Tuesday, 15 November 2005
“Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?”
“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?