Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?

[charon]

But does the answer have a standard and method whereby it can be tested and verified?

By whom? How? How are you going to apply measure to something/nothing that may be beyond all testing and measurement?

We, the limited, can only measure in our own terms but this isn't in our own terms. It contains us, we don't contain it.

See that the moment we try to label it, quantify it, or describe it in any way, that's not it. When the fish describes the ocean, that's not the ocean.

[Serpent]

[But does the answer have a standard and method whereby it can be tested and verified?]
By whom?

Anyone, anywhere, ever.

How? How are you going to apply measure to something/nothing that may be beyond all testing and measurement?

I asked first!
Only, I didn't ask about measuring the nothingness vs somethingness of the universe; nor was the question about the relative quantities of each.
The question was why?
I asked about testing the answers you come up with.

[charon]

I've just added this to the last post, hence edit:

See that the moment we try to label it, quantify it, or describe it in any way, that's not it. When the fish describes the ocean, that's not the ocean.

Yet you feel qualified to make answers about it?

Of course, because it exists, but the answers don't contradict what I said. It's not describable, at least not adequately. That's just the way it is.

[Serpent]

Of course, because it exists, but the answers don't contradict what I said. It's not describable, at least not adequately. That's just the way it is.

Of course. Smoke never contradicts itself.

[ronjanec]

For once, Serpent and I seem to be on the same page here: or both of us seem to agree that this is basically an unanswerable question and a waste of your personal time in trying to answer it(I speak from personal experience here, and tried for a very long time to answer this question). But since the conversation here has also veered off into a discussion about “nothingness” not only in this context but in general, I would like to try to explain my personal thoughts and conclusions about all of this;

The word “nothingness” in this particular context in science and philosophy is generally thought to equal a complete or total absence of all existence somehow actually existing in and of of itself existing in some weird way, form, or condition (this is sometimes also thought to somehow exist spatially);

Can this “nothingness” state or condition exist in any form? Most definitely: this can exist in any oral or written discussion about this particular subject like we are having here, and also in an intelligent observer’s thoughts about this.

Can this “nothingness” exist in any way, state, or condition completely independent of man himself? No, that is illogical, and an illusion. “Nothingness” can never ever possibly exist in any way or condition in the real world or objective existence independent of man himself: Why not?

You have to understand in the first place that any and all “absences” don’t actually exist in the real world or in objective existence: How could a particular absence of existence, or no existence existing supposedly existing actually exist in and of itself? This can’t: No possible existence of any kind could ever exist...to exist. But once again, man makes a different form of “absence” from “nothingness” also exist at least in some way just by talking about this. “There is an absence of something in particular existing there”

So the concept of “nothingness” is just another form of “absence” thought to be actually existing somewhere and somehow “independent” of man, when this cannot for basically the same reasons that any “absence” cannot exist in any actual form except for man making this exist by man talking, thinking and writing about this.

Do you understand the distinction I am trying to make here between a concept that can and does exist only (or just) because man talks and thinks about this, versus a “nothingness”(or “nothing existing”) actually existing out there in the real world or in objective existence independent of man like some believe?

One more very important related thing: Does everyone understand why all things actually exist in the first place? When someone says you personally exist why do...you...in particular actually exist? You, like all other existing things, are made up or composed of some form of existence existing that we call “you” personally(This is also called your “existing being”) So someone saying or thinking that any form of no existence existing can exist in and of itself independent of man does not understand what it actually means to exist in the first place.

[charon]

For once, Serpent and I seem to be on the same page here

That's a shame because I smell scientism. That is, the old line about about 'prove it, test it, if it ain't tested and proved it doesn't count'. Not true, not true at all, as any sensible person knows.

this is basically an unanswerable question and a waste of your personal time in trying to answer it

It's not, that's a conclusion, and conclusions stop you thinking. In any case, you're about to contradict your own dictum and try to answer it!

Why?

[ronjanec]

For once, Serpent and I seem to be on the same page here

That's a shame because I smell scientism. That is, the old line about about 'prove it, test it, if it ain't tested and proved it doesn't count'. Not true, not true at all, as any sensible person knows.

this is basically an unanswerable question and a waste of your personal time in trying to answer it

It's not, that's a conclusion, and conclusions stop you thinking. In any case, you're about to contradict your own dictum and try to answer it!

Why?

So what is your personal answer to the original op question then Charon?(and please, no more personal lectures, content only)

[charon]

It's above. I mean in the posts :-)

[ronjanec]

It's above. I mean in the posts. Page 3 :-)

Which post(s)? I looked at all your posts on page 3, and cannot find anything that actually tries to answer the “why” question here?(or directly)

[charon]

Why what? It answers the thread question.

[Serpent]

he did:
That's just the way it is.

[charon]

I said it's a wrong question.

[ronjanec]

I said it's a wrong question.

Do you have any idea how famous this particular question is, and how many scientists and philosophers have tried to answer it during the course of their lives? And now you...Charon...are saying they should not have bothered with this because it was always the wrong question to begin with? Thousands, or maybe even millions of scientists and philosophers working very hard in trying to answer a very famous question during the course of their lives that Charon is now saying was asking the wrong question all along.

I’m really curious: what was the right question that they all should have been asking and answering all along in this same context according to you personally Charon?

[charon]

...

It doesn't matter how many people, etc, etc. The fact is that both something and nothing are realities, truths.

There's something on a table. Remove it and there's nothing on the table. Before, there was something. Now, there is nothing. Both are true.

The word nothing means that: no thing. Remove all things and what have you left?

[ronjanec]

Charon,

You said, “it’s a wrong question”. I then asked you to explain to me what is the right (op) question (then) in your personal opinion, and instead of responding to me directly about this, you respond to me with an unrelated to the actual intent and question of the original op rambling on discourse on the concepts of something and/or nothing. ???

[ronjanec]

Well, since I have been squawking to Charon about him not addressing the intent or point of the original op question, I guess I should answer my own challenge here and try to do just that;

Why is there something instead of nothing? If existence had no beginning, then one “why” here would of course be because something has always existed right? Why has something always existed? I don’t know the answer to this question.

What if something/existence actually had a beginning? If something/existence did in fact have a beginning, then it would have been impossible for there to have been a pre-existing cause of some or any kind for something/existence then beginning to exist, because a pre-existing cause of some or any kind would have had to have been an existence (or something) of some kind existing in and of itself before, and that would have of course been impossible if this was again the actual beginning of all existence.

You’re thinking there can’t be an actual “why” existence/something beginning here if there was no possible pre-existing cause of any kind existing before this? Actually, there could be a “why” or reason here at least in retrospect or after the event, but this reason or why something/existence began could not have existed in any way before the beginning of something/existence to actually cause this.

So “why”, or what was the reason at least in retrospect that something/existence began in the first place with again no possible pre-existing cause? I also don’t know the answer to this question.

Well, I at least did answer one “why” question if the first scenario(or again, always something/existence existing) that I mentioned here was actually the case.

[Serpent]

So “why”, or what was the reason at least in retrospect that something/existence began in the first place with again no possible pre-existing cause? I also don’t know the answer to this question.

Of course not. How could you even begin to try to find out?
So, any answer anybody gives is "the answer", since it can't be tested or evaluated.

Which doesn't seem to deter people from speculating around and around and around it.

[charon]

ronjanec » June 10th, 2019, 5:36 pm
Charon,

You said, “it’s a wrong question”. I then asked you to explain to me what is the right (op) question (then) in your personal opinion, and instead of responding to me directly about this, you respond to me with an unrelated to the actual intent and question of the original op rambling on discourse on the concepts of something and/or nothing. ???

Why should there be a right question because another question is wrong? You're so busy arguing and making your points that you're neglecting the subject.

Charon about him not addressing the intent or point of the original op question

But I have answered it, that's the whole point. The answer is that's it's not a good question. But that doesn't mean there's another question which is better.

You have to start again and ask what is the nature of reality. If you answer that then the OP's question is also answered... then you'll see what was wrong with it.

The original question 'Why is there something instead of nothing?' is assumptive. It assumes that there is something instead of nothing. It implies an either/or scenario. But that's not the case, both something and nothing are realities. Both exist, it's not either/or.

Now don't tell me I'm not answering, rambling, etc etc! I'm not, it's all perfectly clear.

[ronjanec]

So “why”, or what was the reason at least in retrospect that something/existence began in the first place with again no possible pre-existing cause? I also don’t know the answer to this question.

Of course not. How could you even begin to try to find out?
So, any answer anybody gives is "the answer", since it can't be tested or evaluated.

Which doesn't seem to deter people from speculating around and around and around it.

“Of course not”!?

Serpent, you really need to take it down a notch with your here’s what everyone needs to do and understand in regards to this particular subject;

You are preaching here about this like you are some kind of authority on this particular subject, when in all the years that I’ve known you I can’t remember you ever talking about this kind of thing here on the forum(before this thread), or personally participating in any of the same type of related ontological threads. And now all of a sudden, you are preaching to everyone like you are the last word on this particular subject?

It’s really bad form Serpent: for someone who has almost certainly never put in any real in depth work on this question, or any other science question, to still proceed to lecture myself and others about this with such certainty.

[Serpent]

You are preaching here about this like you are some kind of authority on this particular subject,

I'm exactly the same authority as you or charon or anyone else in the world.
All of us can have the last word and each of them can be a different word, and they'll all be equally valid or invalid, however you want to look at it.
Whether the question is right or wrong, profound or silly, good or bad ---
all available answers are untestable

I'll be happy to take that back as soon as you present a method of testing them.
Until then, I'll just go stand in the naughty corner.

[ronjanec]

“I’m exactly the same authority as you” No, I understand far more about this subject than you could ever hope to know Serpent.

“all available answers are untestable? True, but maybe we have missed something, and may be able come up with a testable answer in the future if we keep trying? Nah, it’s hopeless...never mind :)

Yes, you belong in the “naughty corner”, just on the basis of your political comments alone Serpent, so please go back there. :)

[Serpent]

Yes, you belong in the “naughty corner”, just on the basis of your political comments alone Serpent, so please go back there. :)

So nothingness is a political issue? Well, no wonder you understand it so much better than I ever will!
Just keep working on that verification.

[charon]

I suppose if you have nothing to offer you just squabble like children. And you expect to answer big questions. I don't think so.

Another way to look at this is to go back to the original source of the question, which was Leibnitz. His answer was that 'because God wanted it so'. Which makes me think that it was never a serious question at all. I suspect he only put it so he could give the answer according to his beliefs. In other words it was slightly rhetorical and whimsical. He'd already decided the answer before putting the question which would elicit it.

Most of the heavyweight greats, scientific and philosophical, usually say 'It's just the way it is, get over it'. But now, of course, every Tom, Dick and scientific Harry is running round in circles try to nail the big answer.

It's also, of course, one of those quandaries that appeal to the ego. We like to think we'll get the answer when nobody else can.

Science, relatively recently, has decided everything came from nothing anyway. Particles, they say, pop out of nowhere so why not universes? They may have a point but it doesn't answer the question why there should be anything at all, even nothing.

It's a bit of a silly question, if you think about it :-)

[ronjanec]

Actually Charon: the original (or long lost) version of the modern version of this question goes way back to pre-historic times: and Leibniz was definitely not the original source like you just mentioned here: or was actually when the first pre-historic man or woman asked themselves a much earlier version of the same question(in their own language of course) and was probably something along the lines of “why is there anything, instead of there not being anything?”; Other pre-historic people with their own version of the same question said the reason for anything and everything existing must be a god or gods;

In modern times, Martin Heidegger is actually credited for making this type of question again very popular with his own version of the same question or “Why is there essence/being rather than nothing”(or something like that) in his ‘An Introduction to Metaphysics’.

(“nothing to offer”? Please spare me your snarky personal comments Charon)

[DragonFly]

Alright, you guys spending time on Nothing:

1. There is something instead of a lack of anything mainly because something now exists, being a feat already accomplished, indicating that something has to be, so far this being a brute fact.

2. Something is also very easy to come by, there being 2x10**76 particles estimated in the universe, plus or minus a few, the '2x' there since matter and anti-matter. 2x10**9 particles annihilated way back because there are now one billion photons for every proton.

3. If you want a primal lack of anything, 'it' can't be, since 'it' has no being and thus no properties.

4. If you want some kind of special Nothing state that is unstable or splits into plus and minus, or allows spontaneous happenings, then you didn't truly have an absolute Nothing state, and it would be that some potential or capability is the basic something.

5. 'Out of a lack of anything' or any 'From Nothing' is truly and completely out now, given that it can't be productive without any potential or capability of instability being there as a something.

6. The basic something is here without ever having been made! Nor can it ever go away! It is the causeless eternal. Beginnings and ends are out for the ungenerated and deathless something.

7. What is eternal has no point for the design of it before it or outside it; therefore it is non-specific-particular, this perhaps meaning that it can be anything and everything, either all at once or in time, but it can never remain as anything particular.

8. The Eternal cannot not be, and so it is powerless over that. It didn't get elected and has to be what it is.

9. The Eternal cannot stop moving and become still, since it hasn't. Stillness is out.

10. It is constantly transitioning/transforming.

11. Again, there is no 'instead of', and that's the only way it is. The brute fact is so.

12. So, we already having a truth… we don't need any other or more proof or why?

13. We all had to be, too, in the way the universe unfolded. We can, only in our imagination, go back to visit certain events in our lives, wondering 'if' or 'could have', but that is a fantasy world game, for the actualities of what happened trump all thoughts that it could be otherwise in an exact replay (we can't change anything while revisiting).

14. Maybe the something is energy, but the amount could not have been particular, since no beginning, and thus no design point to specify the amount.

15. So, perhaps any amount of energy could have been, somehow. As in QM, the bedrock of reality would be randomness, but casual thereafter.

Time to go crazy.

[Serpent]

In the time it took to type that, you could have eaten an ice-cream cone.

[ronjanec]

Alright, you guys spending time on Nothing:

1. There is something instead of a lack of anything mainly because something now exists, being a feat already accomplished, indicating that something has to be, so far this being a brute fact.

2. Something is also very easy to come by, there being 2x10**76 particles estimated in the universe, plus or minus a few, the '2x' there since matter and anti-matter. 2x10**9 particles annihilated way back because there are now one billion photons for every proton.

3. If you want a primal lack of anything, 'it' can't be, since 'it' has no being and thus no properties.

4. If you want some kind of special Nothing state that is unstable or splits into plus and minus, or allows spontaneous happenings, then you didn't truly have an absolute Nothing state, and it would be that some potential or capability is the basic something.

5. 'Out of a lack of anything' or any 'From Nothing' is truly and completely out now, given that it can't be productive without any potential or capability of instability being there as a something.

6. The basic something is here without ever having been made! Nor can it ever go away! It is the causeless eternal. Beginnings and ends are out for the ungenerated and deathless something.

7. What is eternal has no point for the design of it before it or outside it; therefore it is non-specific-particular, this perhaps meaning that it can be anything and everything, either all at once or in time, but it can never remain as anything particular.

8. The Eternal cannot not be, and so it is powerless over that. It didn't get elected and has to be what it is.

9. The Eternal cannot stop moving and become still, since it hasn't. Stillness is out.

10. It is constantly transitioning/transforming.

11. Again, there is no 'instead of', and that's the only way it is. The brute fact is so.

12. So, we already having a truth… we don't need any other or more proof or why?

13. We all had to be, too, in the way the universe unfolded. We can, only in our imagination, go back to visit certain events in our lives, wondering 'if' or 'could have', but that is a fantasy world game, for the actualities of what happened trump all thoughts that it could be otherwise in an exact replay (we can't change anything while revisiting).

14. Maybe the something is energy, but the amount could not have been particular, since no beginning, and thus no design point to specify the amount.

15. So, perhaps any amount of energy could have been, somehow. As in QM, the bedrock of reality would be randomness, but casual thereafter.

Time to go crazy.

You’re preaching to the choir DF: You and I again share many of the same beliefs about “nothing”, and we have both talked about this a number of times in the past.

[ronjanec]

In the time it took to type that, you could have eaten an ice-cream cone.

MAGA 2020 Serpent!

[charon]

No one has answered my question yet.

The word nothing means 'no thing'. Remove all things and what have you left?

CanMan? You seem serious.

[Serpent]

No one has answered my question yet.

The word nothing means 'no thing'. Remove all things and what have you left?

CanMan? You seem serious.

Remove - verb : OED: Take (something) away or off from the position occupied.
imperative mood: instructing the hearer/reader [me] to do something

all things - every material object in existence

what - pronoun : OED : The thing or things that (used in specifying something)
[all whats having been removed from their previous location to some unspecified new location]

have - verb : OED Possess, own, or hold.
[no such ownership of all things by me/any reader has been established]

you - pronoun: the reader [myself]
presumed still in the unspecified location from which I had removed all things

left - remaining, unremoved - thus not one of the "things" but by defaul The Mover of all things.

You know what this means - a-one, and-a-two and-a-three

L E T T H E R E B E I C E C R E A M