for nothingness to exist it only needs an Infinitesimal corner of space to fit all the non possible things that could never exists.
Having pondered this question for 40+ years, If there was truly nothing then what's the point. Nothing happening for eternity seems boring and nothing changes. The one consistent quality of the cosmos is that everything always continues to change, there is nothing static.
Try to understand the eastern thinking, Chinese as well as The Indian, they say the same thing... There is nothing and nothingness... Go inward and you will find the same nothingness... The universe itself
"The one consistent quality of the cosmos is that everything always continues to change, there is nothing static.", except for the constants and laws of nature, and randomness.
Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things( of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, function & design. Man has always known that the Universe has an unnatural origin by a "supernatural" intelligence like Man. Man is the only known intelligence in this huge Universe ... where everything has purpose, form, function & design and obey a set of natural LAWS. Laws are made & enforce by an intelligence ... for an intelligence ... and provide direction, purpose, structure, certainty & order. Remove the Laws of Man ... and there will be complete disorder. Remove the Laws of Nature ... and ther will be complete discover. Man is an intelligence with a physical body to make physical constructs & a non-physical form( ie spirit) to make abstract constructs. The Mind of an intelligence ... is not physical ... and is eternal. The body & spirit of Man ... come from the mind of an "almighty" intelligence. Is there any religion that has God making making Man like him( not Him) with a body & spirit to live forever so long as Man obeys one simple Law? Again. And intelligence makes Law for an intelligence ... and enforces i, otherwise there will be chaos & disorder.
To explain why there is something rather than nothing, you can't just assume and assert the presence of numbers. Assuming some kind of Platonic realm where numbers exist explains nothing. I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". If any extant solution were satisfying, we wouldn't still be asking the question. Another way to say that you start with "nothing" is with the analogy where you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1 (ex nihilo nihil fit), so you can't start with a 0 unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". That is the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". This means that "something" and existence is necessary because even what we used to "nothing" is a "something". But, why? A proposed mechanism is as follows. I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". If any existing solution were satisfying, we wouldn't still be asking the question. Another way to say that you start with "nothing" is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1 (ex nihilo nihil fit), so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking, "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". That is the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". So, “something" doesn't come out of "nothing". Instead, the situation we used to think of as "nothing" is actually a "something" if we could see through its disguise. A proposed mechanism for how that can be is as follows. How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping together of stuff into a new unit whole or existent entity. Some examples of groupings are 1.) the grouping together of paper and ink atoms to create a new unit whole called a book that's a different existent entity than the atoms considered individually; 2.) the grouping together of previously unrelated elements to create a set; and 3.) even the mental construct labeled the concept of a car is a grouping together of the concepts tires, chassis, steering wheel, use for transportation, etc. Here, the grouping is better thought of as the top-level label "car" that the mind uses to group subheadings together into one. Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. Some other points are: 1. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Humans are stuck having to define "nothing" in our existent minds (i.e., "somethings"), but "nothing" itself doesn't have this constraint. Whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of how we define it or talk about it. 2. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now". 3. While no one can directly visualize "nothing" because the mind is not present in "nothing", what we can do is to try to visualize the entire volume of the universe/reality shrinking down to just the size of our mind's eye and then trying to extrapolate what it would be like if the mind weren't there. That's as far as we can get. If anyone's interested, more details are at: philpapers.org/rec/GRAPST-4 sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
I love how this one question brings out so many smart people to the comments. That's the difference between big questions and science. Science has a lot of smart people who don't have what it takes to tackle these questions.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
I believe we’re asking the wrong question or assuming that we understand the definition of Nothing or Nothingness. The Ego wants to think it knows what nothing is but do we? What if there is Something beyond Nothing? Nothing may only be the beginning.
I doubt if there could be a shallower question since it is entirely contrived artificial and arbitrary- little different from asking where is the where the where the where?
It is not possible to have both something and nothing, we live in a reality where there is something. For there to be nothing is impossible. To have nothingness is to have an imaginary reality that can't exist. It is the most impossible thing that we can imagine.
Hello :) Well when a cell divides ... if the cell didn't know about the division and the original cell drifted away ... it would seem like coming from nothing? Imagine our universe is in the nucleus of a cell and our visible universe is our starting point :)
Philosophy has better explanation. This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding. ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
Even if there is nothing, a viewer is still required to acknowledge that fact. The key component in the concept of nothing is "thing". The layer from which all "things" emerge is not a thing and therefore satisfies the condition of nothing. Numbers require single, fractional or multiple instances of things. Without things, numbers have no meaning and in a world of nothing they would not arise. Very perplexing even if you believe in God. For instance, how did the one consciousness existing in the world of nothing get fragmented into many conscious agents in the world of things?
yes - the space time needs conciousness to LITERALLY make sense. Concious agents are channeling physical characters (you, me, everyone else). The concious agents are fragmented - otherwise we would be one big conciousness sensing everything - everytime - kind of a NON state a nothingstate because everything would sense each other out thus this state does not exist otherwise it would right? But it is not a thing "nothingness" is a conceptional fallacy. Existance as it is - is the only possibility. Concious characters can die because it is the concious agents that create reality. Concious agents cannot die because they are not bound to space time. That means "your" concious agent will always be the same but the characters will change. Meaning you will be a version of you, maybe a complete different person or even a cell at one time. One interesting question would be - what is the order? Is it prefering the next most similar state thus you being a very similar "version" of you or is it more complex? Im so curious how far we will reach the truth in our lifetime.
The truth can only be found by exploring your own inner being through meditation. No amount of intellectual footwork can ever solve this puzzle. Meditation will resolve it. Remember who you are!
For us as individuals, the first 13.8 billion years was "nothingness." Now, we get 70 or 80 years of somethingness, and then it's back to nothingness for the next 13 billion.
How do you *know* we go back to "nothingness" when we shed our mortal coil? Perhaps we are all a singular consciousness choosing to experience itself through infinite forms. Understanding that the universe has no center, yet the center is everywhere at the same time, means that everything exists throughout all time. The period of time "we" inhabit respectively continues to exist in that time period indefinitely. Think of it like our lives exist on a page of spacetime in a book that cannot be destroyed. It will always be there. And you would be this singular consciousness that is not any one of those individual lives but all of them at the same time. And you could open this book and flip to that part of the story any time you want. And the reason we're not experiencing our infinite other existences is because it would be like trying to hear separately all the songs that ever existed being played in the same 5 minutes. You wouldn't be able to make sense of the sound as they'd all be playing against each other. To experience them independently they have to be listened to separately in spacetime.
Asking why existence exists is like asking why heat is hot or why height is high. When it comes to existence, the alternative is non-existence, which does not exist, as its name implies…
It seems to me that a world with nothing contingent in it is quite conceivable and not impossible a priori. One or more active necessary beings are therefore unavoidable to explain our Universe. It is difficult to avoid some sort of theism or pantheism if we keep the definition of "God" loose enough.
Imagine that there is nothing except consciousness creating a story that is perceived by its probes as individual bundles of varying shape, form and colour; like a dream.
There are plenty of people working from that exact premise. Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup a couple of very interesting scientists going down this road.
"What kind of world could instantiate nothing?" Why is there even a world at all? There could have been no worlds to instantiate anything. Maybe if you start with a world full of things, you can't revert back to nothingness. But *before* there were things, it might have been possible for nothing to ever happen.
I quite agree with you. We deem it impossible that a state of sheer nothingness might have obtained only because we are accustomed to the existence of the world
The problem is about the existence of existence itself. Even if we were to demonstrate the construction of nothingness, that nothingness is still in possession of the possibility for it to be something hence not the nothingness that the problem relates to.
Not sure I agree. Sure, logically you could claim a symmetry between something and nothing. And therefore say that you can reverse the logic arbitrarily, of whether to start from a "something" perspective or a "nothing" perspective. But experience is what breaks the symmetry. We know, experientially, without a shadow of a doubt, that something exists, whatever "it" is. It is fundamental bedrock. "Nothing" is a theoretical abstraction that is deduced by utilizing a linear, mechanical cause-effect mode of reasoning, and then reversing it. But perhaps this linear reasoning just isn't applicable to existence at large. Why would the abstract reasoning of homo-sapiens, an evolutionarily recent development, be suitable to describe the larger universe which brought it about?
He was essentially saying there is the non-physical or spirit existence before the physical Universe came to be. There are only two realities/existences: 1. Physical -- where matter, energy must obey the Laws of Nature 2. Non-physical -- domain only for the MIND of an intelligence. Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe who has free will and can make physical & abstract constructs. Man's mind only makes abstract constructs. Man's body makes physical constructs. Both constructs come from the MIND of intelligence. Most assume Man's mind is his brain, and that when Man's body dies so too does the mind. But only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) & anything ( of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & design. Religions are actually a Natural Phenomena where Man has always known the "supernatural" origin of the Universe but is free to think, believe, say & do about the intelligence that clearly made everything. Is there a religion ... that states a powerful intelligence made the Universe for Man, made Man is His image, made Man with a perfect BODY & spirit and to live forever ... so long as Man obeys one simple rule/Law? Only an intelligence ... makes rules & Laws ... for a reason .... for an intelligence ... and enforces the rules & laws. The Facts & science are clear about the origin of the Universe & Man.
At the end of the video he says "because you don't have a possible world available to represent there being nothing". I think this is the main misunderstanding which so often leads those who ponder this question to presume that utter nothingness is an impossibility (and therefore to argue for the brute fact view). To insatiate nothingness, nothing is required: just as unicorns do NOT exist, in the same way pure nothingness could have been the case instead of there being a world at all. The nothingness of the inexistence of unicorns is proved by the fact that we don't see any of them around, and that is enough to "taste" the reality of their inexistence. In the same way sheer nothingness instead of existence is possible. All that is required is the gradual inexistence of each object, one by one, considering them to have the same ontological status of unicorns.
He believes nothing though misticism. There arent Science evidence. If he show honest minds concern Universe certain he are stopping says weird comments
if we say there is no unicorn, we say it because we have reference of something like that not existing - somethings not existing does not intail a possible state of anything not existing since all things need conciousness to make sense in the first place. If there would be nothing, why is there something then? Again, it is not a thing, not even hypothetically. Nothingness is the most impossible state because it is not a state - it is a pseudo state. Ironically nothing in existance points to nothing. It is a narrow logical fallacy - a human conception of the deepest error.
I wouldn't be so sure that the universe doesn't encompass existence itself. We are, after all, "...made of starstuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
I find your comment so weird because the universe as “an existing something” whereas the question is about existence itself. Stardust ? That’s another existing something.
@@youssefalaoui4286 We dont know the true nature of reality. The universe being the result of the conciousness of some cosmic mind is just as likely as the universe being "a place with a bunch of stuff in it."
As a child this question assaulted me many times, leaving me in a state of utter despair, terror and even feelings of vertigo! I had to just stop the thought else I don't know where I'd wind up. I was a weird little kid.
You weren't alone
Same, only it still haunts me.
I envy those who are not troubled by such thoughts. For they can enjoy life to the fullest extent. In the end we all end up in the same destination. Our lives may all be worthless in the end but they are all we have whilst we have it. The worst thing you can do is descend into nihilism. In the end the old truth about enjoying life while we have it is all we can do.
Everything makes sense if you simply accept God created Man in his image, with a body & spirit, to live forever ... but ... only if he obeyed on simple rule/Law.
Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things (of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & design.
Religions are actually a Natural Phenomena and will always be observed because Man knows the origin of rules & Laws and things with clear function, design, purpose.
Atheism is also a religion, but has simply replaced an "Almighty" intelligence ... with the theories, beliefs, opinions, ideologies of a "puny" intelligence called "human."
Your struggles with this question are due to what you have been taught & believe.
@@abelincoln8885
Whatever gets you through the night Abe.
i can't believe...how strange it is to be anything at all.
You're asking the kind of question as a transient being is not out of Ordinary, if you're a robot likewise your name that question become irrelevant so sentences start with why how what are meaningless....
@@suatustel746 mm what
@@anxious_robot OK. Let me eloborate what I'm getting! We're already constructing A.. I.... with the help of Nano technology in future we might be able upload full genome of human structure, (Inc. Brain) into a higly develop machinery(quantum computers) then some how if all HUMAN POPULATION wiped out from the scenery, this super Androids will rule the roost, as they are indestracrable they will not asking questions begin with when how why etc.... So as far as they concern the perennial questions will be moot point or impertinent for them to be delved into. 'WHY THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING'
@@anxious_robot and its possible actual reality may belong to immortal beings and they can play down the laws of nature manipulate transient existence....
@@suatustel746 oh yeah isn't that what ray kurzweil advocates? uploading our brain into a computer. that would be cool. i hope it happens while i'm alive.
I like that this guy would at least recognize the questions and not try to talk around it. A lot of guests asked this talk around it or deny it. I'm fine if people say they don't know or even say we can't know, but to pretend its not a question is so annoying.
Exactly! he recognizes the question and no matter how hard it is to do he still attempts to answer it instead of changing the original question or simply disregarding it completely and talking around it
I remember how unsatisfied I was by Ayn Rand's "basic" premise, "Existence exists". "Why" doesn't seem to be in her vocabulary.
Well said. I agree.
To pretend it IS a question is equally annoying..
Must be nice to have a career whereby you don't really need a definitive opinion on anything. Good gig !
Whenever I ponder this question I end up feeling nothing but gratitude just for being part of existence. There could just as easily have been nothing. As rough as life can be sometimes, I’m glad it is there in the first place.
Would you have felt bad if life wasn't there and you had never existed ?
@@Jarell1661 obviously not but that doesn’t mean I can’t or shouldn’t be grateful.
Life should not be taken for granted.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
What exactly do you mean by "feeling"?
@@vhawk1951kl I think I know what you’re getting at, but please don’t disconnect that one word from its context. Also keep in mind that English is not my native language so I am sometimes searching for the right words and no doubt use the wrong ones plenty of times. With ‘feeling nothing but gratitude’ I mean just that, experiencing thankfulness. Do you know how it feels to be so grateful for something that it’s almost overwhelming? That you could just cry because it strikes you at the core of your very being? That’s what I mean by that sentence.
Very interesting. Nothing can't exist. If it did, it would be something.
There was never a first "something" because that would mean there was "nothing" at one point. This is the kind of thing that really lights my brain on fire. love it.
Therefore, Existence has allways been. That existence is uncaused, but is the cause for everything else. That existence is God.
I think this short video has even more philosophical brain light up.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
The answer is that space is infinite, has properties as an energy-wave medium, and that the energy-waves create a ‘particle’ effect. The ‘particles’ accumulate in ‘mass’ to produce what we measure as ‘matter’..
spaceandmotion
@@fluentpiffle science says otherwise. Time space and matter come into existence at the big bang
@@YMe-hp7hi No, government funded people with debts and 'needs' say otherwise. 'Science' can only reveal that which actually exists, regardless of any Human 'interpretation'.
Why do people believe that 'experts' can know anything? 'Experts' are those strange creatures that believe they can cook the most delicious meals imaginable by using only the one ingredient that they just happen to have at hand..(and that someone else will pay them to keep repeating).
Your timing is interesting, though..
The absolute worst answer I have ever heard to this question is that from Laurence Krauss. I actually bought his book, "Something from Nothing", which turned out to be a ramble, shackled by irrational adherence to the false notion that science can answer every question. I want my money back!
He books are rambling giberish because he not knows phich ,he abusurds untrue setence. It emerges he knows misticism like unicorn or plato Haven . Nerd challatan.
YOU was viticm from Science challatan. He are so conman. Absurd speculations concern Science.
*"I actually bought his book, "Something from Nothing", which turned out to be a ramble, shackled by irrational adherence to the false notion that science can answer every question."*
... Sell it and buy my book. I ramble much more fluently than Krauss!
Above your grade level aye
Only an intelligence ... has free will ... to think, believe, say & do as he/she wants .. do good or evil, .. and make abstract & physical constructs.
Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things ( of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, function & design.
Laws are made for a reason & purpose, and provide structure, direction, certainty & order to an existence.
Laws are enforced by the intelligence that made them ... for an intelligence.
Remove all Laws of Man .. and there would be complete chaos & disorder.
Remove all Laws of Nature .. and there would be complete chaos & disorder.
Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe.
There is only two existences/realities:
1. Physical -- where matter & energy must obey the Laws of Nature within time & space.
2. Non-physical -- domain of the MIND of an intelligence.
Man's mind is believed to only be the physical brain, but this is false as Man's brain has clearly been "fine tuned" to separate the MIND & consciousness of Man from that of animals especially the Chimp which shared 99% of Human DNA.
The Mind of an intelligence ... is non-physical ... and eternal. This is the only way to use the Laws of the Physical, to prove a soul/spirit, angel or demon and of course .... God.
Everything in the Universe comes from the MIND of an "almighty" intelligence.
Religion is a natural phenomena where Man has always known that Universe has an Unnatural origin by a very very powerful intelligence.
Atheism is also a religion, but has simply replaced God & Bible ... with ... Theories, Ideologies, Methodologies, beliefs & opinions of the only known intelligence in the Universe. smh.
Man has always known that there is a supernatural existence & intelligence like Man who made it all. This is who most people today & in the future will always believe in "the gods."
Either all the religions are wrong about the identity of the Creator ... or there is one religion that has the correct answer.
Again. An intelligence makes Law .... for a reason ... for an intelligence ... and enforces the Laws otherwise there will be chaos & disorder.
There is a a reason why the greatest Man in all of History ... is a Jew .. who said he is the promised messiah and Son of God ... sent by his Father to be a sin sacrifice ... to save the eternal souls of anybody who believes ... from God's just nature to punish all who sin ( break The Law).
Man has free will ... to think,believe say & do what he/she wants ... about Jesus Christ or Yeshua ( Salvation).
Make your choice.
I love the question as put by Dean Rickles; “why is there existence at all?” I find this question fascinating. I suppose for an atheist it might be a bit “bedeviling” but for those who know God and know His purpose for things then this question is not necessary at all.
To simplify the question we could look at a sneeze, indeed just a random sneeze on its way across the room. Scientifically we could calculate its velocity, how many droplets of moisture there are, we could even deduce from where in the room it started. But unless scientists are willing to say that the sneeze originated from someone who did the sneezing then the question of “where did it all come from” will forever plague humanity. Sneezes do not arise on their own and nonexistence does not bring forth reality.
Robert, I believe you are indeed getting closer to truth. I pray that you will arrive there one day.
-John
This is the one, the question that has haunted me for years. It comes and goes, that overwhelming weight, that comes with this question. It happens to be heavy on me lately. An ultimate feeling of futility also accompanies this question. But maybe that's just it...in a very abstract, non-logical way, maybe that's the...something...The weight of the unknown and eternity.
Do it ever occur to you to question the premises of the question?
No, I rather thought not.
Dean Rickles did understand his question - great guy!
I used to think a lot about this question in my childhood through pre teen years and have always been somewhat of a thinker....im 37 now and my conclusion is that i dont think we are supposed to know...this is why we keep getting new and perplexing discoveries..as if the architect or creator of our reality adds another layer right as we get to the edge of a new understanding...
I'm 37 too and after years of chasing dragons down various rabbit holes, only to always end up back at square one...I've come to precisely the same exact conclusion.
@@SmConnally1984 thanks for sharing...do you know why you thought about this question?...i have had another question that is why do i think of these deep questions and not just go about life like most people...not watching documentaries or reading books and thinking and thinking....the best as i can tell one of my earlierst memories arround 3yrs old sitting by grandmothers knees and she is telling me that she will eventually die and that we will all die eventually...she made me cry because she was my world...i was raised by her...and i just dont know if that really was traumatic or just for me...in other words was i too young to know of death? When do most people experince the sense of loss?...anyways have to keep this short...
@@HIRED7DAYS I had a similar experience, ironically enough. I found a family friend, dead, when I was 4 years old. I didn't know people died. I had no way of thinking that. The family friend was old and I just thought he was asleep. I touched his hand and arm, tried to wake him up. He was stiff and cold. Anyways... later that day, when my dad got home from work, he had to sit me down and explain me, as best he could, what happened and what wi happen to us all. He said we all grow and age and eventually, our bodies get tired and we pass away. He told me that's why I had never met his mom, since she had passed a year before I was born. He told me that he would die, my mom, me, everyone, eventually...and that he didn't know for sure what would happen to us. He said he pictured it like going into a dream.
I panicked and freaked out. My 4 year old mind somehow came too close to reckoning the weight of it all and I flipped out. All these years later, all the doctors and therapists agree that this was the planting of a seed that would grow in me forever.
So yeah, we probably ask these questions for very similar reasons. And that's just the beginning for me, so much more has happened. It all plays a role.
@@SmConnally1984 This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
If you will forgive me because this question may not ever have occurred to you, what exactly do you mean by think or thought?
Who are what is "we"? - You and who else in particular or specifically
For the premise, I always thought about it as needing to define nothing. What is nothing? Something that can't be measured, and is essentially below the plank scale, that bears no consequences. So you can have a partial quantity pop into existence, that violates no physical laws. That partial quantity must, however, be part of an overarching structure. Thus any associated quantity must take a null and infinite value. In doing so, almost all these quantities cancel themselves out, because their counter opposites spontaneously exist as well. There must be, however, instances where these quantities cannot cancel themselves out, and thus take off into infinity, or such a large operation that it appears to be infinite. So my thought, is that existence is the mathematical structure of infinities, only one of which we experience.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
An interesting and intelligent question but as with all "what is" questions, there is only one way to approach them, and of course because you are capable of asking interesting and intelligent questions, you don't need me to tell you. The important thing is to ask "what is" questions - just so long as they are alive for you, rather than contrived or entirely artificial questions, as asinine as the question posed in the video, which has to be just about the most asinine question is possible to ask- It doesn't even begin to question the premises of the question itself and it is precisely that which makes it asinine, contrived, artificial, and arbitrary.
@@vhawk1951kl I've been of the mindset, lately, that one needs to define terms that they speak of, or they speak of nothing at all. A thing can be discrete by its nature, but one should still have to show why that is. If I say I believe in God, and in the next breath say by his vary nature he cannot be defined, I speak of nothing, and thus have no belief. Just a statement with the word belief in it. That's not to say anything on God, or anything, because I don't know, but it frustrates me to see so many people freely talk about truths he or she can't prove, and create real world conflicts with those fake truths. That is truly asinine...
"Nothing" is both a universal (and all universals can only be imaginary) *and* what I call a Blurb, which I use as a particular term of art and thus attach t it a particular equivalence or meaning, with which I will not trouble you unless you specifically ask me to do so.
Whether or not blurbs are as imaginary as universals and similar in nature, involves enquiring into - or peering into the fog or miasma of the associative apparatus , and quite what instrument one might use to go about that, I would be interested to learn of your opinion or the results of any investigations that you have made of it.
By Plank, I'm going to guess that you refer to one Maximilian Planck, who I'm told was a German guesser.
Because "nothing" is self-evidently a blurb, it follows as the night the day that whoever employs any blurb simply cannot possibly have any idea what he means by it, because that is what a blurb is - by definition (or certainly my definition) is, namely a word/image/idea that conveys nothing whatsoever to whoever employs it, and from my own research and experience, much of which seems to involve using a mirror to examine itself( or possibly reflect itself) the associative apparatus of men (human beings) or what appear to be creatures roughly similar to myself( although I have no way of determining whether or not or how similar they are), appears to be populated almost entirely by blurbs, or, as is said, littered with them, if they do not themselves constitute the fog or my asthma.
I have to say that I wonder quite how or why anyone might come up with, or arrive at, such an asinine question as "why is there something rather than nothing ?" - Other than as a result of boredom or some sort of narcotic or perhaps just simply a form of psychic cinque contra uno.
@@vhawk1951kl My guess is that what you call a blurb is what physicists call emerging properties. Like when you started talking about creatures. Really what you have are the natural elements, in motion. What emerges from that pattern of motion is what we consider life and us.
Regardless, I think your overall statement is too complex. I think you must think about it in simplest terms as possible. The definition of nothingness is all you need to create existence. The side note to that, would be that what exists, are those partial quantities. They cancel out mostly, but due to emergent properties, they become separated from their counterpart and cannot cancel out. So all you really need is a definition of nothing, and hold that any existence must have a total intrinsic value of zero. My guess, is that entanglement happens below the quanta, or whole property a full charge. It would be the combination of superposition and entanglement that bring about the emergent property.
There have been some math papers on this. I'll give it a shot, but I am sure I'll mess this up a bit, but hopefully the idea in general is received.
Let the definition of nothing be anything that is not measurable and has no consequence (remember there is evidence for this with virtual particles, though not exactly how people think, but I'd have to go back and study Feynman Diagrams to explain it). Regardless, let that be the definition.
So you can have a partial quantity, but it must exist in a whole set. Time and space is not part of this set, just the quantities, or bits or widgets, whatever you want to call them. If represented in a vector, those quantities must take all values possible, so it would look like:
That vector would exist on top of itself in an infinitely cancelling out at all points. Under the right pattern, maybe due to entanglement, one property could mirror another, and you get a dead spot in the ability for a quantity to cancel. At which point to revert back to cancel you need to interject a small amount of space and time. The 2 point become separated, and enough of these separated points become a whole, and move in a quantum foam in random ways. One of those patterns flattening out and taking off in what Alen Guth called Eternal Inflation. I will note that Guth does not validate any ideas of information like this being the most fundamental component. Neither does Sean Carrol, both of whom are much smarter than I.
Max Tegmark does believe that information is the most fundamental component, but he has never been specific in the sense of giving a proof. There is also an Israeli mathematician with the last name Azizi, but it's been 15 years since I looked up that paper and cannot find it now.
Regardless, all those names are worth looking up. They are the ones that will be known in centuries to come. I'll throw Susskind in there. He and Guth put their class lectures online. It's worth watching.
It’s impossible to imagine nothing….because if u can imagine it ,,it’s something
Why? Can you define it? I think you can. I'll post what I stated before
For the premise, I always thought about it as needing to define nothing. What is nothing? Something that can't be measured, and is essentially below the plank scale, that bears no consequences. So you can have a partial quantity pop into existence, that violates no physical laws. That partial quantity must, however, be part of an overarching structure. Thus any associated quantity must take a null and infinite value. In doing so, almost all these quantities cancel themselves out, because their counter opposites spontaneously exist as well. There must be, however, instances where these quantities cannot cancel themselves out, and thus take off into infinity, or such a large operation that it appears to be infinite. So my thought, is that existence is the mathematical structure of infinities, only one of which we experience.
Is it still something if there is nobody to imagine it?
@@firstaidsack No, because people get the idea of the observer wrong. Nothing is simply anything that doesn't have an intrinsic value. As far as we can tell the intrinsic value of the universe is zero. I also don't think consciousness is anything special, there has to be a mathematical definition to consciousness. We define what something and nothing are, we need to stop doing that and let existence define it. Besides, existence doesn't care what our definitions are.
@@travishalvorson6377 Consciousness is as special as what we call "zero" or the middle/center. All of them are both something and nothing at the same time.
@@Jarell1661 That negates the idea of wave function collapse, the way you said that. At a quantum level you are correct, but the true nature only comes about once all variables can be fully known in the classical sense. The idea of intrinsic value being zero, means that those variables, both positive and negative, would cancel themselves out if brought together, but due to emergent properties are separated enough not to be cancelled out for at least a period of time. Conciseness must exist in the state of known variables. Otherwise, it would encompass all states, and you could possibly have memories of other existences, simultaneously to your most relative state. Thus it must be in one state at a time - observed by our own conscience experience.
Does the state revert back? I don't know. Alan Guth shows that we are in a universe with eternal inflation, this might be proven soon if primordial gravitational waves are found. And, though Sean Carrol and Alan Guth have stated they believe the universe will expand forever, I wonder if the speeding expansion doesn't just lend itself to our universe expanding so quickly that it ends up matching the inflationary epoch of what we call the big bang (really just the inflationary epoch) and in the process erases everything that is current, to just only rebuild new just as before.
I still haven't heard a good argument from Guth or Carrol on what it means if all mass converts to pure energy and there is essentially no more clocks and thus a way for the universe to measure itself, and while I don't believe it is a cyclic cycle as Penrose imagines, I don't see why we wouldn't see a full destruction of what is, and a full birth of what will be... Not rebirth. A brand new birth, with no past associated to it... (though technically we would never see that, and any future you or us would be exactly as we are now - it's not like there would be a ID in a database that matches up to an older instantiation - it would be as original an instantiation as before, since technically there was no before_.)
The point being, we could have had this conversation an infinite number of times, but truly only one time, since those past times would no longer exist in a real sense, they are destroyed fully, and thus existed, but have no past or relative structure. Truly not existing, just as at some point we won't truly exist just as those states don't (calling them past states doesn't make sense, since there exists nothing and thus no relative state that can be compared to our current state), so only the current state exist, and will exist again, but is not relative to the future or any past state in any way, since those states truly are nonexistent, between nothing were emergent properties keep values from canceling at the moment.
It's like a data structure, where the pointer is cut off from the previous set of nodes, and the new set matches fully the old set, but the old set is truly erased, along with any pointers to it or from it. Meaning the old set now has no cause or effect on the supposedly new set in any way. Thus only one set. You must not think of it in terms of time either.Time would be the pointer, and emergent. Thus, once time is cut, it has no bearing on anything. Which makes me wonder if time and gravity are truly and fully just emergent, and thus there is no quantum solution for either, since both are what bring us from the quantum state, into the classical state we experience. Thus, no definition for quantum gravity. Only a definition for how quantum states interact to form an emergent gravity/time.
This to me is interesting, since that idea would also keep entropy from ever having to revert. Since it would just be destroyed, and a separate set, equal to the first but not having cause and effect from the first, would have it's own entropy, not associated with anything.
I don't comment often but this clip really got my braincells tickled. I love it. Thank you so much, Robert. Keep searching. You are not alone on your quest.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
Do you not recognise that it is a particularly asinine contrived and utterly arbitrary question?
A very fascinating conversation
I think this is a very important question. I’m glad this guy takes it seriously and doesn’t try to dismiss the question. His suggestion of using mathematics is quite interesting.
*Why* is that utterly asinine contrived and arbitrary question what you call "important"?
You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there.
@@vhawk1951kl First of all try not being so rude. I think it’s important. Apparently you don’t. Good for you. Respect other peoples opinions.
@@johnhoolihan9452 Very well, you are merely confirming to me the you have not the faintest idea.
I have to say that comes as no surprise to you me because the question is utterly incoherent both to you and everybody and anyone else. Had I any idea that your sensibilities were so delicate, and your amour propre so fragile, I might perhaps not have been so forthright
Why is X important is a simple enough question which few but shrinking violets and hothouse flowers such as yourself would encounter any great difficulty in addressing.
Why is there something rather than nothing?" Is self evidently an arbitrary contrived and asinine question - not to say and utterly incoherent question, little little different from where is the where the where the where?, and that is plain to all but the meanest of intelligences
I merely asked you why you supposed that asinine question to be what you call "important", which was a reasonable enough question was it not?
The long are short of it is that in your little tantrum you tell me that you have not the faintest idea how or why it is important which is no more than what anyone would have expected - if not the tantrum which latter are generally reserved to the few rather than the many.
"Anything that's contingent means it could have been otherwise." Thanks. Finally, someone actually defines the term simply and clearly.
The question was why is there anything at all?...why is there something rather than nothing. His argument consisted of arguing that you cant get "to" nothing "from" something, which was NOT what was asked...he defined an irrelevant term.
There is an easy solution to this:
1) Possibility is defined by the limitations put upon it. Specifically, there needs to be some law, rule or restriction to make something impossible. This is called the Totalitarian Principle: “Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory.”
2) If there was “nothing”, then by definition there would be no laws, rules or restrictions-thus possibility would be infinite. All things that could happen would happen.
3) We find ourselves in one of the infinite multiverses born out of that infinite possibility. There is no fine tuning or skillful creation, quite the opposite. We are here because this multiverse is conducive for us to be here. This is the Anthropic Principle.
Multiverse is a dumb theory no shred of evidence.
After years of studying philosophy, I'm starting to think the answer to this question can never be known because the answer is beyond human comprehension. We should instead focus on learning to love each other and trying to make the world a better place for everyone. Easier said than done I know but just my 2 cents.
We can form reasonable conclusions about this.
I’ve come to the conclusion that existence has no beginning and no end and that’s just a brute fact. Existence itself is where the shovel hits bedrock.
@@brandocommando7079 “no beginning and no end” doesn’t imply “brute.” Feser’s 2017 defense of PSR would apply to existence itself, although reasonable people can disagree about what qualities can be deduced of this foundational aspect of existence.
Every time I'm thinking in that answer I too reach that conclusion.
Smith
Not just human comprehension. There may be life out there that is millions even billions of years more advanced than ours and I would propose that this question is beyond them as well. This argument about something from nothing is just confusing the issue. The problem of infinite regression can be understood by a child. Even the greatest of philosophers cannot say much more than a child can. Religious people may try to wiggle out of the problem by suggesting a spaceless and timeless and immaterial creator that somehow created itself. But most of them do it to justify believing in their particular god. Most people put the idea there is no answer and there cannot be an answer to the backs of their brains because its almost too much to handle.
Can you please discuss the following question. Since the universe exists, what non trivial conclusion can be derived from it?
Did it begin to exist or did it always exist ?
What you mean by "the universe?
You have not the faintest idea? - This my left pocket bets my right pocket you are about to demonstrate or illustrate by signally failing to set out exactly what you mean by or how you define "the universe", and you cannot because it is a blurb - A word/idea equivalent of an unfocused photograph. I should tell you that you can't define anything by reference to cognates and/or synonyms or psychological algebra or X=Y=X, or simply substituting for one undefined term another undefined term or a series of undefined terms, or substituting for one unfocused photograph another unfocused photograph or lots of unfocused photographs, So there is your challenge define or set out what you mean by universe without using any other undefined terms or cognates or synonyms.
You are about to demonstrate that you cannot meet or satisfy that challenge, because like everyone else you cannot focus an unfocused photograph, and thus you have absolutely no idea what you mean by "the universe" without reference to cognates and synonyms or psychological algebra- Or circular definitions such as X is a Y sand all Y's are X's-- and you cannot stand on your own shoulders or jump over your own knees either.
In another possible world I understand this conversation.
we as what we call humans are absolutely obsessed with putting everything into words however on many occasions what we seek is beyond words and beyond our somewhat limited thought process we need to go beyond words and beyond thought so we can connect with who and what we really are.
Your talking mysticism, not rationally
@@joelhansen8649 clearly you are still trapped in this whatever this is and are not ready yet and have totally missed the point of my comment.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
Why are you "obsessed" with "turning everything into words"?- Or by "we", do you mean Anyone *but* you yourself?
Given that there are several billions(Supposedly) of what you call "humans", how many of them have you canvassed that you are in a position to speak for them all?
Behold the pitfalls of universals
I wish you could include a link to the episodes that these short clips are taken from.
He doesn’t really answer the question (not his fault as it’s not answerable by humans) but he gives some great points for thought.
Conected but his point are anti Science. He shows cinism concept without Science evidence are bizzare misticism. Nerd stupidy.
@@maxwellsimoes238Lots of misspelling in your commentary, yet you want us to agree with you in calling a philosophical viewpoint "stupidity". "The existence of numbers are a necessity"...sounds pretty scientific to me.
He did answer the question. His answer is there is something rather than nothing because it can’t be any other way.
I came to the same conclusion myself a while ago. On top of the fact that the argument becomes circular if you try to explain why there is something rather than nothing. I had realized The question seems deep only because it presupposes nothingness is the default state. Hence the fact that there is something requires an explanation. Au contraire, look around and it becomes obvious that existence is default state. We can’t even conceive of nothingness. What would actually requires an explanation is nothingness.
Yes, this is as close as we can get to the answer. But we never reach the full answer, no matter how intelligent and how wise one is.
He said there is a non-physical existence before the Physical came to be.
There are only two known existences/realities:
1. Physical -- with matter & energy obey the Laws of Nature
2. Non-physical -- the "eternal" domain of the MIND of an intelligence.
Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe ... with free will ... and can make physical & non-physical constructs.
Most have assumed Man's MIND is only the physical brain but this is not so because Chimps have 99% of Human DNA but can not think or do 1% of what Man's mind & body has done.
Man's mind can only make abstract constructs. Man's body make physical constructs from the abstract.
Man has always known of a supernatural existence & possessing a spirit form ... because only an intelligence like Man ... makes Laws of Nature and everything in the Universe with purpose, form, function & design.
Is there a religion that has an "almighty" intelligence, making the Universe for Man, made Man in His Image, made Man with a body & spirit and to live forever ... so long as Man obeys one simple rule?
Only an intelligence ... makes a Law ... for a reason .. for an intelligence .. and then enforces it.
Something is eternal. This is a brute fact. Existence is. And I am glad.
This is my thinking as well. We may never now, like a fish in a bowl. Probably existence doesn't have a cause, like the absolut root fact of cause and effect. Perhaps, complete nothingness is an impossibility hence existens just is.
This is a brute assumption
i thought about that and came to the same conclusion which is kinda fulfillling in a sense. Nothingness is a just a hypothetical and even the hypothetical is not really "nothing". Existance needs conciousness to literally make sense, "nothing" is not a thing.
Thumbs up for recognizing the importance of consciousness. Not many are able to make that link. I would like to follow on that and state that consciousness IS existence (or at least a part of it)
I'm 72 years old and have a good memory. For a long time, I have tried to reach the meaning of nothingness, of existence etc., through trying to remember my very first moments of consciousness, lying in a crib, in a certain room with the first feelings (or pre-feelings) that emerged at that particular time. But I'm not going very far, it looks like piercing a hole towards nothingness.
@@alainnegre7691 conciousness cannot conceive of nothingness. conciosness is the cause of reality itself, therefore nothingness is not a thing.
The thought goes through my head every day how crazy all this is. Is consciousness fundamental? Or is this just some weird emergence? Also, consciousness is either confined only to earth or consciousness is abundant in the universe. I don’t really see how it could be any other way.
We may never know the answer to these questions and probably never will. But we still have a life to live, children to raise, things to do.
Why then bother to post this?
This discussion reminded me of three things:
1. The show Counterpart
2. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem - specifically that some truths exists that cannot be proven. So the proof necessarily cannot exist. Doesn’t mean other things can’t exist. But does it allow that in other worlds (i.e. systems of math) such a proof might exist? Or is the proof nonexistent in all possible worlds?
3. Cantor’s infinity argument. As I understand it, Cantor proved that some infinities (such as real numbers) are greater than others (such as integers). To me that implies a nonexistence argument - a missing mapping between the two sets. But not only missing, it can never exist.
These all seem to be counterfactual or alternate possibilities arguments. But at least given the reality we perceive, the idea of total nothingness seems immediately disproved. Even if our reality is a simulation, that simulation exists etc. As in the cogito ergo sum argument by Descartes.
When you say "proven", proved or proven *to whom*? and to what standard, and what*exactly*do you mean by "proof" and equally*exactly*, proved or proven *to whom*?-You, or some specific identifiable other?
the absence of existence is what gives meaning to existence itself
@@andyschultheiss5128 *"It means nothing."*
... And yet others will claim, "It means everything." The reason why this ends up as opposing determinations is because one determination offers clarity for the other.
Ever since I first seriously contemplated the question many years ago in my 20's, I hypothesized that that a state of nothingness cannot exist--not just because of the physical laws in our universe, but as a more foundational notion. There always must be something. The only reason I can think of for this notion is probability--the probability for something to exist is exponentially greater than the probability for nothing to exist. But that reason is not completely satisfying to me. It presupposes that probabilities always exist, that probabilities are the ultimate foundation of existence and preclude the existence of a state of nothingness.
There are 3 notions:
1) Some-thing
2) No-thing
3) Existence
I think you are confusing 3 with 1 and 2. You see 1 and 2 are opposites and number 3 is something entirely different.
@@youssefalaoui4286 but aren’t 1 and 3 the same? i mean it’s either existence or not. if you have “Something” you have existence and if you have existence you have something. it’s either all of existence or nothing. what he is saying makes complete sense
@@albertaoridge Some-thing is a “thing” by definition. I don’t think existence has to be a “thing”. In other words; it’s not “an existing thing”.
Analogy; It’s like sleep and wake state which are 2 states. Now death doesn’t have to be either, it can be a third state.
'Seriously' is the state where understanding is achieved.. We either have the will to understand, or it is lacking, and some 'other' agenda is occurring..
Answers are commensurate with the quality of the question..
spaceandmotion
This short philosophical video should satisfy your existential thrist.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
It's curious that so many of us are surprised by there being "something" rather than nothing. In other words, it's curious that many of us assume that "nothing" ought to be the default state, in some odd sense of "ought" (in the first place, the default state of ...WHAT?). I think there's something wrong with the initial question: it may be another case of a question where there's a "category-mistake" made. On the other hand, it may be sensible to seek scientifically for echoes or hints a source or "cause" of the Big Bang (Physicist Paul Steinhardt has done this in his book with Neil Turok, ENDLESS UNIVERSE (2007), as well as in some "Closer To Truth" interviews here on UA-cam with Robert Kuhn). Hats off to Robert for bringing so many excellent presenters of these topics to us.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
There really should be nothing, but here we are. It's mind-boggling.
It is setence from narrow mind because itis rambling gibberish. Please show up this though proof evidence?
why should there be nothing? has anyone ever seen nothing? i think it's logically impossible.
@@maxwellsimoes238 It is the opposite of a narrow mind.
What's mind boggling is the stupidity of academics and atheists.
Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things ( of the Universe) with clearly purpose, form, function & design.
Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, with a clearly fine tuned to separate the MIND of an intelligence from those of Animals.
All Law come from the MIND of an intelligence ... has a purpose, reason .. brings structure, direction, consistency & order ... is made for an intelligence ... and is enforced by an intelligence.
Man has known for thousands of years that the Universe has an unnatural origin by an intelligence, more powerful than Man.
Religions are a natural phenomena, will always be observed, obeys the Laws of Nature and has a scientific explanation.
Atheism is also a religion but has simply replace "the gods" with the theories or ideologies of a "puny human" intelligence.
And only the Jews & Christians have identified the "Almighty" intelligence that obviously made everything ... is will be enforcing the Laws that have been broken by Man, in due time.
in a sense "nothingness" is seen by ppl as an easier status thus suggesting its >EXISTANCE< but in reality EXISTANCE is the easy scenario because nothingness is just a conceptional human error - quite literally the deepest of all.
Sometimes I sit and ponder the thought of true nothingness. As I delve deep into the trail of thought. It gets scarier and scarier to ponder to me. Imagine nothing existed. There is no creation to give thought and there never will be. Not a single molecule. Now if you get yourself there. Stay there for a bit and let the thought of nothingness sink in, if you can. This is where I began to ask myself unusal questions about existence. I wonder if you would too. Or am i just crazy? lol.
God is the necessary existence that is not contingent upon anything else.Once you have gotten over that, life becomes much less crazy.
Alhamdulillah for Islam
If the Big never Banged, if "nothing" existed, not a single molecule, would 1+1 still equal 2? What about Truth, would it still exist? What about statements like "nothing exists," would it still be the truth even if there was no knower to know the truth?
@@l.ronhubbard5445 it sure is an interesting thought to ponder. Not Scientology though.
@@christopherclink6931 yeah, Scientology sucks!
Nope, I do it every day, all the time. There is nothing "there" outside of now. In fact, "Now" last for eternity.
1. If things could be otherwise? No. Because then you’re back to where you started having to explain why something happened one way and not another. That reason has a reason. So that’s never gonna work-and a professor / philosopher would know that. Now…
Question: Why is There Anything at All?
A. An absence of ‘all’ things would include ‘the absence of all things.’ That’s a something.
B. To go from an absence of all things to something would require a reason. That reason is a something. To a specific something has a reason. We now have another something.
C. You only need one assumption (which was already granted in the dialogue): Impossible things are, well, impossible. Paradoxes are impossible. ‘An absence of all things’ would constitute a paradox.
Therefore, ‘the absence of ‘all’ things’ is impossible. There simply must be something.
He actually acknowledged your conclusion several times in the video …
Another way to think about is: in order to explain anything, we must put it into a context and/or explain how it emerges from simpler structures.
So... the problem is: as soon as you explain something... now you have to explain THAT thing. For instance, if you say God did it, then you ask: "Where did God come from?"
What we're looking for is something that doesn't need to be explained: the most basic thing which forms the foundation of existence itself.
We can skip ahead to the conclusion that existence exists, just because we are here.
After reading a lot of Max Tegmark, I think about it like this. There is a type of existence that exists without any substrate. Some words to describe that kind of existence are: IDEA, CONCEPT, MATH. This is the existence of things that are simply TRUE.
If an idea is TRUE, it exists.
We have a gut feeling that nothingness should exist, because it would be simpler than existence, and simpler things are more likely to exist than complex things (at least that's our experience).
We can get around this by imagining that, a universe where nothing exists, DOES exist, except, it doesn't exist HERE.
The world of ideas, perhaps, has a certain structure to itself.. ie 1 is next to 2.... red is next to orange... etc... and so...
Nothingness... is perhaps... at the very "center" of everything that exists... but all the interesting stuff happens everywhere else. :)
I believe existence is inevitable because the alternative "is" non-existence, which "is" by definition not a thing and cannot last so something must replace, or rather "place" a state of non-existence instantaneously in the form of quantum fluctuations or otherwise.
Reading the title quickly, I was genuinely curious what Don Rickles would have to say about something like this.
Did it not occur to you to question the premises of the question?
No, suppose it didn't.
Did you realize it was Dean Rickles and not Don? I would like to hear Don's answer just for the laughs. 😁
I think the problem is because we use "there" as a part of question. When we say "there" we refer to the space-time, where the space-time is the object itself. If we take a simplest possible mathematical object - the point, we can see that this object has no structure, and if the point is in the blank dimension, there is no space for other point. "there" in the question is a hidden statement.
Hmmm. Why is THERE something, rather than nothing. I see. That could be the problem right there. What is the alternative? Maybe "Why something, rather than nothing?"
@@rayfletcher8759 I think the question why it's the logical question, which presume the existing of the deterministic reason, while the beginning point has no reason by the definition. If it's correct, then the logic cannot be applied for the description of the starting point. Some people put a god above the world to solve the problem, but this trick introduces the problem of a god's existence, just shifting the problem on the one level up. There are three solutions, that I was able to find. The first one is that all mathematical objects are alive by themselves. The second one is we live in the multiverse. The third one that the universe collapses and rises infinity times. As a person with the positive scientific word view, I do prefer to answer "we don't know, but we will solve this puzzle"
Fascinating. Listened twice and wonder how somethingness/nothingness relates to language, the ephemeral, a vacuum.
Have you noticed how what would appear to be human beings have in their associative apparatuses what can only be called Blurbs - vague dreamy generalised unfocused associations? - Exactly like out of focus photographs and it is impossible to determine of what any one of them is a photograph? Their associative apparatuses are apparently littered or full of blurbs like universe, world, meaning, exist own, thought,think, believe, feel, nothing, everything...., and I'm sure you can add any number of blurbs to the list?- A Blurb being for my purposes -or defined by me as, any word/idea/image that the user of it simply has no idea what it means, or if it were a photograph, of what it is a photograph.
No doubt you would cite to me the following from Lewis Carroll: "When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things?” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master?-that's all.”
And I would adopt the assertion of Humpty Dumpty.
The question is merely a random jumble of blurbs, or another way of putting that is, gibberish and asinine artificial and contrived gibberish.
Is pretty much a standard approach in all examples of academe, never to accept the premises of any question.
Did not occur to you to challenge or question the premises of that gibberish question?
"In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away-
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."
It all relies on the fact that Absolute Nothing simply can never be. It means there can only "be" something. And only a singlular something, at that, since "nothing" can not separate this something in any way shape or form, or else it would be an "it" and something. There "Is" and that is the all of it. Things like size and distance and any "border" between two things, when looked at through the idea of a singular something, all break down into illusions in the face of this concrete fact. Somehow, this singlular "thing", which should have no definition whatsoever, in any way, has yielded what we are experiencing. The fact that there are "things", plural, that there is a you and I and stars and distance and anything, does not match the fact of there being only one something, yet, there is. The illusion is. And that's pretty wild.
Nothingness has no laws that prohibit something to replace nothing. The replacement of nothing by something isn't facilitated in any way. It is just possible in the sense that it is not impossible. And there is no waiting time for the possibility to be realized, because there is no time in nothingness.
Isn't anything that can't be measured and that bears no consequence nothing? We see this with virtual particles for example, which cancel out due to their counter part. If you can define nothing in that way, why can't you have these inconsequential bits be there? They by themselves are nothing, but once they start to "entangle" and they also start to develop emerging properties, maybe then you get what we consider something???
Or you could just say, "nothingness would last for never," i.e. it can't exist.
Parmenides 500 BC: "Whatever is is, and what is not cannot be", also "Out of nothing nothing comes". I think he says the same thing with more words.
If we approach this question in the other way around trying to find something that could turn into nothing and when I say this isn't any kind of shape of Lavoisier premise such E= mc^2. What I'm trying to refer is some kind of phenomenon that makes possible the lost of information and when we go along this journey we fall in black holes. With Hawkins radiation all the black holes going in nothing direction. So with this we can assume that nothing it's possible from concrete existence things. Therefore it means we can go from something to nothing! So it seems to me that the question isn't properly formulated but instead of "Why" the one that should be done it's "How"... That's what comes to my mind!
Yeah you went from “no existing thing” to “an existing thing” which has nothing to do with the question of the video which is about existence itself.
This is essentially the same question as when did existence begin and assumes existence had a beginning and isn't some type of loop. It's like the video a few weeks ago when that guy talked about branching light cones and how one could loop back to cause itself, a mind boggling thought but it could be close to the truth.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
The answer is very simple. Nothing doesn't exist. Something always has to exist.
Good discussion.
If I'm correct, Space-time is a construct of Intrinsic Consciousness. (but not as we think of in the limits of our own conscious experience)
If I'm correct, Intrinsic Consciousness is a Non Process.
If I'm correct, Process does not exist outside of a construct of Intrinsic Consciousness.
The actual problem of existence itself as touched upon in the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is itself a question of "Why is there a process?".
The question suggests that it is process that does not actually exist but is rather perceived as existence.
I think that some have hinted at this, perhaps without knowing it.
Albert Einstein
"People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
Space-time is a construct of something that exists without it but can make it. Something that can make it, without a process to do so. And the way to "do" (lol) that, is that process never exists. It's only perceived.
Another way of looking at is, "to have anything at all you have to have everything". In a sense, "something exists because everything exists". That in my view suggests "infinite mind". Existence as we know it and perceive it would be the compartmentalization of a perceived process. God (not ego god in the sky), creates by establishing the perception of moments. Timelessness creates through making the perception of time and process, and places versions of self in those moments to create within that vantage point.
Just thinking.
there is no guarantee that the logical structure of the universe must remain in shape, but it does , i know it sounds crazy but think about this, if qualia has been that unexplainable, it means that qualia could do much weirder things, think about the qualia interface of a shrimp mantis, it can actually see more colors, yes he would need more names to name more colors, alot of qualia arent even accessible to humans, let alone, qualia that is more abstract and does not neccessarily reside upon logic, that is hard to imagine but i would guess that some kind of qualia could totally reasonably provide a perfectly satisfactory answer to the entirety of the questions proposed in the video, it would just sound like The answer to the ultimate question is 42, with humans failing miserably at attempting to perceive their desired qualia, that seems to be because of the strict consistency of The structure that seems to be maintained to give rise to that limited range of qualia accessible to humans, humans seem to be strictly trapped inside this structure somewhy, this structure is logic. as for a human, he must engage in and attempt to bring about the desired qualia and be succesful hopefully to be happy and i wish you and everyone does just that without affecting the qualia of others in any immoral way. that way i demonstrate why it is "wrong" to expect illogical or your wishful answers from this question and realize the limitations and the low likelihoods of your performance as a machine such as connecting black or white to nothing and ill defining infinity to link it to nothing, that is a trap in the form of qualia accompanied by encouragment emotions and hence the confidence in belief.
Why is there anything at all, may be the pillars for questions, for curiosity, for investigating, as a training for the mind, to develop to evolve philosophically. Then existence is only realized by a conscious mind, but, there are differences depending on what informations an individual has about existence. So, an answer depends on how much knowledge an individual has gathered and what his conscious mind can add as a logic consequence to the question.
If we all know that we are made of atoms, but dont fall apart when a strong wind blows, then, the logic should be, we're in a state of a product, and a table that is also made of atoms, but, that we constructed, is also in a state of product.
So the purpose of our being, was to develop consciousness, and be aware of all that exists, and witness why there is anything at all.
We are in a level of continuity, who knows what future generations may access with more developed informations.
I feel that the most obvious answer to this question is just too uncomfortable to many. By looking at basic logic itself we should see that the existence of nothing is a prerequisite to the existence of something and vice versa which is analogous to the necessity of the existence of something but the latter is just one half of the truth. The question therefore is not "to be or not to be" because it is to be *and* not to be. If the universe is indeed flat and thus infinitely large, then it is also a necessity that even just a slightly varying copy - and even an infinite number of absolutely identical copies - of everything exists in this incomprehensibly large realm of nothingness. In Buddhism this whole logic is known as the concept of emptiness, so also just a slightly varying terminology but essentially the same idea: There is not one without the other.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
something and nothing are dependent on each other. they must coexist by necessity. much like light/dark, matter/space, up/down ect. they define each other and "create" each other.
If nothing exists,,then neither does the question ,or the answer,,,therefore the universe MUST exist.
Well that would explain why it looks like the universe exists.
This is very thought-provoking. It made me wonder whether we should actually think of counterfactuals as involving existence, as Rickles assumes.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
What in blue blazes does the preposterous and pretentious "counterfactual" mean, or what you seek to convey when you use that particular word?
My left pocket bets my right pocket that you have not the faintest idea, and are about to illustrate that by signally failing to set out what you seek to convey by that particular utterly meaningless word.
@@vhawk1951kl I wouldn’t have thought it was that strange a word. “Counterfactual” describes what is not the case.
Rickles says that he wants to investigate the being not only of the actual universe, but also of possible things (“The song that was not played at the concert”). It seems to me that this puts him in the rather strange position of saying that “being” embraces both what does exist and (some? all?) things that DON’T exist!
It makes me wonder if Rickles is enquiring into is really being - or just linguistic meaning?
@@ailblentyn If I were to encounter "counterfactual", which means absolutely nothing to me, I would immediately wonder whose facts?
@@vhawk1951kl Many facts are not so controversial, surely! In the sentence “If I had been born a gorilla, my mother would have been surprised”, the “if-clause” paints a counterfactual.
One thing is for sure. If there was nothing then we wouldn't know of something. But since we experienced something then we can talk about nothing from a perspective of something. What was your experience before you were born. Most of us would say nothing. Was that a real experience? If so, it would be something.
Why there is something rather than nothing is a question that would be impossible to solve as long as we're not able to define the nature of our own consciousness as being nothing outside but something inside which exists eternally.
The reason why there is a universe is that there is a mind which manifests it and the reason why there is a mind is because of the natural will of consciousness to experience itself to the fullest. How is it possible for consciousness to possess a natural will to experience itself when this can not be accomplished?
I was with you till the last sentence. What are you saying "can not be accomplished?"
@@Agent707, how is it possible for consciousness to have a natural will to know/experience itself when this will can not be accomplished?
It must've been the absolute conviction of the primordial consciousness that its natural will to know/experience itself is the fundamental force that governs all that is and could ever be. The existence of the mind which includes all of its manifestations must be the result of this fundamental spiritual force.
Mathematical objects do not instantiate without consciousness. It too is therefore contingent in a way. Everything points to the need for the existence of something that is necessary without explanation.
🛳Very creative location for your discussion👍. Where are you cruising? Did you get the drink package🍹 for post-discussion?
When you apply intellect in way of Reason, you no longer are below or of the sense world.
It's great to see people from different thought circles answer similar question, it reveals a lot. That being how you look at something, changes what you get out of it -- this is scientifically proven.
If you want to find the answer via defining and quantum, you're going to stay right there. It's not about right vs wrong, is about being above that, questioning the question and applying them in their rightful place.
If you want to be only logical, you are limited to the sense world and the body, because the intelligible world and intellect exceed, reason and logic may come from Intellect but the intellect is not they.
Science is very limited to the material, and things are defined not entirely by themselves rather in contrast to other things that are separate and different or devided. How are you supposed to find the answer there, you cannot. Existence is only known from what is non existence in contrast and what exists physically is not beyond which is immaterial -- not the best method of thinking because non existence is improper.
It's all very incredible and I appreciate.
Some claim to be after truth, I only know truth to be a direction to grow in, and what reveals is
If something must exist by necessity, then it stands to reason that the 'Universe' as a whole is infinite and has always and always will exist, whether that be in parallel universes, cyclic universes, or some other form.
I think you misunderstood the question as you are talking about “an existing something” while the question is about existence itself.
The Universe had a beginning, eve atheistic scientist accept this. Only God is infinite and Eternal.
@@youssefalaoui4286 No, that's what I was referring too as well. "Universe' is everything in this context. They explain in the video what they mean by this as well.
@@pauljohn1979 Our known visible universe had a beginning is what they are talking about. We don't know if God exists, you'd have to prove all of that before proclaiming it, and it has nothing to do with the science and what we're talking about here anyway as God himself would still need to be explained for existing.
@@videosbymathew The evidence for God is all around us. The problem is with Mankind in his fallen state he refuses to acknowledge the obvious that is in front of his eyes.
Asking why there is something rather than nothing is assuming that there must be a reason for the existence of something. "Reasons" are just abstract models we come up with to describe reality. Really needs to reasons. It just is what it is.
Existence might not be contingent. Just because we can imagine "nothing" that doens't mean that "nothing" is possible or that a reason for existence is required.
Reality needs no reasons to be. It just is.
We should confuse our need to create models to explain nature based on a abstract "chain of reasons" with the actual existence of reasons in nature.
This is like asking what's the cause of the ultimate cause or what's more general than the most general.
Observing of the univers around us show us a consistent pattern according to which large and complex is less probable than small and simple. Therefore we are baffled by the idea that the infinitely big and complexe should be very unlikely and that it's the infinitely small and simple, smaller than a dot, nothing that is, that should be certain instead.
I think that this is a case where we make abusive generalisation by thinking that the infinitely small must be certain and the infinitely big should be impossible.
So that's for the part of "rather than nothing".
For the first part of the question "why is there anything at all", I suspect it also to be an abusive generalisation of the idea that we can order everything in a hierarchical causal tree. Some existing beings might not be causally linked to other beings and we may not have an answer to a "why" question about them.
There might actually be an ultimate cause that doesn't have a cause that we may call existence. Therefore there would be no answer to "why existence exist" .
Define something. Some physical thing? Some abstract thing? Some absolute thing? Some contingent thing? Some non contingent thing? Some personal thing?... Some virtuous thing? Some honorable thing? Some wise thing? Everything is given to us.
Why do we *believe* things like logic and mathematics must be necessary in all possible worlds? I can certainly imagine domains of reality where the laws that govern logic and math to be very different or even entirely non-existent. Of course I can't imagine what such worlds would look like, but it seems to be an act of faith to state that all worlds are governed by laws we're familiar with......or even by laws. There may be domains of reality where 2+2 = purple....or where the number 2 simply doesn't exist in any meaningful way.
Because of this, we run into some serious issues. Logic and reason seem the only tools available to us to describe and discuss reality. If there are domains not governed by the laws of reason/math/logic, then (at best) we can only use logic to describe things inside our own particular corner of reality, but not reality itself.
I wrestled with this question as a young adult, ...and couldn't really come to any conclusions...as is the case with philosophy , each question usually arises more questions..but if I had to take a stab at an answer, I would say there is something rather then nothing because that is the more probable of the two, as in the simple probability that there could be something,, is enough for ther to indeed be something, I know , doesn't really answer it..but it's all I have..
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
Existence itself is not an object. It is ‘sat” and it is necessarily “chit” (aware) and it is necessarily limitless (ananda).
It almost seems like a linguistic quirk. 'nothing' is a word that is supposed to mean 'something'. I don't see that numbers have to exist either. Thank you for this post.
1. You exist. You always have, always will.
death is an illusion
(Non-existence cannot exist by itself. In order for the non-existence to EXIST, there has to be existence.
Existence cannot be partial. By the fact that anything exists at all indicates that everything must exist.)
2. Everything is here and now.
[ time / space / memory of the past ] are illusions
(Since if THERE exists other than here, here does not exist in THERE. If THERE exists, it violates #1.)
3. The one is the all, and the all is one.
[ separation / limitation ] are illusions
(Only one thing exists, the existance itself. Everything else is an illusion.)
4. What you put out is what you get back.
(Reality is the reflection of your consciousness, which is an illusion.)
5. Everything changes except the above 4.
(Change is the only constant.)
Many lines of inquiry point to the singularity.
My ears really enjoyed the AC
One word: consciousness.
This. Existence is here for consciousness to know itself.
Since “Anything Is Possible” there should be many things that exist to make possible all those states of affairs and actions, that could be. Where as, for nothingness to exist it only needs an Infinitesimal corner of space to fit all the non possible things that could never exists.
This guy side steps the question. To question the existence of ideas or thoughts. He talks about circles and circles.
Having pondered this question for 40+ years, If there was truly nothing then what's the point. Nothing happening for eternity seems boring and nothing changes. The one consistent quality of the cosmos is that everything always continues to change, there is nothing static.
Try to understand the eastern thinking, Chinese as well as The Indian, they say the same thing... There is nothing and nothingness... Go inward and you will find the same nothingness... The universe itself
If there was nothing, there would be no eternity or boring.
He are showing he Not knows "Nothing " it is his whitheless Science. Boring challatan.
"The one consistent quality of the cosmos is that everything always continues to change, there is nothing static.", except for the constants and laws of nature, and randomness.
Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) and things( of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, function & design.
Man has always known that the Universe has an unnatural origin by a "supernatural" intelligence like Man.
Man is the only known intelligence in this huge Universe ... where everything has purpose, form, function & design and obey a set of natural LAWS.
Laws are made & enforce by an intelligence ... for an intelligence ... and provide direction, purpose, structure, certainty & order.
Remove the Laws of Man ... and there will be complete disorder.
Remove the Laws of Nature ... and ther will be complete discover.
Man is an intelligence with a physical body to make physical constructs & a non-physical form( ie spirit) to make abstract constructs.
The Mind of an intelligence ... is not physical ... and is eternal.
The body & spirit of Man ... come from the mind of an "almighty" intelligence.
Is there any religion that has God making making Man like him( not Him) with a body & spirit to live forever so long as Man obeys one simple Law?
Again. And intelligence makes Law for an intelligence ... and enforces i, otherwise there will be chaos & disorder.
Awesome
When I was, I were, then I noticed I am. But how will I be? When? And with who? By myself? I think so.
To explain why there is something rather than nothing, you can't just assume and assert the presence of numbers. Assuming some kind of Platonic realm where numbers exist explains nothing.
I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". If any extant solution were satisfying, we wouldn't still be asking the question. Another way to say that you start with "nothing" is with the analogy where you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1 (ex nihilo nihil fit), so you can't start with a 0 unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". That is the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". This means that "something" and existence is necessary because even what we used to "nothing" is a "something". But, why? A proposed mechanism is as follows.
I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". If any existing solution were satisfying, we wouldn't still be asking the question. Another way to say that you start with "nothing" is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1 (ex nihilo nihil fit), so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking, "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". That is the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". So, “something" doesn't come out of "nothing". Instead, the situation we used to think of as "nothing" is actually a "something" if we could see through its disguise. A proposed mechanism for how that can be is as follows.
How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping together of stuff into a new unit whole or existent entity. Some examples of groupings are 1.) the grouping together of paper and ink atoms to create a new unit whole called a book that's a different existent entity than the atoms considered individually; 2.) the grouping together of previously unrelated elements to create a set; and 3.) even the mental construct labeled the concept of a car is a grouping together of the concepts tires, chassis, steering wheel, use for transportation, etc. Here, the grouping is better thought of as the top-level label "car" that the mind uses to group subheadings together into one.
Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.
Some other points are:
1. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Humans are stuck having to define "nothing" in our existent minds (i.e., "somethings"), but "nothing" itself doesn't have this constraint. Whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of how we define it or talk about it.
2. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".
3. While no one can directly visualize "nothing" because the mind is not present in "nothing", what we can do is to try to visualize the entire volume of the universe/reality shrinking down to just the size of our mind's eye and then trying to extrapolate what it would be like if the mind weren't there. That's as far as we can get.
If anyone's interested, more details are at:
philpapers.org/rec/GRAPST-4
sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
I am a mere backward Colonial peasant but your explanation nailed it for my tired mind!👏
@@kentimmins9171 Thanks! I'm pretty much a backwards colonial peasant, too, but we peasants aren't total idiots. 😀
An equally deep question would be "why am I me (and not someone else) ?
I love how this one question brings out so many smart people to the comments. That's the difference between big questions and science. Science has a lot of smart people who don't have what it takes to tackle these questions.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
Everybody is "smart" (neatly and tidily dressed) but you eh sunshine?
@@vhawk1951kl Ah you want to figure out what I am...I am the greatest intelligence you shall ever meet, and I am too great for clothing.
I believe we’re asking the wrong question or assuming that we understand the definition of Nothing or Nothingness. The Ego wants to think it knows what nothing is but do we? What if there is Something beyond Nothing? Nothing may only be the beginning.
Excellent conversation about the deepest of subjects.
The only reasons some things are considered 'deep' by people is that they are so accustomed to paddling in the shallows..
I doubt if there could be a shallower question since it is entirely contrived artificial and arbitrary- little different from asking where is the where the where the where?
It is not possible to have both something and nothing, we live in a reality where there is something. For there to be nothing is impossible. To have nothingness is to have an imaginary reality that can't exist. It is the most impossible thing that we can imagine.
> For there to be nothing is impossible.
?
Hello :) Well when a cell divides ... if the cell didn't know about the division and the original cell drifted away ... it would seem like coming from nothing? Imagine our universe is in the nucleus of a cell and our visible universe is our starting point :)
then where does this universal nucleus of a cell come from?
Philosophy has better explanation.
This short philosophical explanation of the the same concept should satisfy your existential thirst for understanding.
ua-cam.com/video/6IYK_M3ACHI/v-deo.html
Because instead of being just itself consciousness ventures to live an illusion that it weaves out of itself.
Even if there is nothing, a viewer is still required to acknowledge that fact. The key component in the concept of nothing is "thing". The layer from which all "things" emerge is not a thing and therefore satisfies the condition of nothing. Numbers require single, fractional or multiple instances of things. Without things, numbers have no meaning and in a world of nothing they would not arise. Very perplexing even if you believe in God. For instance, how did the one consciousness existing in the world of nothing get fragmented into many conscious agents in the world of things?
yes - the space time needs conciousness to LITERALLY make sense. Concious agents are channeling physical characters (you, me, everyone else). The concious agents are fragmented - otherwise we would be one big conciousness sensing everything - everytime - kind of a NON state a nothingstate because everything would sense each other out thus this state does not exist otherwise it would right? But it is not a thing "nothingness" is a conceptional fallacy. Existance as it is - is the only possibility. Concious characters can die because it is the concious agents that create reality. Concious agents cannot die because they are not bound to space time. That means "your" concious agent will always be the same but the characters will change. Meaning you will be a version of you, maybe a complete different person or even a cell at one time. One interesting question would be - what is the order? Is it prefering the next most similar state thus you being a very similar "version" of you or is it more complex? Im so curious how far we will reach the truth in our lifetime.
The truth can only be found by exploring your own inner being through meditation. No amount of intellectual footwork can ever solve this puzzle. Meditation will resolve it. Remember who you are!
For us as individuals, the first 13.8 billion years was "nothingness." Now, we get 70 or 80 years of somethingness, and then it's back to nothingness for the next 13 billion.
Why back to nothingness for 13 b?
How do you *know* we go back to "nothingness" when we shed our mortal coil?
Perhaps we are all a singular consciousness choosing to experience itself through infinite forms.
Understanding that the universe has no center, yet the center is everywhere at the same time, means that everything exists throughout all time. The period of time "we" inhabit respectively continues to exist in that time period indefinitely. Think of it like our lives exist on a page of spacetime in a book that cannot be destroyed. It will always be there. And you would be this singular consciousness that is not any one of those individual lives but all of them at the same time. And you could open this book and flip to that part of the story any time you want.
And the reason we're not experiencing our infinite other existences is because it would be like trying to hear separately all the songs that ever existed being played in the same 5 minutes. You wouldn't be able to make sense of the sound as they'd all be playing against each other. To experience them independently they have to be listened to separately in spacetime.
@@Agent707 So, we end up with all of the sentient beings ever born throughout all of time and from every livable galaxy? Must be crowded.
🙏🏻
🙏🏻
🙏🏻
Asking why existence exists is like asking why heat is hot or why height is high. When it comes to existence, the alternative is non-existence, which does not exist, as its name implies…
the problem is what would have triggered it ??? why an explosion to start everything ?
@@ManiBalajiC the only reasonable answer is that everything has always existed…
@@TheSergius80 Yes, everything has always existed & is infinite
I was always be astounded by infinities so it’s refreshing that Robert is fascinated by nothing lol
It seems to me that a world with nothing contingent in it is quite conceivable and not impossible a priori. One or more active necessary beings are therefore unavoidable to explain our Universe. It is difficult to avoid some sort of theism or pantheism if we keep the definition of "God" loose enough.
Imagine that there is nothing except consciousness creating a story that is perceived by its probes as individual bundles of varying shape, form and colour; like a dream.
@@DavidWhite-wb4ot Thank you for that comment, David. I needed it.
@@DavidWhite-wb4ot Our lives are as real as can be.
There are plenty of people working from that exact premise. Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup a couple of very interesting scientists going down this road.
"What kind of world could instantiate nothing?"
Why is there even a world at all? There could have been no worlds to instantiate anything.
Maybe if you start with a world full of things, you can't revert back to nothingness. But *before* there were things, it might have been possible for nothing to ever happen.
I quite agree with you. We deem it impossible that a state of sheer nothingness might have obtained only because we are accustomed to the existence of the world
The problem is about the existence of existence itself. Even if we were to demonstrate the construction of nothingness, that nothingness is still in possession of the possibility for it to be something hence not the nothingness that the problem relates to.
Not sure I agree. Sure, logically you could claim a symmetry between something and nothing. And therefore say that you can reverse the logic arbitrarily, of whether to start from a "something" perspective or a "nothing" perspective. But experience is what breaks the symmetry. We know, experientially, without a shadow of a doubt, that something exists, whatever "it" is. It is fundamental bedrock. "Nothing" is a theoretical abstraction that is deduced by utilizing a linear, mechanical cause-effect mode of reasoning, and then reversing it. But perhaps this linear reasoning just isn't applicable to existence at large. Why would the abstract reasoning of homo-sapiens, an evolutionarily recent development, be suitable to describe the larger universe which brought it about?
He was essentially saying there is the non-physical or spirit existence before the physical Universe came to be.
There are only two realities/existences:
1. Physical -- where matter, energy must obey the Laws of Nature
2. Non-physical -- domain only for the MIND of an intelligence.
Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe who has free will and can make physical & abstract constructs.
Man's mind only makes abstract constructs.
Man's body makes physical constructs.
Both constructs come from the MIND of intelligence. Most assume Man's mind is his brain, and that when Man's body dies so too does the mind.
But only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) & anything ( of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & design.
Religions are actually a Natural Phenomena where Man has always known the "supernatural" origin of the Universe but is free to think, believe, say & do about the intelligence that clearly made everything.
Is there a religion ... that states a powerful intelligence made the Universe for Man, made Man is His image, made Man with a perfect BODY & spirit and to live forever ... so long as Man obeys one simple rule/Law?
Only an intelligence ... makes rules & Laws ... for a reason .... for an intelligence ... and enforces the rules & laws.
The Facts & science are clear about the origin of the Universe & Man.
disagree - nothingness is a human error. it is projection, it is ironically not a thing.
At the end of the video he says "because you don't have a possible world available to represent there being nothing". I think this is the main misunderstanding which so often leads those who ponder this question to presume that utter nothingness is an impossibility (and therefore to argue for the brute fact view). To insatiate nothingness, nothing is required: just as unicorns do NOT exist, in the same way pure nothingness could have been the case instead of there being a world at all. The nothingness of the inexistence of unicorns is proved by the fact that we don't see any of them around, and that is enough to "taste" the reality of their inexistence. In the same way sheer nothingness instead of existence is possible. All that is required is the gradual inexistence of each object, one by one, considering them to have the same ontological status of unicorns.
He believes nothing though misticism. There arent Science evidence. If he show honest minds concern Universe certain he are stopping says weird comments
Muahhamd had a winged horse. Could be a type of unicorn
if we say there is no unicorn, we say it because we have reference of something like that not existing - somethings not existing does not intail a possible state of anything not existing since all things need conciousness to make sense in the first place. If there would be nothing, why is there something then? Again, it is not a thing, not even hypothetically. Nothingness is the most impossible state because it is not a state - it is a pseudo state. Ironically nothing in existance points to nothing. It is a narrow logical fallacy - a human conception of the deepest error.
Didn't know Don Rickles had a son...fantastic!
I wouldn't be so sure that the universe doesn't encompass existence itself. We are, after all, "...made of starstuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
I find your comment so weird because the universe as “an existing something” whereas the question is about existence itself. Stardust ? That’s another existing something.
@@youssefalaoui4286 We dont know the true nature of reality. The universe being the result of the conciousness of some cosmic mind is just as likely as the universe being "a place with a bunch of stuff in it."
@@jessiejamesferruolo But those are all "existing things" whereas the question is about existence itself. Don't you see the difference ?
@@youssefalaoui4286 Apparently you don't understand.
@@jessiejamesferruolo Enlighten me. You said "a place with a bunch of stuff in it." That is an existing thing.
Not the wright question
The wright one is why there is single hydrogyne atom at first the simplest atom with one fog or dens of electron
fascinating
Nothing is a logical impossibility. That's basically what I've also concluded.
I like emeralds~
Basically, the tangible came out of the intangible. There is no other way.
Then, it is just a question of 'how'..
spaceandmotion