Tuesday, 15 November 2005
-
Why is there something rather than nothing?
“Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?”
or
“The Agnostic Who Knew Too Much.”
Why is there something rather than nothing? The question is invalid. Here’s why. We ask the question why when what we are talking about can be related to something else. Why is it that way when it could be another? In this case, it cannot be another way, so asking the question, “why” does not apply. If you could ask the question at this level of the real, you would not be at that level. It is a reference point that is devoid of every other reference point.
We know that something is. That is our given. If it could be another way…meaning if there could be nothing instead…it would be, since how could there be a mechanism to make there be something or not at that level? There would then have to be nothing, this mechanism, and then the reality generated. However, at this level, that mechanism would then be inclusive in the reality it would be generating which breaks the definitions. Even if we include God at this point, we are still able to ask the same invalid question at the same homogenized level. If we are segregating everything that is from everything that isn’t, and asking a question about how everything that is could not be at all…by nature of the question itself, of needing it to be able to be another way…in which case it cannot. The question why at this level cannot apply by definition of what constitutes a valid why question.
But then what of all these particulars of what we in fact observe? Why is the universe, the part of the real we do see happen to be the way it is? And not another way? I consider this a sub-question to the main question of this post. At this point, I insert the infinite multi-verse as a plausible context for our universe. In this case, everything that can be in fact is. Not only is every possible constitution of universes realized, but that every universe plays out in a full grown tree of every possible event taking place temporally and inter-dimensionally. Every dimension that can be is. Furthermore, there is no such thing as change or movement. There are no fluctuations. Time is to be viewed like every other dimension as a static unchanging object.
If all the real were an equation, I believe it would be balanced, by equaling itself of course…but that the numerical value if it could have one would be in fact zero. If x is all that is real…the equation would look like this; x = 0 If it were to equal a particular number, like 42 we would ask questions like…well what of 43? If it were to equal something simpler like 1, we’d still have something to work with and would continue coming to illegitimate conclusions. Zero on the other hand…has all the non-attributes the real needs in order to fulfill the requirements of meeting our one given.
You are no doubt thinking, “He’s saying I don’t exist…and that’s why things exist!” Or perhaps you are expecting there to be an anti-you that cancels out your existence…maybe you’ll meet someday in an epic comic book-esque duel of the fates. Neither is what I am purporting. If you come into work late one day, and your excuse is, “Time is an illusion,” because you’ve read what I’ve wrote here…your boss is still going to say, “You keeping your job is also an illusion.” You’ve misappropriated your level of thinking. What you observe is still what you observe even if in a greater context it seems another way.
If you are y, then somewhere somehow, there must be a –y to rid the real of you. However this is not to be found all in one place necessarily. I reckon it has something to do with gravity and how our distortion in the space-time continuum as a parabola never ceases to affect the entire rest of the universe ever so slightly. Not only is there a negative you, there is a negative you for all your choices and actions…a negative space filled even for the molecular motion of all your personal atoms. You are lost in the crowd of not you. Added all together, it equals zero. And so everything particular is really not particular at all. Zero is the mathematical average of the true imparticularity of it all in its greater context.
I would say the real is a necessary being. However, the “necessary being” is a misnomer. Necessity implies a goal, where here there can be none. For at the level of the invalid question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” there can be no reference point for which to be a goal. Things cannot be another way in which it would be profitable to make them another way, by definition. If the real equals anything but zero, it can be applied to something else…and is no longer the real.
If this aggravates your mind, it is because your mind is constituted to relate things. At this level, there is nothing to relate it to by definition…therefore you will be perpetually asking invalid questions about it. Good luck with that.
I’ve tried to weasel out of this reasoning myself by positing a hypothetical situation where we are having a conversation and are unable to recognize that we exist…our one given is magically removed for the sake of argument. We then are unable to come to the conclusion that anything can be…how could anything possibly be given the circumstances? Or we might, since we by definition are contradicting ourselves anyway by talking, ask the reverse question, “Why is there nothing rather than something?” However, I think that at this level, we are not even allowed to make believe here, because it presupposes what cannot be. The extra given is what is the problem…the observation is the problem. And this should come as no surprise since that is a relevant factor in quantum mechanics…where the normal rules do not apply in the same way and observation changes the situation entirely. You have to undo the very hypothetical situation, and we are going to complain that we should always be able to posit a hypothetical situation…shouldn’t we? Not in this case. We are thus an amalgamation of awkward perspective…something I’m sure some of you have thought all along.
I’ve strayed a long way away from agnosticism here and I hope you’ll all forgive me. My choice to not know made me do it. I accidentally explained everything. I’ll probably end up believing this until further notice. Questions? Comments? Parodies of bad logic?
Ben
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to WAR_ON_ERROR's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in WAR_ON_ERROR's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (45)
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Because there HAS to be something rather than nothing."
Is that right?
How very interesting. No anti-you, but a negative you? No parallel universe, but somehow everything the you does and is, is cancelled out anyway. Am I understanding?
"Everything that can be, is." I wonder. We always think of the might-have-beens, but one might-have-been manages to produce a very large ripple effect. Beyond our comprehension I suspect it ripples into a universal effect. but I guess the real question is, was the might-have-been ever really a "might"? Was it ever really possible? Once it is done it is no longer possible. So if you subtract time from the equation then no it's not possible. Without time I think "everything that can be,is." But what do I know about eternity!
Thought provoking post duckie. I enjoyed it.
You could say there has to be something rather than nothing...but then you imply a purpose...which is a breach of the statements you are allowed to make at that level by definition. You are guilty of still wanting an answer to the invalid question, though in intellectual "short-hand" you are correct. Because if we answer it like you have, you can then ask, Why does there have to be something? So if you like going around in circles, continue answering the question.
thanks for your comment,
ARU
Alright, let's look at whether how much veracity this might have in the world. Now, we'll start with a simple assumption. The number of possibilities of things in the world is larger than the number of possibile chess games. Knowing that structures such as genes, chemical bonding, gravity, electron-proton interaction, particle decay, etc. do exist this seems certain enough. So, let's ask, are all the possible number of chess games actual in the world? We'll say that each different combination of positions in a particular game is a different game than a game with one variation of a particular position. Game A with positions 1 and 2 is a different game that has positions 1 and 2.1. Well, here's one evalution of the number of possible chess games. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chess.html
We could also notice that they're are 18 possible opening moves for the white player (16 different pawn moves and 2 knight moves). The black player has 18 possible opening moves also. Let's assume that this number of possible moves for the next move stays constant throughout the chess game (it doesn't, it actually _increases_ once pawns are moved, as bishops, rooks, queens, kings, and knights have more than two possible moves, but to make things simpler we'll say it's 18.) Let's suppose that games last about 100 total turns for both black and white combined. Well, with 18 possibile moves for each turn we have 18*18*18*18... 100 times. So, we have 18^100 possibilities of chess games _just within chess space_. Have everyone of these chess games been played by someone at sometime? I don't know, but it doesn't seem likely that such a large number of games has been played when the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe is estimated at 10^87 (which is _much_ smaller than 18^100). However, even if each of those chess games have been played, it is almost totally impossible that a number of possibilities such as (18^100)^(100) is actualized for any particular space. Well, genome space is that big, and actually it's much larger. That's just at the level of the gene, which doesn't cover the levels of the enviornment, social structures, writing possibilities, stellar interactions, etc. Therefore, not every possible constitution of universes is realized.
You might still be correct about the question 'why is there something instead of nothing?' being a 'non-sense' or 'psuedo' question. But, as a Logical Positivist once claimed people will continue to ask those old 'psuedo-questions'. If such a claim is true, then how does one make such questions less nonsensical than before and at least ground them in something that is sensical? Or is such an attempt not worthwhile all together?
But the something is infinite.
can't you say, something exists for the pupose of existing? Existence isn't finite like a birthday cake. Something that is infinite is never caused, but it can have a purpose, and its (primary, at least) purpose must be itself. There is something rather than nothing for the sake of existence.
Not stating this all as certainty, just looking at every apparent option.
haha, Guilty as charged. I want answers to my questions, even if I can't fully comprehend the answer.
My pleasure.
This post did remind me of a conversation I had with someone yesterday about free will. I don't think I believe in absolute free will. I believe in destiny. That everything is, and it just is. That nothing we do changes what is or is to be. Or what was for that matter. Asking why is okay. It's just not going to get you the answer to what. What exists? Simply, all that is. Do we know all that is? No. So why don't we just get over it and excel at knowing what we do know. And if there are other things we need to know destiny will reveal them to us.
Anywho. I guess it tied in more and made more sense in my head.
Sorry, I didn't positiviely restate this conclusion to make it more meaningful. More possibilities of things exist than actualities.
[So I do not mean that every event plays out in our dimension, in our universe, in our temporal pathway…I mean the greater context of our perception is that every possibility has been played out elsewhere in other dimensions.]
Honestly, this sounds like a 'metaphysical scam'. You say and claim about unobserved dimensions. However, you don't bring such back to our observed dimensions. Or base what you argue for on observed dimensions. The 'chess' argument started from our observed dimensions, and then established more possibilities existed than those actually observed. Consequently, the argument you put forth I still perceived as a 'metaphysical scam' (even though I very well could be wrong, because having actually studied 'metaphysics' quite a bit I can say that I don't really know what 'metaphysics' is. If that word 'is' even applies to metaphysics.)
[It is like a movie where the director had all the money in the world but never hired a script writer and so just shot everything. And all these reels sit stationary on top of each other in a warehouse gathering dust.]
But how does such a reel for the real world exist if such a reel doesn't even exist for an extremely, extremely, extremely small part of the world such as chess games?
[People will continue to make 2+2=5 as well, but I wasn’t writing about how to get things wrong.]
I'm not sure that 2+2=5 isn't true in _some_ mathematical contexts. We already know that 2+2=1(mod 3). And that you can combine one liter of some substances and one liter of other substances _and_ have an increase in total volume. A simple everyday example might be the volume that water takes up. Let's say we have four equal samples of liquid water in terms of the volume of the water. We take those two samples of those water and put them in one container. We take another two samples and put them in another container. Then we put the liquid water in the freeze. We wait until it freezes and take the water out of the freezer. We measure the volumes of the two samples (which are each two collecitons a constant volume of water). We add those two volumes together to get the total volume. Well, I'm not sure what the specific volume will be in such a case, but I do know that water does expand when frozen, and consequently the volume will be greater than 4. So, isn't this 2+2=5? Maybe not, because that water does freeze and that volume expands remains constant, which might be what 2+2=4 psychologically means in most contexts. However, it does illustrate that mathematical equations have to be contextualized before they become meaningful and necessary.
[It’s not because of some kind of pseudo agnostic dogma…its just that if you really scrutinize the playing field as I have…intelligible questions simply can’t be asked. It’s like trying to draw a circular square.]
However, this doesn't rule out the possibility that you can get _somewhat_ intelligible answers and have _somewhat_ intelligible questions. You can have some figures that intermediate between circles and squares and you can approximate the area of a circle by using rectangles, or you can approximate it's area in terms of numbers and you end up using the 'square' of the radius in such a calculation.
What is nothing? We don't know, because wherever we are, there is something.
Perhaps we can point into the bleak black darkness of empty space and say, "there's nothing!"
But as I recall, even empty space is a medium for light and can be warped by matter.
So can there be nothing?
Nothing isn't a something, so it can never be. For if it is, it is not.
"Nothing isn't a something, so it can never be. For if it is, it is not."
"Why is there something?"
Something and nothing are mutually exclusive, are they not? So if we agree with IntSpirits statement that nothing can't exist than that must mean that something must... Not that I consider the question really worth asking, where here why does it matter why?
Symbolic logic as proof of my statement above, just for the hell of it. I was initially thinking of something more complicated, then I read IntSpirits post, and Spoonwoods agreement so I simplified the whole thing.
If nothing and something are exclusive, and 'nothing' can't exists, there must be something.
Disjunctive Syllogism:
(Something v Nothing) & ~Nothing :. Something
Hehe, I realize I didn't really add anything to this line of discussion, I just wanted to make use of some symbolic logic...and when I started typing I was expecting a longer proof, but went ahead with it even with the teeny little thing above. Delete this if you wish lol.
Disjunctive Syllogism:
(Something v Nothing) & ~Nothing :. Something]
Maybe something and nothing are mutually exclusive. However, if this is true, then how do we have the idea of 0 as something and also the empty set as something? 0 (nothing) and 1 (something) are not mutually exclusive. If anything there are mutually consistent. So, if nothing literally can't be something, how do we have this idea of 0? Is it just a mistake? I doubt the concept of 0 literally is a mistake. Positional notation is possible, because of 0 and this simplifies many, many caclulations. I would like to believe that 'nothing can't be something', but without having such an idea I don't see how you can get concepts such as 0 and the empty set. A way around this might be the following.
0 is a place holder, a reference point, or a process that gives back what you put into something. So, it does represent something in so far as place holders are things or processes that are things. However, it's not a something in that it can work as something that can exist in itself. So, in a sense 0 is a something, but in the strict use of the word 'thing' it is not a thing. 0 is a place holder in the sense of passing from negative numbers to positive numbers it holds a place in such a process {...-3, -2, -1, the place holder '0', 1, 2, ...}. You could also say that 0 is a point of intersection of both the sets of negative numbers and positive numbers. Expressly, it's fits into both the set of positive numbers and the set of negative numbers. 0 is a process in that it always performs certain operations on a number. 0+n=n. 0-n=-n, 0*n=0, 0/n=0, and n/0 doesn't have a value, unless you consider 0 as the limit of the denominator, in which case n/0=infinity.
The empty set is a similar process in that whatever set X you combine with the empty set and take the union of the two you get set X. If you take the intersection of the two sets you get the empty set.
So, maybe this problem with the nature of 0 doesn't arise here. However, with the way I've used to resolve this problem, could 'nothing' be a process instead of a thing strictly speaking?
If you ask, "Why is there something?" you can answer that because there is everything that can be whether here or otherwhere. But if you ask why is there everything...its an invalid question. Because when you put everything that is in the set of x, asking why requires there be something else to relate to it or to cause it to be that way...but there isn' t anything since you already put it all in x. So you aren't allowed to ask that question. Sorry folks. :p Keep trying.
The way I read it was:
Because "what" is. "What" exists so the question being asked in that regard is valid.
Alright, and I stated the answer. Everything that is possible is. I don't mean to say it all happens in our universe, in our timeline, but that otherwhere everything else that is also possible is. It's an inference that is at least valid as the design inference...and makes much more sense on a lot of other levels to break the tie between heresay inferences.
ARU
You used a lot of words and said nothing at all.
Nothingness is beyond our comprehension. In this case, we must all be agnostic of nothing. We cannot say that "nothing" exists because that would be a contradiction of terms (#1) and because all we know is something (#2)
Try and picture nothing. Impossible. I could go on to explain the reason I think existence necessitates "something" at every point. One aspect of this would be the necessity of a being as the source of our existence. But this is off the point of this post (though I don't see the point of it).
c.h.
I read the comments and realized I said, essentially, the same thing as IntellectualSpirit.
c.h.
[Alright, and I stated the answer. Everything that is possible is. I don't mean to say it all happens in our universe, in our timeline, but that otherwhere everything else that is also possible is. It's an inference that is at least valid as the design inference...]
So, basically such doesn't have much validity empirically, because 'the design inference' (by which I understand the 'intelligent design inference') doesn't have much validity empirically.
Additionally, you say not in our universe and not in our timeline. So, basically you claim that your claim that 'everything that is possibile is' isn't observable, verifiable, or could even been inferred from observation, evidence, or reasoning (or the like). Well, maybe since we have this supernatural space for such, such becomes possible. However, this still equates the actual and the possible. Is this what you want to say or is it useful? Maybe, maybe not.
But, maybe what you want to say is that "everything that is possible is conceivable". Expressly, that anything that is possible is coceivable in human minds or could be conceived by some other 'mind' or could be structured out by a computer program or something like a computer program. This I would agree with.
[and makes much more sense on a lot of other levels to break the tie between heresay inferences.]
Why does there need to be a tie between hearsay inferences? Why can't hearsay and inferences from such just be claims and reasoning from claims? Why not have reasoning and evidence for those claims instead?
Spoonwood,
“So, basically such doesn't have much validity empirically, because 'the design inference' (by which I understand the 'intelligent design inference') doesn't have much validity empirically.”
Well, I don’t see a reason to not surmise what context our local existence might be in, do you? If you know of some empirical evidence that could be potentially found…I’d like to hear of it, so we’d know what to look for. Otherwise, you are holding my plausible explanation of everything to an unnecessary standard.
“Additionally, you say not in our universe and not in our timeline. So, basically you claim that your claim that 'everything that is possibile is' isn't observable, verifiable, or could even been inferred from observation, evidence, or reasoning (or the like).”
The forest is so hard to make out through all those blasted trees in the way, isn’t it, Spoonwood?
“Well, maybe since we have this supernatural space for such, such becomes possible. However, this still equates the actual and the possible. Is this what you want to say or is it useful? Maybe, maybe not.”
Obviously I’m well aware I’ve provided no physical proof…that wasn’t the intent. If you are asserting that we should wait until we have inter-dimensional portal generators before allowing for certainty…I whole-heartedly agree…with the unfortunate consequence that we’d still have to only guess that every other dimension that we can’t occupy or verify…probably still does exist. Do you actually have a problem with the ideas conceptually or not?
”But, maybe what you want to say is that "everything that is possible is conceivable".
No. It’s possible that we couldn’t conceive of something that was possible.
“Expressly, that anything that is possible is coceivable in human minds or could be conceived by some other 'mind' or could be structured out by a computer program or something like a computer program. This I would agree with.”
Notice I didn’t bother defining what is possible. I never hinged it on my knowledge of what could be. That’d be a really stunted idea, now wouldn’t it?
“Why does there need to be a tie between hearsay inferences? Why can't hearsay and inferences from such just be claims and reasoning from claims? Why not have reasoning and evidence for those claims instead?”
Well when talking to theists, they are in love with their inferences…but there are others…better ones even. We wouldn’t want them to think they have a monopoly on them would we? Should I be insulted that you can’t find any reasoning for my claims? That would be the last thing I would claim of my post. ARU