Sean Carroll - Why There is "Something" rather than "Nothing"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2016
- We know that there is not Nothing. There is Something. It is not the case that there is no world, nothing at all, a blank. It is the case that there is a world. Nothing did not obtain. But why?
Click here to watch more interviews with Sean Carroll bit.ly/1OwhX5E
Click here to watch more interviews on the reason there is something rather than nothing bit.ly/1TcRCeR
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
I absolutely love and admire how Sean Carroll avoids giving long, vague answers and is always strict and clear. True Scientist. inspirational.
Sahand Bahari
I agree. But I think the most important thing he said was that he didn’t care. That this universe is what he was worried about.
except I think he is wrong there has to be a necessary beginning. I don't buy the universe is just a brute fact.
@@anglozombie2485 there can't be a beginning. anytime you posit a beginning, I say "where did that come from"
@@anglozombie2485 your right there is a beginning Sean carroll is very very smart to bad he's putting his energy into materialism. What wasted potential. If you want real answers check out tom campbell on UA-cam and his book My Big TOE
To me that’s a downer. He never actually replies to anything.
Sean Carroll as always bold and precise even semantically
how can semantics be bold?
It may be that there's no such thing as "nothing," and that it is simply an abstraction of the human mind.
Exactly! I don't see why people waste so much time and energy over this question. The idea of nothingness is one we made up. It's like asking why unicorns don't exsist... They just don't.
The concept of a "nothing" is as silly as the concept of a time where time didn't exist.
@ Paul hill
I think the issue is that nothingness is both a physical and logical impossibility, given that we are here taking about it. If true nothingness ever "existed" then that's all that could ever "exist", unless you believe in god, but then god is not nothing. There is NO reason to believe nothingness exists anywhere outside of human imagination. Asking why something we made up doesn't exist sounds naive in most every other case. How would you answer the question why doesn't never never land exist?
+Paul Hill Limit points. Again, hypothesizing that there was ever nothing is like suggesting that there was a time that time didn't exist (or was absent): it's inherently contradictory.
If there was nothing, then it would be bizarre to postulate that everything could spring from it; however, if it did not, then there would be nothing to talk about by nothing, which is nonsense.
Sean Carroll never claims to be an authority on objective truth: he simply builds plausible models to show that possibilities exist.
Paul - "For one thing in skates too close to the idea of God (not just another thing, by the way)"
I'm sure it must be a personal bias (because I've a worrying sense of contrivance before I've even heard it) but is there a strong independent case for God's existence being considered as other than "something"? ... I nearly said something other than "something" there out of habit, but that made it sound as if I'd answered my own question!
"yea, I'm just not going to deal with that question" is a more honest and succinct way of answering the question.
I've always been fascinated with this question. And no matter who is asked, there usually seems to be an explanation without an answer followed up with I don't know. And personally, I like that. If it could be answered, that mat be the scary part
Did you find the answer bro?
You should watch and listen to this video! That's what S. C. is saying.
Is it not the case that the question can not be answered, by definition. Imagine giving an answer for why there is something, that you could prove through pure logic. Even then you can ask "but why does logic exist?" You can always ask "but why does that exist" to anything that is supposed to answer the question. Just like "what's north of the north pole" seems like a sensible question to ask, unless you understand how north works, maybe this question seems sensible to ask, even though it can not possible have an answer.
I agree, truth is veeerrry scary to those who want to remain and operate in darkness.
The truth is absurd but fascinating as well, I do not think it‘s scary because no matter wether you know the truth or not; Truth still remains truth and it is, no matter if you believe it or not. So I want to approach coming closer to truth, even tho we might never answer what truth about the universe is.
This is mind blowing to ponder. Time is infinite in both directions.
Many scientists do not think time is real, it's just a very handy concept. How would you prove time does exist?
It’s amazing to me how so many physicists don’t understand Leibnez’s question. Saying the universe is a Brute fact is the same as saying there is literally no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. “Why not?” Doesn’t really get at the question.
If you think the brute fact answer is a good one, ask yourself this question: why should we think the universe has no explanation? Especially since everything else that exists has an explanation.
If the universe having an explanation troubles you, saying it has no explanation should be at least equally troubling.
Kudos to Kuhn for challenging Carroll’s answer, which most people would just buy without any question because he’s so well spoken.
Very good point!
Who said the universe literally has no explanation? They were just explaining the universe. If it’s okay to ask ‘why X?’ What’s wrong with asking ‘why not X?’
Asking if the universe has an explanation is like asking what is the North of the North pole? Is just a nonsensical question, of course open to changes but at this very moment there are far many more things we should worry about and study that eventually will lead to the answer of that question and is is possible that the answer of the question might be: universe was always there, no creator, no explanation for why exists, it is what it is, and is tremendously beautiful.
Adrian Alvarez you don’t think an explanation of the universe is a big deal potentially? If it ends up being created by. god for a purpose it would be of infinite importance(and eternal) if it ends up being created by an evil universe Multiverse creating machine that only created 10 universe and we are the last one, the fate of humanity maybe up to us to figure out how to combat this thing(line Avengers Endgame!haha. These are the Bog questions- why are we here? How did we get here and what should we do(if anything) to keep things going......
But if answer was like, because God wanted it to exist, than what be the answer for "why was there a God instead of nothing?". Did God have the choice of not existing? Maybe nature simply had no option but existing. It's a much more reasonable answer than God wanted it to exist.
“Modern science is based upon the principle, ‘give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it, from nothing, in a single instant.” - Terence McKenna.
How do you know that that was a miracle and not a perfectly natural process? What tests have you done with 'nothing' to prove your claim? I suspect you are just making a claim without any evidence?
@@vatsmith8759 You should have noticed that this was a quote, and also the irony that goes along with it. This singularity is the point where religious and scientific faith converge...
Pretty much. Still, we’ve gone from living in a world with a million miracles to just the one, so science is doing pretty well imho.
@@vatsmith8759 You're such an original thinker.
@@short207 Yes, I sometimes think that too (but not often).
i completely buy his theory. Makes a lot of sense and its so simple its beautiful and elegant
The thing is, there are a lot of interesting or theoretically convincing theories. You could "buy" what you want, and still have no clue, how it really has been.
At the end of the day, I very much admire these incredibly skilled thinkers, who still can say "I don't know and there are many possibilities (as long as we don't have data to validate a certain idea/theory)."
He is a great interviewer.
Sean Carroll is very no-nonsense. I love that.
In his last answer, Sean Carroll's voice reveals his extraterrestrial origin. I'm not sure he's to be trusted.
well if he is extraterrestrial in origin, he would know more about space than us. so he IS to be trusted!
Well that's just xenophobia. He's a foreigner so he's not to be trusted.
At what minute does Sean reveal extraterrestrial origin?
🤣😅
@SongOfCelestia it’s a joke. In many CTT interviews, the mic recordings are messed up, making the voices sound robotic.
I think the point is that the classical concept of "nothing" does not exist in physical reality. It's impossible for "nothing" to exist. There is *always* something.
Nothing is just the absence of physical reality. Just think of when the Universe was the size of the planck scale, then all you need to do is imagine that small, tiny 'dot' getting smaller and smaller, and then disappearing. Poof - there is nothing left of physical reality!
In my experience when people are eager to express how much " they don't care" about a philosophical topic it's because they're afraid to look.
It's an incoherent concept, philosophical or not. Only things exist, and "nothing" is not a thing.
Solipsism is a waste of my time even if I’m a figment of your imagination.
it's refreshing to hear all perspectives of our being.
I'm really happy people are asking the question. I wish I could give you answers.
6:34 Some alien is talking to us via Sean's body.
The way I see it is this; Something and Nothing are two inseparable sides of the same thing and due to their very nature, they are EXACTLY where they are supposed to be. "Something" is everywhere and "Nothing" is nowhere.
I like this answer. But it also unfortunately implies a law of dualism (light versus shadow, etc.), and having any laws involved implies that there's something first, _a priori_. That's a flaw in the argument. I can't accept an answer to this great question that has laws involved.
Sean Carroll's lucidity is amazing.
Best answer to Kuhn's question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Sean Carroll: "Why not?".
Sean Carroll has always been great to listen/watch/read. This is a very interesting take on the question.
atheists making logic crying out loud in the corner 🤯
@@ahmadfrhan5265 aw did ems god go pfft?
Many of us have been forever touched by, and struggling with, the same 'why is there something rather than nothing?' bug as Robert Lawrence Kuhn (an authentic human being and a genuine intellectual). I would be far more interested in knowing Kuhn's own views on the subject---as someone who has a personal connection to, and 'feels' the essence of the inquiry in his core---than listening to all these other people's lame (albeit seemingly elaborate) attempts at dodging the question. Bravo Mr. Kuhn! And please keep the flame alive. Humanity might yet/eventually encounter a new path by which to explore this issue, besides those traditionally extended by mysticism, religion, philosophy, and science, as long as we keep the curiosity flame alive.
You think Sean Carroll dodged the question? He answered it. He said there was never "nothing".
The scenery is so beautiful
Why is there anything? It's a question that surpasses human understanding and probably always will, which makes it the most mind-blowing question ever. Dr. Carroll knows about as much as anybody else when it comes to answering this.
Right but he is too arrogant to say so, and to full of himself to consider God.
@@ceceroxy2227 Only arrogant--and ignorant--people posit God.
@@ceceroxy2227 How does god solve the problem? It’s just kicking the can down the road. Now we have to explain the universe AND god.
@@ceceroxy2227 now explain where your specific god came from and how the others are all wrong
I think it's probably impossible for there to "be nothing". And I'm talking about the the kind of absolute nothingness often addressed in philosophy, since scientists mean something very different when talking about nothing.
It's far easier to believe there could be nothing rather than something.
@@ItsEverythingElse why do you think it is easier to believe there could be nothing rather than something?
@@someguy2249 because nothing is so much more simple - there isn't anything to consider.
Think about how much more complicated existence is compared to non-existence.
Nothing doesn't require anything to ground it, it is simply the absence of anything.
Don't overthink it, it really isn't difficult to comprehend why nothing is so much easier to believe compared to something!
@@bakedalaska6875 I really don't think that makes any sense. We don't even know if a true nothing is possible, and we don't have access to any kind of knowledge that could tell us that it is more likely than something existing. Is it really easier to believe just because you find it simpler? To say "nothing exists" isn't a less simple statement than "the universe exists", and I don't think nothing existing is simpler in any meaningful sense. It just feels easier to imagine.
It's a Universe about "Nothing." :}
If it’s about nothing, then it’s about whatever you want it to be.
@Pabriel Gomez Seinfeld
Time is infinite in both directions..... OMG does that mean we have to go through this again :O
Well, that certainly cleared things up!
"There could have been nothing." - Sean Carroll
Would love to see his workings on that.
Yeah, its a vacuous statement, like all philosophy without data.
if we begin with nothing, nothing comes....no matter how much time we afford it, there would always be nothing. ultimately we must concede that at least something (matter) was, having the power of being in and of itself, or there is a source of being in and of itself whose power created what is (matter). there is no tertium quid.
Because we're here to see it.
"Nothing" can have no property that would rule out "Something".
In my opinion the only way to resolve this question is to recognize that 'something' and 'nothing' must not be two distinct entities but rather abstractions of a deeper underlying state or description of reality that both of them emerge from.
you really wanna sneak your god in there huh?
@@scambammer6102 you really wanna snick god out of here, huh?
@@scambammer6102 I'm not sure why you say that - I don't believe in god in the least
@@BlockExplorerMedia really? "deeper underlying state or description of reality" sounds like god talk. What is it supposed to be then?
@@scambammer6102 I'm not sure why that sounds like god talk lol - I am strongly 'anti-religion', for the record. I just mean that most of our understanding of the universe is based on abstractions that aim to approximate the truth, take 'classical physics' or 'quantum theory' for example. But there is always a deeper, underlying state or description of reality that comes with a more sophisticated understanding, or new knowledge based on research or observation. For example relativity and quantum physics are incompatible, suggesting a deeper description of reality underlying them that we have just not arrived at yet. I'm suggesting the same thing may apply to the concepts of 'nothing' and 'something'.
If there ever was actually _nothing_ (in the strictest definition of that word), that would have been a permanent state and we wouldn't be here.
Unless the state of nothing itself was unstable. It seems to be unstable (pair production) even today.
To me, pair production isn't the result of something that can happen in nothingness. There are quantum fields that permeate the universe, and each of those fields has energy, which occasionally spontaneously converts to mass (pairs of particles).
I think what the previous comment was talking about was a nothingness that has absolutely nothing: no mass, no fields, no energy. That seems like a pretty stable state to me, and I have no reason to believe it would change at any time.
Yes that's what I meant. No space, no time, no laws of physics. _Really_ nothing.
vonkruel Never Really Nothing for Really Nothing would be Nothing for No Time.
Whence time? Derived from frequency in space. Something.... Some Thing with frequency (and everyone knows E=h x f). A universe turned on. Time zero. "Before?" Nonsense.
A) Nothing for an infinity of negative time approaching zero when ... X
B) Nothing for zero time when ... X
Option (A) Something from Nothing is indistinguishable from option (B), the eternal universe.
"Nothingness would have been a permanent state...." A rational reason why absolute nothingness can't "exist" is that it isn't even a state, is has no properties what so ever. So I don't completely agree with Sean Carroll. The reason why there is something, is that the other option is impossible from my point of view. In other words, the "brute fact" is not that there is something, it is that a certain state has to exist.
This is the kind of question best left to the philosophers rather than scientists, who have much better things to do.
To be honest, I don't think philosophers will do a whole lot better with this one. At K3 we might not be closer to the answer
@@holmholmsen4158 Agree. Either we've been set up for failure in this "universe," or the question is insoluble.
His last statement was just perfect. I don’t care if it was possible that there was nothing at all. I care much more about the world we live in. Ie. your question is irrelevant.
Let's smoke weed my bros, this trip is the real deal and it's heavyy
weed is the creed. have a good day
6 minutes and 57 seconds of quantum nothingness.
Nothing is our true essence. I am nothing, you are nothing. This comment is means nothing. Enjoy being no thing in particular....ua-cam.com/video/rbOvjBchKkg/v-deo.html
@@martinjimenez8621
☝️ you are my everything
So interesting
Before I knew Sean Caroll I wishes to live at that time that Einestein was lived, as Im 40 years old now. But when I knew Sean from I realy said to my self forget about Einestein. Im so lucky that my existence is coherence with the biggest thinker in our life time
by the way, time is a parasite....that is to say, time derives its meaning from whatever exists....without existence of something, time cannot be measured.
existence and measurement aren't the same thing. Lots of stuff exists that has not been measured.
This region began 13.7 billion years ago but the cosmos may have always existed! 😛
There are only two options; there was always _something_ or there was a time when nothing existed.
But time is itself _something_ , so the idea of there having been a _time_ when there was 'nothing' is incoherent.
It's entirely possible for the universe to be temporally finite yet to have always existed because in order for the universe to be said to have always existed it isn't necessary for it to be infinitely old; all that is required is that there was never a time when it didn't exist.
And _that_ is necessarily true of the universe in the broadest sense of the term (meaning "all that exists", where that means one universe or a multiverse or what have you).
I tend to lean towards the brute fact that "something" always existed. It would seem that "nothing" in the true philosophical sense couldn't "exist". To exist is to be, and nothing cannot do that (this starts to sound confusing rather quickly, but I think you see my point). And, if a "God" is the origin of everything, then by definition that entity exists and is therefore also not "nothing". Whatever initial cause one might be tempted to postulate, that would have to fall into the category of "something". So, it seems (somehow) that "something" has always existed.
Ultimately, I think I find both notions, something from nothing or always something, equally absurd. And that it may be impossible for us to ever know is irritating. In a real sense, or perhaps the only one that we can ultimately claim seemingly exists, the cosmos or reality is what it is and good luck figuring that out.
@@nicholasarkis6116 there is nothing logically absurd about infinite existence. It is just outside of our (puny) life experience.
Saying I don’t care does not answer the question, it simply says that either you are avoiding to answer or you are arrogant.
The "laws of physics" are not a separate system than the universe (or space/reality, etc.) The laws of physics are a description of the properties of reality. They are specific to the "stuff" that inhabits our known reality. They describe the way the stuff in our reality behaves based on its make up.
One thing he got right...
"Something" always existed...
And its also true that the way "our" something is the way it is has nothing of importance towards the ultimate first "something" ...
For "it" could be so different from everything we think to know, that we could never be able to understand "it" ...
_One thing he got right..."Something" always existed._
Were you there?
@@seankennedy4284, naturally I was!
And so was everything that is or has been...
Different shapes, different composition...
@@anzawilldie4379 Unless you have a specific memory of being there, upon what basis can you justifiably make these claims?
@@seankennedy4284 oh, you mean if I existed trillion billion years ago?
In that case I didn't.... So I guess you win the argument...
(this is not pure sarcasm, I strongly advocate for the mentality disabled to make comments on UA-cam)...
@@anzawilldie4379 So sorry I asked you to substantiate your claim. God forbid someone challenges you to provide evidence and/or logic to demonstrate why your truth claims should be considered credible. My bad.
There is experience, not something. Not nothing.
Plato had a very sophisticated answer to this question 2300 years ago... did everyone forget what the theory of Forms was for?
Forms sure do seem to derive from minds which as far as we can tell derive from brains so… not sure how they solve cosmological problems.
The bottom line of what Sean Caroll is saying here is this, we are probably not going to get an answer for the question - "why is there something rather than nothing?". So that line of questioning should be discriminated against and classified as a "wrong question" and hence "should not be asked".
End of video: Leibniz said to not care about the question was an indication of an intellectual shallow person. Also, kind of an insulting thing to say to the host. Why did he come on the show then?
I don't think it's intellectually shallow. The question doesn't mean anything in that particular sense, as in it doesn't get us anywhere, as far as we can tell. Science is the study of nature. Therefore, scientists can't study "no nature".
Miguel Aveiro totally agree, imagine being at CalTech and having to care about and address every question which came up? Unthinkable, quite literally
The universe is kinda like my dad one day it dropped me off and said don’t ask questions by
The question - Why is there something? itself needs something to make itself to be noticed and acknowledged. If it would have been nothing, there would be no point, no letter, no word, no sentence and no question..
physical reality is a necessary being and so could not have failed to have existed.
Here's my idea:
What exactly is nothing ?
It could be defined as the absolute absence of "everything". And in that everything you have an infinite number of somethings. So In order to have nothing none of the somethings of that infinite list should exist which is not possible because it's an infinite list containing infinite possibilities. So inevitably something has to exist. So basically we are associating the idea of infinity. one could always argue why the idea of infinity came up but I think it does not reflect any mathematical idea but instead comes due to our inability to completely include all somethings .This may or may not be an answer and may have inherent flaws, but we never know. Even if we find a convincing answer we can never ever prove it because it's like drawing the picture of a building from the inside without looking from outside. But I think that the question is more important than the answer because by asking we have expanded ourselves to all levels of existence. Even if our universe is some giant simulation or a backyard experiment of some super intelligent being it applies to them too. So the question is always alive.........:)
Assuming there is an “everything,” sure.
A simulator could have a very different "reality," making our question of something-versus-nothing a trick question. Their "reality" might be extremely straightforward, with very simple answers. Humans do this with our own simulations all the time. Think of a fish in a fishbowl. That must be very confusing for the fish, but whatever answer the fish comes up with is not the right answer.
What if there is/was no start or finish to the universe? What if it has always been?
there is nothing we just are beings who perceive nothing as something....
Sean Carroll is so clear and unpatronising when explaining things to (comparative) idiots like me.
my answer is simple and filled with with truth. I don't know the answer, and neighter do you , but we are here so you believe what you want to believe and i'll believe what I want to believe, lets just not hate each other for differing thoughts, if we do then we are both wrong, peace makes us better people, hate makes us regret living..
Great video, great locale, great interviewer, great questions, amazing guest, poor audio.
lol. Great comment, great NateGuy, great comment positioning, great comment. Poor timing ( I almost choked, because I was drinking *something*)
Scievangelist.com glad you didn't _actually_ choke, sir or madam!
@@lucasmoreirasantos8377 Certainly not, sir!
I'm glad Robert got to asking about the explanation of the universe, because I was wondering about that during his debate with William Lane Craig. I'm honestly surprised that he seemed to answer that the universe and its laws are contingent, not necessary, but that they don't have an explanation beyond that for why they're there
Because if there was Nothing we wouldn't exist to ask/answer that question.
Who knew that Josh Homme was so well informed about cosmology. :P
Haha
I'm more impressed with Larry King ..his questions were on point.
no one knows
Whatever you do, don't tell anyone.
The interviewer sure looks like Einstein.
The older he gets the more he looks like Einstein
That last answer was quite revealing.
First -- the end of our universe creates a substrate which could respawn this universe. Second and I think more on point is that given "absolutely nothing" the "something" that could occur from that is something than "can" occur from nothing -- which is a "quantum set of laws" that spawns itself. It "self creates" from nothing -- since it did -- and what must it have been like -- well we can see it now.
This interview is probably or possibly an unsolvable paradox.
Simply put. Even nothing is something so there's no such thing as nothing.
That's your opinion and your subjective understanding because YOU cannot comprehend nothingness
What if something is nothing so there's no such thing as something?
I ate nothing for breakfast. If that is something, then what did I eat?
@@wolfsschanze7061 and you can?
Nothing is absence of something
Part of "caring about" or understanding the universe in which we actually live (or any other possible universe) is recognising that they are _all_ contingent. That is to say, none of them is obliged to have existed. Even if some possible universes (including our own _actual_ universe) were infinite in temporal extent and, hence, had no temporal origin, it would still be contingent and thus still stand in need of explanation.
There may have been truly nothing (i.e., no thing, no space, no time, no quantum state, no process, no laws and no anything else). Hence, the question why there is _something_ (even if it is a temporally infinite something) rather than nothing remains a perfectly good question.
Sean: let me answer it short and clear
Jordan peterson: let me do it otherwise
Pretty ignorant for someone they don't care about the question. It's most fundamental.
Someone simply pushed the "Start simulation"-button.
And what about them? Stupid answer
@@chirodemayo6792 Not stupid. Just because we're simulated does not mean the simulators are working with similar rules and laws, if even "rules" and "laws" apply to "them."
if there could have been nothing, then we wouldn't be here to ask the question. so it is necessary that there was something always, because we are here having this discussion
No. That's tautological. You're basically saying, "it exists because it exists." That's poor logic. The question is why does anything exist in the first place, and there's no logical reason for it.
The existence of a First Cause, God, is a brute fact.
Something is so much more interesting than nothing.
what if something were a smelly turd, for all eternity, wouldn't that be a lot less interesting after awhile? at some point you'd want there to be nothing if and eternity of something would drive you out of your mind after too much of it for too long. nothing is then a refuge from that
My wallet agrees.
Sean Carroll knows his stuff. Like Penrose, the Universe as we know it today, popped into existence via theoretical particles, and thus is expanding into its old, cold, empty former self. It has always existed, and will always continue to exist.
It's our definitions and terminologies that are wrong.
Penrose popped into existence via theoretical particles, and thus is expanding into his old, cold, empty former self?
HA
That doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing. Even something old, cold, and empty is still something. There's no reason for even that to exist. Even something old, cold, and empty implies physical laws. As in, time, temperature, and volume.
we have a better grasp of the meaning of something and nothing than quantum physics.
@@danien37 You assume that “nothing” is the default state of things. The reason you assume that is because you have a human brain that operates in the world on the human level. You pick up a cup off of a table and suddenly there is “nothing” in the place that the cup was previously in. But in fact there is something there, there’s atoms and particles all over the place in that spot. You are simply limited by the fact that you have a human brain that can’t conceptualize “nothing” as possibly not even being a possibility.
@@voidoflife7058 give me the argument. simply stipulating that the brain can't conceptualise adequately wont do. and in any case, your brain seems to able to do it. something, anything, must bare a reason why it is so. nothing does not.
Why is there this interview rather than no interview?
I've watched this guy ask this question to many physicists. They all say the same thing, the term "nothing" is vague. When one says "nothing" in normal conversation then the word "nothing" has meaning but in a scientific conversation about physics the term "nothing" is very specific. It's a mixing of the term nothing that causes this philosophical dilemma.
Not true, Carroll clearly distinguished between different definitions of "nothing" as do other physicists.
@@scambammer6102 If people are conversing and they have to define "nothing". Then they will just argue definitions. It becomes a discussion of liguistics and not physics.
He was doing so well and then just ended up saying "I don't care". Dissapointing to hear a scientist say that.
Not at all. Translation: I view that as a fruitless line of inquiry.
We will just have to find another one who does care.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why not?" answers Sean Caroll implying that existence of something rather than nothing is just normal and one shouldn't wonder why?
But if one does wonder, is he wrong in doing so? Will he get an answer? Why is he wrong to wonder? Is he wrong because his chance of getting an answer to that question is low? Is that the criteria of what questions to ask? That I have to enquire only of the things which I have a good probability of getting an answer?
Can discrimination against lines of inquiry based on assumed probability of getting an answer, be considered as scientific method?
I think it was Robert who did well. Kudos to Robert for asking the right questions and bringing Sean Carroll into confession.
@@Croolsby Perhaps "progress" is being made. Keep breathing and stay tuned...as ever.
I knew when I did shrooms!!! ... but then I forgot immediately after :(
Keep a pen and paper next time... but yeah most thoughts under a psychedelic can not be transcribed well or at all with words. They are abstracts.
It would have been shorter if Sean simply said "I don't know". The basis of the "something from nothing" argument is that in an absolute vacuum sub-atomic particles can be detected popping in and out of existence. However, just like at a magic show, just because you don't know where something came from or went to doesn't mean it came from and returned to "nothing".
Carroll's response is very frustrating. When he concedes that something is not necessary, he concedes that there might have been nothing. But that's the question! WHY is there something rather than nothing?
It would be easier if these scientist just admitted they have no idea
@blindwillie99 It's would be easier for atheists to become theists. They wouldn't be so many suicides among atheists.
blindwillie99 so do we have science because most scientists were theists?
@@Darksaga28 Not theists, but Christians. Not much science in the Islamic world.
vesogry ok but you get my point. He said “we have computers because of science”, by that reasoning, we have science because of theists, so that implies by transition that “we have computers because of theists.” See how silly atheist arguments can be? Internet atheists are dumb af.
@@Darksaga28 Saying we have computers because of science is perfectly reasonable. The discovery of certain kinds of science is solely responsible for the creation of computers.
But saying we have science because of theists is silly, when theology had nothing to do with creating the scientific process. We might as well say "having toes" created science, because the founders of science had toes.
Sean Carroll sounds pretty solid
As always..
Great new book. Great older books. Check it.
+Kazak23 name a few please!
Great Carroll books, his new one, "The Big Picture", and his previous book, "From Eternity To Here". He has some others, but those two are definitely where the goods are to be found. Some other greats, cosmology, Marcelo Gleiser, "A Tear at The Edge of Creation" and "Island of Knowledge", Howard Bloom, "The God Problem", neuroscience, David Eagleman, "Incognito", neuroscience/psychology, Jesse Bering, "The Belief Instinct", Michael Shermer, "The Believing Brain", Paul Thagard, "The Brain and the Meaning of Life". I would think that should get you started, some of the better books I've read in the last decade, or so. Enjoy!
The "brute fact" to which the sense of the question refers should not be confused with our descriptive models of the universe. To attack the answer in terms of the primacy of "physical laws" or "physical universe" is to make a regression to the kind of problem with which theoretical physics treats (and which was initially noted by Carroll); the "something" in the "deeper question" is and can only ever refer to the total givenness of experience, and not to formulations which appear to be reflections of it.
We may ask ourselves the question, "Why is there *something* rather than *nothing*?" This may cause discomfort in the same way that asking "What is it like to be dead?" does, because we cannot talk about 'nothing' (speaking is 'something') yet the counterfact is implied in our experience. In an analogous way, we may ask (in a fundamental sense), "Why these laws and not others?" with the same import, since in a universe with fundamentally different laws we would not be able to ask the same question.
Thus we may say: "We cannot speak of 'nothing', because the counterfact is subsumed by the fact"; and analogously, "We cannot speak of an alternate universe, because we would not be able to say: "Here are laws which are different than ours" in such a place; and ultimately, "We cannot speak of counterfacts outside the plenum of experience."
Shits wild cuz frfr
"Is that [the Uinverse and the laws physics] necessary ?"
It surely is necessary for us to ask the question. This question is biased because there wouldn't be anyone to ask it if there was nothing.
lmao, it's a reference to modal logic lol
the question is independent of any thinker, or mind independent.
6:05 it doesn’t make logical sense that there could “be” absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing, would essentially not be, I.e. non existent.
True. Our language is really stupid when it comes to this question. Another human limitation when dealing with the subject. We are not equipped to handle it, as this interview shows. We can, however, imagine nothingness, like turning the switch of the universe off. And that's the problem.
@@psterud we can't conceive of nothingness. that would make nothingness a thing. which is a logical contradiction.
@@mega1chiken6dancr9 Valid point.
Hello Parmenides
@@psterud it’s true, we can imagine nothingness, but conceivability doesn’t necessarily equate to actuality.
Does nothingness also entail space within no thing is? Or if space is not present, who could ever imagine such an instance where neither space nor time were present? What would it mean to speak of such a thing as existing, as existence entail location and time.
It was fun to hear them throw words at an unanswerable question. But don’t take it too seriously.
" There is something rather than nothing, we know this because we're begot, if there didn't always exist a begetter then there would be not".
The weird camera work is totally distracting...
If law of physics exist then who created them?
Quantum partical must come from something or someone.
Because the question can be asked.
Nothing is the opposite of existence. So nothing can never be by itself. There can only exist something.
The ancient Greeks knew this long before we had Hubble, theory of relativity and big bang theory. Aristotle already realized, back almost 24 hundred years ago, that being could not come out of not being, so there had to exist an unmoved prime mover, a being that was all act (realization) and zero potentiality; and that an infinite chain of causes was a logical contradiction, so there had to exist an un-caused first cause. That first unmoved mover, the un-caused first cause, he called it God. I know that might be a hyper-allergenic word in certain circles, but the famous stagirite felt comfortable using it because he realized that there are limits to the capacity of our knowledge, so there must be a different dimension of being that we cannot comprehend. The great Stephen Hawking said it, "if the origin of the universe happened within space and time, I will be able to explain it" for we know with a mind that is bound by time and space. Before dying, he didn't want to give up and came up with an explanation that doesn't explain anything: "there's no possibility of God in our universe". And he's totally right! Because, according to Pauline teaching "the universe exists in God", and it's only logical to conclude that the content cannot contain the container. But many people find it intolerable to consider that we exist in such a state of dependence from a being that we can neither comprehend, analyze nor measure, and so we prefer to say things so completely devoid of logic as that the universe is infinite, that an infinite succession of moments could ever make possible the very present moment. Why, if the very present moment exists that means that the infinite succession of moments has an end, in other words is finite. Or, saying that time is infinite is tantamount to saying that it has to travel through an infinite succession of moments in order to arrive to the present moment. Ergo, the present moment does not exist, and it never existed. Since we exist in time, neither do we exist. We're all just an illusion. Ah, but it has to be nobody's illusion! These are the kinds of absurd conclusions that we must accept because we fear too much accepting that we are limited and our existences are contingent and totally dependent.
That was deep and interesting, thank you for writing that down
Ironically Aristotle also believed that matter is eternal, that the universe has always existed.
@@GrammeStudio That is right. St Thomas Aquinas as well did not see anything logically incoherent with an eternal universe, meaning that the eternality of the universe could not be assailed from a merely rational approach, and that's the reason why he was dismissive of the Kalam cosmological argument. The Big Bang theory (paradoxically first formulated by a colleague of St. Thomas in the priesthood) came to allegedly settle the matter. But, we know how science goes, and another future theory could emerge to disprove that no matter (and no time and no space and no energy) existed before the Big Bang. It's really way beyond my limited knowledge to understand why but the current state of affairs in Physics, with Stephen Hawking at the helm, seems to strongly suggest that time really did begin with the Big Bang, so the Kalam argument, which relies on the universe having a beginning, seems to run very smoothly, with no apparent obstacles in its path. Yet, it is an argument that seems to need the combination of both Physics and pure Logic, whereas St Thomas was wary that his arguments for God's existence should exclusively remain on the metaphysical plane, without undue reliance upon transient scientific theories.
Some questions are unanswerable.
If you start to feel motion sickness because the camera never stops moving, just keep your eyes on the horizon.
Its not like we wouldnt be able to make statements about why the something exists rather than nothing. Just saying "well, it simply does" is not a good answer at all.
That was a lot of words simply to answer the question of why something rather than nothing with “I have no earthly clue. What is, is. Full stop.”
I love how Sean Carroll is a down-to-earth type guy, he will happily say "we don't know (*yet*)" over and over when questioned about topics where his field of competence can't quite answer those questions in a objective way. More people in the science field should take some hints from his "no-bs" behavior.
I agree I like the guys approach. I take issue with some of his conclusions though. Brute fact is a philosophical explanation that is adopted by "non-scienctific methods". I think he should be more forthcoming when he is expressing his philosophical opinion and his professional opinion.
I am surprised that any scientific video has dislikes. The closed mindedness of people is what's held humanity back from so many centuries.
Please ask Alan Guth the same questions. I would really like to hear what he has to say.