Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

    According to my crap knowledge of physics, there is no such thing as "nothing" scientifically speaking. What we call empty space is still full of fields and infinitesimal quantum particles popping in and out of existence (or is that arising from and going back into the background field? Depends on one's view of quantum mechanics?) Philosophically, I've been told that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a nonsense question because we cannot conceive of true nothingness and thus have no reference point from which to talk about it.

    As I understand him, this is basically what Stephen Hawking means when he says that the universe creates itself without a God. He considers nothingness to be impossible and since there there is no such thing as a "beginning of time" therefore the universe must have an eternal past. I think Hawking killed my belief in a traditional Creator with this. All I'm left with as an alternative is the possibility of a God "eternal creating" the universe and providing a reason for it to exist rather than nothing at all. So, pretty much, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is my last recourse at having anything like a reason to believe in God. I know the idea of a "First Cause" just pushes the question of "why?" back one layer, but I'm trying to tackle one issue at a time here.

    I'm not sure true nothingness really is an oxymoron, though. I feel like I can, in fact, imagine nothingness. If I think of a finite particle or field, then I also have to think of the places beyond it's reach, the places where it does not exist. What's to stop me from adding "this field is not here" to every field I can think of until I've imagined a "place" in which there none of the fields in the universe are, in fact, located.

    I liken it to the way in which we speak about fictional characters. To say that Batman does not exist doesn't mean that I am speaking gibberish when I talk about Batman. The word, "Batman" has a referent. There are certain qualities and attributes and ideas that we have agreed to associate with the word, "Batman." There is no Batman in the real world and yet the idea of Batman still exists.

    One could reply that the referent for the word, "Batman" can never be as coherent as the referent, "Kevin Conroy" is because Conroy is a real person and Batman is a fictitious construct of literary devises and tropes designed to partially simulate a real person but that have no actual subject outside the mind of the speaker. However, there is enough of an agreed standardization of the character that we can refer, broadly, to the Batman and not just an arbitrary thing that each individual decides to subjectively call, "Batman" for themselves, right? It will never be as precise as the layers we refer to when we name a real person, but we can still at least know what we are talking about.

    In the same way, I think I can conceive of nothingness even if I've never experienced it and even if I can only think of a limited number of fields to negate and "add up to" nothingness. And if I can conceive of nothing, then I'm also allowed to ask why there is something rather than nothing.

    Am I making any sense?
    O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

    A neat video of dead languages!

  • #2
    Originally posted by 2nd Kelp View Post
    I'm not sure true nothingness really is an oxymoron, though. I feel like I can, in fact, imagine nothingness. If I think of a finite particle or field, then I also have to think of the places beyond it's reach, the places where it does not exist. What's to stop me from adding "this field is not here" to every field I can think of until I've imagined a "place" in which there none of the fields in the universe are, in fact, located.
    That place would not be "nothing."

    The problem with "nothing" is that it's not simply the place where other things are not. That would be a thing, and therefore not "nothing." You seem to be conflating empty space with "nothing." If you are utilizing the word "nothing" as a referent, as in your Batman example, then it cannot actually be nothing. A referent, by definition, refers to something; and something, by definition, is not nothing.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #3
      But space is a property of matter, right? So where there is no matter or the influence of matter (gravitational fields, etc), then there isn't anything. One cannot even properly talk about it as a "here." It's like that line from the Neverending Story about the Nothing erasing a lake from existence and one character interpreting it as meaning the Nothing simply drained the lake leaving a hole. The Rock-Biter replies, "No. A hole would be something. This was nothing."

      I agree that the referent would not be exact, just like one can never exactly and exhaustively pin down the "essence" of a fictional character due to differing portrayals, interpretations (both of creators and of readers), etc. It seems like we should be able to refer to nothingness in an oblique, fuzzy way. At the very least, we can make ourselves broadly understood.
      Last edited by Kelp(p); 11-10-2014, 09:51 PM.
      O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

      A neat video of dead languages!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 2nd Kelp View Post
        But space is a property of matter, right?
        Nope. Quite the opposite, in fact. Matter is a property of space-time.
        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh. My mistake.
          O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

          A neat video of dead languages!

          Comment


          • #6
            Still, it seems like the ability to conceive of the absence of a thing implies that we can then go on to conceive of nothingness as the absence of any thing even if we can't describe it beyond that.

            To go back to my example, Batman might not have ever been created. And if there was no Batman, there would not be a Batman-less space where Batman would have been. There would simply be the absence of Batman. Obviously, we would not be able to talk about a Batman that never was. Where would we begin? And yet that doesn't mean it is impossible for Batman not to exist.
            Last edited by Kelp(p); 11-10-2014, 10:42 PM. Reason: clarifiction
            O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

            A neat video of dead languages!

            Comment


            • #7
              What is beyond the universe (what we can investigate scientifically)? I say there must be something there, though we may never be able to examine it. I don't think it makes sense to say that nothing surrounds our universe, somewhat like we can say hard vacuum surrounds our solar system beyond the Oort Cloud.
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                What is beyond the universe (what we can investigate scientifically)? I say there must be something there, though we may never be able to examine it. I don't think it makes sense to say that nothing surrounds our universe, somewhat like we can say hard vacuum surrounds our solar system beyond the Oort Cloud.
                Not if we think of the expansion of the universe as being an increase in the absolute amount of space-time that there is.
                O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

                A neat video of dead languages!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 2nd Kelp View Post
                  Still, it seems like the ability to conceive of the absence of a thing implies that we can then go on to conceive of nothingness as the absence of any thing even if we can't describe it beyond that.
                  "The absence of any thing" is either still something, or else it is incoherent. For the former, an absence is certainly not enough to qualify as philosophical nothingness, as it is by definition a thing devoid of some other thing(s). For the latter, it is reminiscent of Russell's Paradox: the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. If "nothing" is the "absence of any thing," then it must be the absence of itself, in which case it is an ontological contradiction and cannot exist.

                  To go back to my example, Batman might not have ever been created. And if there was no Batman, there would not be a Batman-less space where Batman would have been. There would simply be the absence of Batman. Obviously, we would not be able to talk about a Batman that never was. Where would we begin? And yet that doesn't mean it is impossible for Batman not to exist.
                  If there had never been such a thing as Batman, there similarly could not be such a thing as the Absence of Batman.

                  Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  What is beyond the universe (what we can investigate scientifically)? I say there must be something there, though we may never be able to examine it. I don't think it makes sense to say that nothing surrounds our universe, somewhat like we can say hard vacuum surrounds our solar system beyond the Oort Cloud.
                  I don't think that it has been demonstrated that "beyond the universe" is even a cogent concept. The word "beyond" is inherently spatial. Asking "what is beyond space?" is precisely akin to asking "what is North of the North Pole?" The question is simply nonsensical.
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    If "nothing" is the "absence of any thing," then it must be the absence of itself, in which case it is an ontological contradiction and cannot exist.
                    Not so, because nothing is not a thing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      Not so, because nothing is not a thing.
                      But an absence is a thing. Hence the contradiction, if "nothing" is to be understood as "the absence of any thing."
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Everything that exists in reality has being, it is and is a certain way. Nothingness would be identical to non-being, there would be nothing left, not even causal powers since those belong with things that exist. From that you can quickly see that from nothing nothing comes. Its also trivial to see that there is no nothingness, because as long as something exist, nothingness doesn't.

                        Nothingness is a purely abstract metaphysical concept.

                        There is a reason why there is no nothingness, that is, there is a reason why anything exists.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Pythagoras, I agree that nothing is not a thing, but neither is reality. You don't have this concrete thing called "reality" that can be spoken of separately from everything that really exists. "This is real" is just a description we apply to some things but not others. So what's so incoherent about a hypothetical situation in which no individual concrete thing was real?

                          I understand the concept of an empty set (at least I think I do), but I don't know that a set can really be called a "thing" without opening the door to Platonism (numbers are things, laws of logic are things, etc).

                          If there had never been such a thing as Batman, there similarly could not be such a thing as the Absence of Batman.
                          But Batman did not exist until 1939. Therefore we can truly describe the year 1938 (or 1401, or 2000 BCE) as a year in which there was an Absence of Batman. Otherwise, it is incoherent to talk about history or chronology at all and I don't think we want to go down that road.

                          So if there had never been a Batman, what's stopping a hypothetical omniscient, multiversal observer from also describing 1939 as a year in which there was an Absence of Batman? It would be just as true in 1939 as in 1401. It would be true for every year.
                          O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

                          A neat video of dead languages!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 2nd Kelp View Post
                            Pythagoras, I agree that nothing is not a thing, but neither is reality. You don't have this concrete thing called "reality" that can be spoken of separately from everything that really exists. "This is real" is just a description we apply to some things but not others. So what's so incoherent about a hypothetical situation in which no individual concrete thing was real?

                            I understand the concept of an empty set (at least I think I do), but I don't know that a set can really be called a "thing" without opening the door to Platonism (numbers are things, laws of logic are things, etc).
                            I think you are conflating reality or existence with the philosophical concepts of a "thing" or an "entity." The Empty Set is most certainly a "thing," in philosophy, whether one is a Platonist or a nominalist-- and an extremely useful one, at that. A thing needn't actually exist in order to be a thing. I'm sure you'll agree when I say that Batman is not equivalent to "nothing," despite the fact that Batman does not exist.

                            But Batman did not exist until 1939. Therefore we can truly describe the year 1938 (or 1401, or 2000 BCE) as a year in which there was an Absence of Batman.
                            We can only describe years prior to Batman's existence as being years Absent of Batman because the idea of Batman exists. The phrase "Absent of Batman" is completely incoherent without first having a concept of Batman. This is why no one prior to 1939 ever referred to anything as being "absent of Batman."

                            So if there had never been a Batman, what's stopping a hypothetical omniscient, multiversal observer from also describing 1939 as a year in which there was an Absence of Batman? It would be just as true in 1939 as in 1401. It would be true for every year.
                            If this omniscient, multiversal observer is describing something as being Absent of Batman, it obviously has a concept of Batman by which to compare. If it does not have a concept of Batman, it cannot coherently describe something as being Absent of Batman.
                            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              But an absence is a thing.
                              It is not.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Seeker, Today, 12:30 AM
                              3 responses
                              32 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Andius
                              by Andius
                               
                              Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                              15 responses
                              120 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X