General
08 Mar 04
08 Mar 04
Arguably the most fundamental question of metaphysics is: Why is there something rather than nothing?
I was wondering what other RHP members think of this question on two levels. First, what do you think the answer to the question is, if indeed you think it has any answer at all. Second, what is your psychological response to the question? Awe, fear, curiosity, indifference?
I have always been struck by the way in which existential questions matter more to some people than others. As a research psychologist, I was thinking of embarking on some systematic research on the topic. Your responses would help to give me a sense of what people (or, at least, the chess-playing subset) generally think, and throw up some general themes. I think the *super-ultimate-why-question* is particularly interesting because there may be an intersection between psychological reactions to, and logical interpretations of, it.
Thanks,
Aiden
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
08 Mar 04
1 edit
I would say this is a reflection on humans failure at either an individual or group level to conceptualise their own irrelevance. Most belief structures seem built opon the construct of there must be "something". If nothing was the dominant stance would that make us as a general conciousness closer to nothing than something?
Most religions etc are built around the idea of a god or gods "creating" or "representing" the world / universe in which we live. Our constructs are all about belonging to tangible "stuff", not an association with "nothing". I think it links in to the very core of our being and consciousness.
What would you think of the peorson who believed in nothing?
Andrew
08 Mar 04
3 edits
when would anyone have the ability to honestly ask: why is there nothing??
so obviously we must be asking: why is there something?!
a rhetorical question - in this sense.
curiosity on the level theoretical physics (similarly religions) gives me only very enpassant interest.
such extrapolations are fatally flimsy in my belief.
my interest is mainly in what people think about it, not because their ideas may be true, but as an insight into their attitudes.
08 Mar 04
It seems that, if we can be sure of anything, it is that something exists, even though it seems logically possible that nothing, in some sense, might exist. Descartes was perhaps too ambitious: he thought that, because he thought, he existed; but when he concluded that he existed, he may have smuggled in a lot of implicit assumptions about what "he" referred to. It is surely incontestable, however, that, if I or anybody else thinks, then, whatever I or anybody else is, something exists, namely that very thought, however ascribed. Or, at the very least, that that thought once existed, even if it no longer does (which also implies, incidentally, that time exists, assuming it is legitimate to reify it).
But is it *logically* impossible that nothing at all exists? It seems to be logically possible that there might be no substance or attributes anywhere or at any time; yet it also seems logically certain that the possibility of some substance or attributes existing must itself exist. Perhaps possibilities don't really qualify as existing things; but would we be prepared to say that no possibilities exist? It just goes to show how puzzling being is.
Aiden
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholethis sounds incredibly like the quantum physics explanation my physics lecturer wanted regurgitated (but written in elitist mathematical text) at exams many years ago.
But is it *logically* impossible that nothing at all exists? It seems to be logically possible that there might be no substance or attributes anywhere or at any time; yet it also seems logically certain that the possibility of some substance or attributes existing must itself exist. Perhaps possibilities don't really qualify as existing things; but wou ...[text shortened]... repared to say that no possibilities exist? It just goes to show how puzzling being is.
Aiden
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeMirroring some of what has been said already, I'd answer with a counter question; can "nothing" truly exist? Is nothing existing an actual possibility?
Arguably the most fundamental question of metaphysics is: Why is there something rather than nothing?
I was wondering what other RHP members think of this question on two levels. First, what do you think the answer to the question is, if indeed you think it has any answer at all. Second, what is your psychological response to the question? Awe, fear, ...[text shortened]... tion between psychological reactions to, and logical interpretations of, it.
Thanks,
Aiden
The fact is that we don't have a single example of complete "nothingness" that we could point to. Even the most perfect void we can imagine contains the constant frothing of virtual particles, particles that come to existence ephemerally with their anti-particle pairs and subsequently anhinilate out of existance again.
Is it conceivable that there could be something where even this potential for the existence of something does not exist? I don't know, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe that such a thing or "non-thing" could exist.
So I would disagree on the question - it assumes that nothing existing is an option, and this is far from certain; it is conjecture completely unsupported by any evidence that I know of. The more pertinent question for me seems: Is "nothing" merely a false extrapolation, a thought construct with no possible actual manifestations? Is the existence of "something" an eternal and inalterable fact?
-Jarno
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI feel most at home with the idea that something and nothing are two qualities of something bigger than what we can understand
Arguably the most fundamental question of metaphysics is: Why is there something rather than nothing?
I was wondering what other RHP members think of this question on two levels. First, what do you think the answer to the question is, if indeed you think it has any answer at all. Second, what is your psychological response to the question? Awe, fear, ...[text shortened]... tion between psychological reactions to, and logical interpretations of, it.
Thanks,
Aiden
My psychological response to it depends on the condition I am in. It can strike me with awe, it can be fearful, it can make me sad or angry, and I can love it.
I am probably most in tune with Wittgenstein, who said we cannot talk about metaphysical phenomena (what doesn't mean they do not exist)
On a religious level I find most satisfaction in Buddhism, because its concept of impermanence combines nothingness and somethingness into something beyond, And it refrains from a deus ex machina.
Fjord.
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by PyrrhoHi Pyrrho,
Mirroring some of what has been said already, I'd answer with a counter question; can "nothing" truly exist? Is nothing existing an actual possibility?
The fact is that we don't have a single example of complete "nothingness" that we could point to. Even the most perfect void we can imagine contains the constant frothing of virtual particles, particl ...[text shortened]... ual manifestations? Is the existence of "something" an eternal and inalterable fact?
-Jarno
Your arguments are reasonable. But you could also reverse it.
If you want to put something somewhere you first need some emptiness.
The problem with our concepts is that something is always related to time and space. But time and space are already something itself. So if Nothing(ness) exists (exist is actually the wrong word here) it will be outside the time and space dimension.
But as I expressed in my post before, I wouldn't be surprised that they are interconnected in a way that goes far beyond our imagination.
Fjord
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by PyrrhoHi Pyrrho,
Mirroring some of what has been said already, I'd answer with a counter question; can "nothing" truly exist? Is nothing existing an actual possibility?
The fact is that we don't have a single example of complete "nothingness" that we could point to. Even the most perfect void we can imagine contains the constant frothing of virtual particles, particl ...[text shortened]... ual manifestations? Is the existence of "something" an eternal and inalterable fact?
-Jarno
On the question of whether the non-existence of everything actual--be it a substance (e.g., matter), an attribute (e.g., mass), or something else, like a categorical mode of apprehension (e.g., space)--is conceivable, it think that it both is, in one sense, and isn't in another. Consider, by way of analogy, 4-dimensional space. 4-D space isn't conceiveable in the sense that we can't concretely imagine, as a geometrical gestalt, anything that has more than three dimensions. However, 4-D is conceivable in the sense that we can understand some of its properties indirectly by way of analogy and can use mathematics to characterize it. (Contemporary string theory, indeed, posits 10-D or 11-D dimensional spaces.) For example, we can infer by analogy that, because a 2-D asymmetrical figure can be reversed by moving it through 3-D, but not 2-D, space, a 3-D asymmetrical figure could be reversed by moving it through 4-D, but not 3-D, space. (It also strikes me that, strictly speaking, we cannot intuitively conceive of 2-D or 1-D figures either, as we cannot concretely imagine a dimension being completely absent, or infinitely thin.)
Just as I can indirectly conceptualize 2-D space or 4-D space, both of which are logical possibilites, so I think I can indirectly conceptualize nothing existing, which also seems like a logical possibility. Moreover, just because there is no empirical instantiation of nothing locally (in an "ideal vacum*) or globally (nothing at all) doesn't make it impossible that nothing could exist.
Indeed, the awesomeness of question comes from the keen sense that, really, there should never have been anything at all, because something would have had to have been there to give rise to it, but then that something would also have to have existed, thereby pushing the problem back without end without answering it.
My own suspicion is that the super-ultimate-why-question may be a non-question. However, unlike Wittgenstein, I don't think it is merely the result of a careless linguistic confusion, or rather I think it is possible to characterize the confusion more fully. Basically, our minds are wired, as Kant first suggested, to interpret the world in terms of fundamental categories. One of the categories of understanding is causality. We are led, because of the way our minds work, to inadvertently apply causal notions to the universe as a whole when they really only work at the level of what the universe contains. That is, it makes sense to ask what makes particular events happen in the universe, but that question cannot be rightly asked of the universe generally, though we think it can. But perhaps I am wrong: maybe the question can be rightly asked, and it really has or doesn't have an answer.
Aiden
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by fjordHI Fjord,
Hi Pyrrho,
Your arguments are reasonable. But you could also reverse it.
If you want to put something somewhere you first need some emptiness.
The problem with our concepts is that something is always related to time and space. But time and space are already something itself. So if Nothing(ness) exists (exist is actually the wrong word here) it will be o ...[text shortened]... urprised that they are interconnected in a way that goes far beyond our imagination.
Fjord
What would think about Wittgenstein's claim that: "A nothing will do as well as a something about which nothing can be said?" Are we really saying anything by referring to a nothing? Can't we only say something by referring to a something?
Aiden
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by fjordI understand what you are saying but one thing to note is that if something exists, then nothing doesn't! (now this is getting a little contorted... 🙄 )
Hi Pyrrho,
Your arguments are reasonable. But you could also reverse it.
If you want to put something somewhere you first need some emptiness.
The problem with our concepts is that something is always related to time and space. But time and space are already something itself. So if Nothing(ness) exists (exist is actually the wrong word here) it will be o ...[text shortened]... urprised that they are interconnected in a way that goes far beyond our imagination.
Fjord
Indeed, there is no example of "nothing" in the universe, but saying that "nothing" might have a manifestation "outside" the universe is really saying... well... nothing! If space-time is something, then surely anything similar to it, anything which might contain something else is also something - nothing would be a dimensionless point - or rather, a dimensionless non-point, an abstraction, and thus would not, by definition, have an actual existence. So if there is something "outside" our universe, disjoint from it somehow, then that something cannot be floating (along with out universe) in a background of nothing, because nothing has no dimesions, so there is no such thing as a background of nothing.
The important dimesion from the point of view of the original question is time - was there "nothing" at some point in the past? It seems to me that the answer to that is clearly "no" because if nothing truly existed in the past, or in other words there truly were no dimensions, no time, no space, nothing, then "something" could not have come into being, since coming into being requires at least some prior time-like dimension which would differentiate the point in which nothing existed from the point in which the first something exists. And if there was this time-like dimesion that would make the coming into being of something possible, then the necessary existence of that dimension invalidates the claim that there was nothing.
Indeed, if you want to put something somewhere you first need some emptiness, but, as you acknowledge, emptiness isn't the same as nothing. There is no example, or reason to think that in order to have something you first need nothing - indeed, that seems like a claim very difficult to justify. It seems to me that if truly nothing existed, then nothing could come to exist.
As such, the answer to the original question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" would, in my view be "Because the existence of something implies that true nothingness cannot exist, and so there is no true option. Conversely, if there was nothing, then "something" would be an impossibility." Beyond that, I don't think I feel any sort of existential bewilderment at the question; Personally I view "nothing" as nothing more than a mere abstraction; a thought construct that like imaginary numbers, does not have a concrete correspondence in nature - "inside" or "outside" the universe.
-Jarno
08 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHi Aiden,
HI Fjord,
What would think about Wittgenstein's claim that: "A nothing will do as well as a something about which nothing can be said?" Are we really saying anything by referring to a nothing? Can't we only say something by referring to a something?
Aiden
That depends about what kind of "saying" we are talking. In the way Wittengenstein writes about it, I think he was right in stating, that it is impossible to describe "nothingness" or other metaphysical phenomena. He is not the only one who said that. In the Vedantic en Buddhist scriptures you find the same wrestling. ' Not this, not that, not this and that. not this or that. Nor not not this, nor not not that etc.
But I disagree with the idea that we are not able to approach nothingness. We may never be able to describe it fully, we still can approach it, in- and outside science. Although the parameters we use for science are not very helpful.
In art it is easier, not just for the artist but also for the spectator or listener. A poet can describe it easier than a scientist, because he can use more appropriate tools and can overcome some borders that science cannot.
I remember a conversation I had with a potter. He told me when he was making his vases, he never conceptualized the shape of the vase (if he did, it became a failure); He concentrated on the creation of emptiness when he was turning his clay on the potter wheel. When he had a good feel with that emptiness the vase was finished.
Some painters and musicians express also the importance of creating open space and silence.
The fact that we have a hard time describing nothingness doesn't mean we cannot be in touch with it. Scientific description of such a process requests distance and objectivity, while the experience itself requests an annihilation of the subject-object and cause-effect relationship. This is a very interesting paradox.
Nothingness and somethingness seem to act as two asymptotic curves; they touch each oyher on the border of space and time. We can describe the (growing) closeness and the relationship between the two in several ways, without reaching the very apex of it.
It is tempting to say that we know more about something than about nothing. But is that true? Nothing is by its nature not divisible nor indivisible. Somethingness can be divided and therefor investigated in segments But what can we say about it as a totallity? It seems to me sometimes as awesome and incomprehensible as nothingness.
Fjord
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAn interesting post!
Indeed, the awesomeness of question comes from the keen sense that, really, there should never have been anything at all, because something would have had to have been there to give rise to it, but then that something would also have to have existed, thereby pushing the problem back without end without answering it.
My own suspicion is that the sup ...[text shortened]... aybe the question can be rightly asked, and it really has or doesn't have an answer.
Aiden
The awe which one might feel in the face of such a question may indeed be due to our intuitions being grounded in the every-day scale of things, and the fact that we tend to think in terms of beginings and ends; thus something that seems to lead into infinite regression of questions if we think of it in terms of beginings and ends, instead of yielding a "final" answer that doesn't beg the question is bound to cause some bewilderment. People crave final answers. It may even be that the questions of causes that we are familiar with don't even aply in any sense that we could comprehend when taken beyond our universe.
But I do think that, interesting as they might be, we are conjecturing without much solid ground to stand on in these sorts of matters.
-Jarno
08 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by PyrrhoHi Jarno
I understand what you are saying but one thing to note is that if something exists, then nothing doesn't! (now this is getting a little contorted... 🙄 )
Indeed, there is no example of "nothing" in the universe, but saying that "nothi ...[text shortened]... ence in nature - "inside" or "outside" the universe.
-Jarno
Indeed, there is no example of "nothing" in the universe, but saying that "nothing" might have a manifestation "outside" the universe is really saying... well... nothing!
Sorry, but that is not what I said. I said nothingness lies outside the concept of time and space. Time and space are needed for or are part of the universe as it comes to us. The only thing I suggest is that the universe might also have another handle that lies outside time and space. I didn't say it lies outside the universe. Maybe it penetrates it, maybe it carries it, I didn't say it moves outside the universe. Although it might be there too.
If space-time is something, then surely anything similar to it, anything which might contain something else is also something - nothing would be a dimensionless point - or rather, a dimensionless non-point, an abstraction, and thus would not, by definition, have an actual existence.
Hm, this leads me back to my first lesson mathematics. Our teacher told us that a line without ends (endless long) consisted of an infinite number of points without any seize or dimension. My ears got red. Then he told on top of that a finite line from A to B (he drew it on he board) consisted again of an infinite number of points. My ears got purple. After the lesson I went to him and told him that I was confused. "Don't worry". "it is an axiom and it makes things easier to measure and comprehend".
What was he telling me? That everything with a dimension consists of something without dimensions (nothing or no things)?
So if there is something "outside" our universe, disjoint from it somehow, then that something cannot be floating (along with out universe) in a background of nothing, because nothing has no dimesions, so there is no such thing as a background of nothing.
Again I did not say it is disjoint from the universe. The only thing I said it does not have the properties we give to things.
In the same way as we cannot give a o-dimensional point the properties we give to a 1-dimensinal line and still accept the fact that a line (and a body) is loaded with infinite 0-dimensinal nothings.
The important dimension from the point of view of the original question is time - was there "nothing" at some point in the past?
Nothing is something that might be outside the time dimension. It might exist independent of time. It might be there before, after and during. It is not dependent on time. Neither on space and yet it fills time and space with infinite nothings.
Indeed, if you want to put something somewhere you first need some emptiness, but, as you acknowledge, emptiness isn't the same as nothing.
I'm tempted to say that emptiness is a spacial manifestation of nothing.
There is no example, or reason to think that in order to have something you first need nothing - indeed, that seems like a claim very difficult to justify. It seems to me that if truly nothing existed, then nothing could come to exist.
I did not suggest that. I didn't say nothing was needed to create this world. Although I like the idea:
Nothing was needed to create this world 😴
Beyond that, I don't think I feel any sort of existential bewilderment at the question; Personally I view "nothing" as nothing more than a mere abstraction; a thought construct that like imaginary numbers, does not have a concrete correspondence in nature - "inside" or "outside" the universe.
Were you born like that? 😲
Fjord