David Albert - Why Is There Anything At All?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Why is there a world, a cosmos, something, anything instead of absolutely nothing at all? If nothing existed, there would be, well, 'nothing' to explain. To have anything existing demands some kind of explanation. Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why anything? Why not nothing? What can we learn from the absence of nothing?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on why there's something instead of nothing: bit.ly/3K4RgEt
David Z Albert, PhD, is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the MA Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York. He received his BS in physics from Columbia College (1976) and his doctorate in theoretical physics from The Rockefeller University (1981) under Professor Nicola Khuri. Afterwards he worked with Professor Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
This was a good one.
Heidegger, Parfit, Wittgenstein, then bringing it back to Hume to finish. Dr. Albert knows his stuff.
Existence is just so weird.
@@nsbd90now non-existence too
Thank you so much for these videos throughout the years! :) Big love from Finland.
Your prime minister made your country popular for sure
Isn't RLK a very special mind & temperament? Really a treasure.
@@hemant05 It was her free time with friends.
@@kipponi So why did she have to explain herself afterwards? Even undergone a drug test?
@@johannuys7914 Other politics could make problems so she have to do it. Not by law but voluntarily.
What a fascinating speaker on this subject Thanks. He was logical, easy to follow, without raising all sorts of obfuscating red herrings and detail. I watched this looking for something to think about this afternoon, and have learnt some new ways of approaching this subject. Many thanks! I would like to have been at many of your lectures over the years!!!!!!!
One of the more satisfying answers to the question 'Why something as opposed to nothing?', not because he knew anything more than anyone else but because he was honest in his answer.
Because it is not logical or rational to say there was nothing. There is no evidence that there was nothing but only evidence that there was something.
The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function.
Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something.
C'mon. Provide your evidence that there was nothing? You have ... nothing. lol.
Which was " why nothing instead of something."
@@visancosmin8991 one day a Jabiferous Toath pondered the universe while wallowing in the swamps of Ib. “I am” thought the Toath to himself, but then became dejected when he remembered that he wasn’t.
@@visancosmin8991 The fact that you exist simply proves that something exists, which was never in question. The question is why something exists. To which you cannot answer.
@@shaneacton1627 "why something exists. To which you cannot answer" ----
We have been given the answer: God is Love. A simple answer but of infinite complexity and significance.
Happy that I watched this, thank you for sharing.
Really enjoyed this. I've been following Robert's interviews on this question probably for about 10 years and have watched all of them many, many times. I'd say outside Leslie, in this interview David has possibly provided the most interesting commentary. It's definitely up there with, say, Peter van Inwagen's first interview.
it's nice, asking questions, and talking about them.
Thanks David for sharingyour perspective on this open questions.thank you
I had the same experience when I was quite young, a moment of realisation of nothingness and it scared me to death. Still decades later I avoid to going near there. Loved the conversation...
This sounds more like an encounter that you may have had with 'sleep paralysis'. I'm 50 and have only ever had it occur the once - damn scariest thing I've ever known. Individual experiences vary, but some people do report an unbearably infinite, black void. Try reddit for individual accounts. Hope you stay well, best of luck!
I have a question regarding that though. If there is nothing, then there wouldn't be fear either right?
@@simesaid I had these too, a few times. Indeed very scary the first two times, you are completely awake in your mind, but body will not respond to any commands.Later I tried to use the state to do something, like try to look around in the room, see if i can create a OOB experience or so, but always failed and just snapped out of it.
@@baodeus1 its the thought about it, not being there when i felt the fear. But the thought was intensely aware of what nothing means, actually just what if means when you are dead, then there is nothing, as if nothing ever existed.
When I was very young, I used to enjoy trying to submerge myself in the infinite nothingness that I thought lay beyond the boundary of the Universe.
I love watching these videos. They leave a lot to ponder. One production comment though. Given the nature of the subject matter, it is distracting to have constant camera movement. I would suggest that the majority of the audience are mature, thinking adults and do not need movement to stay focused on the discussion. Locked off shots suffice.
That was good, I like how Albert always presents the different views.
Several discussions about Nothing on CtT. This was the best one. By far the best one.
Nothing is always something. If we can think of something we call 'nothing' it means we know what nothing can be, so it is something.
Okay, let's take for granted that there are necessary truths like the ones in logic and mathematics and also the one you're talking about.
Why is there anything else?
@@mazolab If you know what 'nothing' is, It means It is something you can define.
@@firstaidsack' nothing' is a physical and logical impossibilit. It doesnt exist. There always was and always Will be something. Never a nothing.
@@Alwaysdoubt100
Why is physical nothing impossible?
@@firstaidsack do you have any example of something as "nothing" that we can examine? Apart from something imagined?
If there's nothing, we would not exist to ask that question. It's precisely because there's something that allows us to ask why this or that.
Yea Einstein, we all know that but WHY there's something rather than nothing.. your's not the answer just a lucky coincidence
@@optionmaster221 There would always be something that we must accept as a brute fact anyway, like in this case. Our wish to ask such type of questions is understandable, however not all questions have any practical meaning at all. So, this question may as well be meaningless. Any cause of something must be something else, so there could not be a reason for anything to be. Even if we postulate God as an answer - it is just another step - why there is a God rather than nothing is the same question.
P.S. Someone might say that God is neccessary, that is the answer. However it is another step as well: why is God necessary? Even if it is true it would be another unexplained brute fact. I just don't know how can we establish such a fact.
@@dmitriy4708 Excellently put. 👏🏻
@@visancosmin8991 Incoherent statement. What laws of logic did you use? "I am" does not mean anything.
@@visancosmin8991 If you say so, then your existence in itself is the brute fact in such context.
Love it . I never thought of that 👍
I myself had this same thought Robert, I also had a thought as I was laying on my trampoline as a kid looking up at the sky and this thought came rushing into my mind what if the world switched positions and just started falling into the sky. That terrified me as well.
I had exactly the same thought several times in my life. As a child it scared me. Now I find it just amusing.
Incredible question.
Is it possible "nothing" doesn't exist?
@Artem Down I agree .
Great intro....I guess we need part 2
Excellent
From CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) wiki:
Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways:
Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator.
Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[32]
The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33]
Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.
The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[34] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.
If nothing exists you would have no knowledge of it
I love these videos because they answer nothing but just create more question. One thing we can’t do is say “this happens because it has to happen”. That’s like saying “fire burn because God wills it”. We may not understand the universe well enough to know the rule but trust me there is no super power standing around waiting for match to be struck so they can will it to burn.
Why should we trust you..?
David has shifted much in his philosophical stance on these issues since I last heard him which was maybe 15 years. Sounds more reasonable in what science can or can’t tell us or even inform us.
Beautiful explanation of the Limits of the Scientific method in ex-nihilo and infinity
Great wisdom in the first 3 minutes. He is totally honest to say that the question is beyond physics. Not that physicists should not consider it, and continue to delve into the big bang and the beginning of spacetime, but the essential question of why'' cannot be resolved by describing 'nothing' as actually containing other things... laws, quantum foam, fluctuations etc., which already existed. The 'why' is then simply kicked down the road.
To exist is to be in the midst of such an astounding crazy mystery. Science is so terrific... but wow! Stunned, jaw-dropping Awe is really where it all ends up, it seems. "Umph" indeed!
I don't see how absolutely nothing could be a reality, because nothing can only stand in contrast to something. Mr. Albert commented that "nothing seems like just another way things could have been," but I wonder....maybe not.
My nde was a fantastic experience that as a naive 17 year old was inconceivable. Since investigating for the last 53 years I believe my consciousness journeyed through my life and witnessed parts of my future, picking up the laws from the kybalion, having the life review and accounting for my deeds thereof. The blackness witnessed at another time was scary, intense dark, empty void but seemed to be born from the utter loneliness of the cosmic consciousness before breaking out into what could have indeed been as an explosion of mass intelligence. Imagination or cosmic conscious memory?
Last year I covered this in an episode of The Great Filter podcast. My running hypothesis is that there is nothing - but the very nature of nothing itself brings about what I call "metabilities" *or* potential possibilities *if* something did exist. These metabilities, when viewed from inside, appear to be real. It's a bit more expansive than that, but that's the basic idea. No - I'm not convinced, I'm just starting from the premise that nothing came first.
Even when we talk about nothing, we envision blackness or darkness.
But actual nothing is not even possible to envision. Because we live in real physical reality and a reality of nothing doesn't exist to even be questioned about its none existence.
I don't evenbhave good words to describe it.
.anyway, if yiu are reading this, you are alive. And that is something.
"Nothing" is also something, but its definition as we see it as human beings. So why there is nothing is like asking what there is that something "nothing", so basically, no matter how you look at it, there is always something.
This is a thought that I ponder alot.... not the meaning of life but why life at all.
same here, my heads would just go on spirals thinking about it. what is life? how is life? so many questions
@@ivymarryl3827 At the end of the day; all we have is life and those we love. That in itself is a blessing....😁
@@reaganmcguire3463 agree
At one point I thought maybe the human mind is a way of life observing itself; but now I am not so sure....
It is a fundamental fact of reality that there is something, there can not be reality without something. You can ponder upon there being nothing but it is purely imagination, reality consists of something.
@@thevulture5750 why ?
@@thevulture5750 This is a regressive argument. Then where does God come from?
@@thevulture5750 *"Can't come from nothing, needs God who can do anything."*
... Theism's God is ubiquitous and all-knowing. To argue God _must exist_ still begs the question "Why?" Logic states that if you can have God always existing, then you can also have a *minimalistic representation of "Existence" (data)* that has always existed - but is not all-knowing or ubiquitous from the get-go. Everything else that we observe today can evolve from that minimalistic representation of existence.
If you have to choose whether it's God or a minimalistic representation of existence (data), then Ockham's razor says to go with the least complicated explanation.
@@thevulture5750
I never we said the universe came from nothing , and even if i did , how do you know it can’t come from nothing ?
How many examples of nothing have we examined to justify your certainty?
@@thevulture5750 *"how would data exist by itself?"*
... If the juxtaposition of Existence and Nonexistence is as back far as one can regress while still adhering to logic, then we simply have to use that same logic to determine whatever that minimalistic sliver of data would have been.
*Example:* A mathematical "point" is nondimensional and is only known by its coordinates. This is a "sliver of data" that has no size, shape, weight, or form. It cannot be measured, observed, or studied in a laboratory. Even so, I argue that you can have even less data than that while still representing some form of "Existence."
An even smaller element of Existence would be "self-data." In other words, the smallest representation of Existence would be one bit of data that's higher than no data at all.
*BTW:* I do not believe in God, and my intent is not to tear down your faith. Your faith in your God is not affected by anything I write in a comment thread. All I'm doing is sharing my perspective.
If nothing is just one of an infinity of other possibilities, one should not be surprised that there is something.
This!
Your multiple assumptions here are far too much to make. We have literally no information to decide the plausiblility of other realities including nothingness.
It seems to me that true nothingness has only one way to be. Whereas something has an infinite ways to be.
Where do I find Derek Parfit`s text on this question?
The constant changing.. it pops up into reality and dissapears into nothing and comes up different again and so on.. extremly short in different time scales. So, something is only the difference between. And how to measure that difference. 😊
Thank you to the team for sharing all precious videos and helping humanity to understand the truth. Please accept my regards.
Can we say ultimate reality is "Consciousness?" Disturbance in it resulted into energy which ultimately resulted into matter. Undisturbed consciousness could be considered as "Nothing." ☺️
We cannot say Ultimate Reality is Consciousness. Consciousness does not make any predictions that can be tested. Matter has to be fundamental because objects do not appear to be rendering like they do in dreams. In dreams or in meditation objects appear fuzzy at first then become clear after a few seconds. All objects that we interact with in reality exists outside of consciousness. This lends further support to the proposition that matter is fundamental and consciousness is derived from matter.
How would undisturbed consciousness be nothing?
@@kos-mos1127 But, consciousness has a role to play behind every event in the universe. Let's say about double slit experiment in quantum physics. The moment a conscious observer is involved to check the flow of particle or photon through the slit the result of experiment changes. There is no interference pattern. So, there is a link between consciousness and matter.
@@firstaidsack Non disturbed consciousness is like one could observe during meditation after a lots of practice. It's pure bliss. Peaceful one and referred as devine. No cause and event exist in that state.
@@visancosmin8991 Thank you
A Yid talking to a yid about another Yid.
For those who understand the cadence of, " And if there was nothing 🎵🎶🎵......... you'd still complain ❕"
It just made me chuckle. 😂
In order for nothing to exist, something must exist. There has never been a moment where there was "nothing".
u dont kno that bud
@@supermushroom3175 "Something" is only possible because of nested frameworks with properties that are only revealed (in stages) that contribute to existence. Without the hidden properties of the environment, there would be nothing, not even the motion that eventually creates gravity. The framework is the something before nothing that has always existed.
My best guess (which I believe is all it can ever be) is that existence is necessary, not contingent, and thus requires no further explanation. I'm yet to hear a good argument as to why it is unreasonable to assume that existence is necessary. Religious people have no trouble positing a necessary god - I have no trouble using Occam's Razor to cut the extra step and just assume existence (and all its contents) is necessary. It isn't obvious to me that things could have been any other way than they are.
@Closer To Truth, I have the correct answer:
There exists only ONE object you can know.
It exists because you can know it.
You can know it because others exist.
You know because you know nothing
But everyone around you knows everything.
exactly!
Einstein seems to have said, "If we take all matters from universe, time and space disappears." Actually, each matter has own world line with its coodinate (time and space), and if we take all the matters, then, we cannot deliniate any time-and-space dyagram at all. No distance, no proper time....nothing.
Love the show. Wonderful interviews.
Of course: “nothing is another way things could have been” is not true.
Parmenides pointed out thousands of years ago that “nothing” by definition can not be.
David Albert wrote a crushing review in The NY Times of Lawrence Krauss‘s book about why there is something rather than nothing. You should read it!
which shows how wrong he can be. Krauss is the one bringing real understanding, not Albert.
@@matswessling6600 In my view, Krauss is super arrogant and has almost zero understanding of philosophy, yet he keeps making bold philosophical claims.
@@funckmasta such as ?
@@matswessling6600 Such claims as that physics could explain why there is something rather than nothing. Read David Albert‘s review of Krauss‘s book in The NY Times.
Krauss also often talks about other philosophical issues such as free will and consciousness, even though he has zero expertise in these topics and clearly lacks relevant understand and knowledge of the current state of the literature on these issues.
@@funckmasta that physics can explain why there is something rather nothing is not wrong. If you go into an enpty room then you say here is nothing even though there is floor, walls, ceiling, air etc. "nothing" is not an absolute concept, its always related to what you are interested in: the something. Krauss is clear on what calls something: space, time and matter. This isnt in any way unreasonable because that is what we usually mean when we talk about reality and the universe.
I see Krauss view here much more reasonable that any philosophers misguided cry that "nothing" has to be understood as some "absolute nothing". A concept that obviously cannot have a reference in any context and thus is unreasonable.
problem is thay philosophers are in metaphysics. Krauss is in physics. He makes no claim to know everything, to have a philosphical system that gives all answers. He is a thouroughly honest scientist that look on what we know.
Nothing is at least self-consistent. Something either had to come from nothing, which makes no sense to me. Or something has to have existed forever, which ALSO makes no sense to me. Obviously something does exist, but I just can't see how that's possible. I have never been able to and no one has ever manged to explain it to me satisfyingly.
Is there any way that the truth 2+3=5 could not exist?
@@visancosmin8991
Is it true in any possible world though?
@@firstaidsack yes. If we counted 1 2 3 4 6 :)
@@mitch5222
Then what we call 5 would be called 6, but the fact would remain the same.
@@firstaidsack There's plenty of ways to make 2+3=5 not true, but it would necessitate changing the meaning of one or more of '2, 3, +, =, or 5'. In other words; work within an algorithmic system with different axioms than we're used to. But I don't think that's really what you're asking. You're asking if there are worlds where a proven statement within one of our accepted algorithmic systems are false.
You're asking: "Is logic always sound?"
And that's... a difficult question to answer. It's beneath the umbrella of philosophical thought considered metaphysics I think, though it's been a while since I took that class.
Are there worlds that are not logically consistent? And, perhaps more imporantly for us, are we in one? I lean towards *no* on both fronts. I firmly belive existence is, and *must be*, logically sound, but as this is philosophical question we don't really have a way to confirm or deny it either way, so really my only basis for saying that is personal belief, the belief of my old professors and fellow students, and perhaps even my need to believe it - which is a terrible reason to believe in anything scientifically speaking.
There is one little wrinkle in that belief of mine though. Which is where we come back to my original question.
How can something exist at all? The guy in the video seems to think it strange that people have a bias towards thinking non-existence is more likely than existence, but all that tells me is that he hasn't fully grasped the problem. The core issue, I think, can be best described through causality. Every action has a cause, a reason that it happens. Yes, probablity exists, and no one can grasp the whole of causality, but that just makes causality complicated, it doesn't negate or deny it.
Causality is needed because if it isn't true then anything can essentially happen at any time for no reason. There are more problems with it than that, but I don't care to go through the entire list. Both because it's been half a decade since I studied this stuff, I don't want to get my thoughts all tangled up, there are people better equipped to explain it than me, and this comment is getting really long as-is. Though the short version is that all of our science, the majority of our philosophy, and the continued survival of our universe kind of depends on causality being a thing.
But existence itself just kind of... ignores this entirely.
Either something has to have come from nothing, be it the singularity before the big bang, quantum fields that caused the big bang, or God himself. Either way *something* suddenly came into being with no reason for it to happen, probably even without any *time* for it to happen *in* depending on what you consider 'reality'. Also, if this has happened 'once' (whatever time means in this context) shouldn't it then also happen multiple times. So then why not... forever?
Which brings us to the other possiblity that says that something has always existed. There was something before the Big Bang. There was something before that. And before that. And before that ad infinitum. There is always a cause to the effect, *forever.*
This... also makes no sense. Because then existence is without an origin, it's an information paradox. This option *still* means the univsere is without a cause. My mind has no trouble conceptulizing a system without an end. That's fine. But something without a beginning!? That seems equally impossible to me as the first problem. And, as stated before, it's basically the same bloody problem. Both are a break in causality, which means it's also a break in logic.
I believe logic is true. But at the same time there is this massive question staring me in the face, and it is far more menacing than any abyss has ever managed to be.
If there was nothing, there wouldn't be anybody to wonder why is there anything at all.
Asking this question is nonsensical if you exist and able to think. Moreover, we don’t have an example of “nothing” that we can actually point to. Because even if cancel everything that exists, we still don’t know what that would be. Questions like that are like dividing 1 over zero, just because you can ask it doesn’t mean it must have an answer.
Nothing cannot exist. Therefore all that is left is everything. It's the opposite way around from how we think. Buddhism teaches us this
Why does "nothing" have such a nature?
What ur saying is complete hogwash
But still it would be much better to not exist.
Imagine Robert would ask Emerson this question - that would be a nice story.
David Z Albert is cool.
My thought is it may not be important to need to know why but merely that "it is as it is" (more at set laws of physics) and the need is the current moment that you are aware of now before death or perhaps a "still image". For to do otherwise is to spend moving time with the limit of comprehension to know what is beyond ours and the need of understanding for survival that will assist you while you you are aware of this moment within time accepting time only exist here within this universe....
The thought that "what if there were nothing at all" being scary only means that you are experiencing a "good" life. For many this thought is not really a big deal!
nice try
Nothing doesn't exist.
I think the problem of trying to answer such a question as this is that you can't think of anything to grasp the idea.
Lets say you think of nothing as dark empty space without matter of any kind, not a single atom.
To imagine it, well, you've already pictured a dark empty space which in itself is something.
You also have to imagine, even somewhat subconsciously, that you are in the space, looking through your eyes trying to picture that nothing and again, that too is something.
To think of anything without you there is hard because you desperately put you in the picure to understand who it is trying to grasp this nothing.
If there was something rather than nothing, there would be no you to ask the question in the first place and so in a sense, it's not a question that really has an answer.
Some give the answer by creating some other entity such as a god because it helps them to feel more at ease understanding such a question.
If they create a creator then at least there is that and then they go from there.
I personaly don't think there was a creator at all and to think so is foolish.
To say why is there something is really saying, why did the big bang happen?
We can of course determine down to some crazy small amount how we came into being but to ask why is like asking what is the meaning of life which just leads to individual interpretation.
in reality, anti reality cant be. Not everything has an anti these. The question shows a lack of perspective. A hole in our understanding of reality.
"you can't think of anything to grasp the idea" --- sure you can. Its an old question with an equally old and very reasonable answer.
"True" is self evident and apriori both in negation and affirmation.
Then, there is logic and common sense. I have no difficulty with the concept of nothing. Imagining it is not a controversy, just as I can imagine that my house has no human beings in it until one of us arrives and goes inside. The universe was created, therefore it had a cause. A cause is something, therefore the cause was from outside of the universe. That's why it is so easy to accept the concept of a creator.
You’ve heard that nature abhors a vacuum. I don’t think nothing can exist, it will pull something into it. We can’t even achieve a full vacuum on earth, nature won’t let us. So if nothingness did exist it would try to destroy itself, fill itself with something which may be why the universe is expanding, to fill the void.
@@Sophie-and-Ken Nature is something. If there is nothing, there are no laws, there is no nature.
The first line of the Nasadiya Sukta answers this question. If you know how to interpret it.
@@visancosmin8991 Darn, too bad there's no Google in your ideal world, Mr. Consciousness.
But I'm kinda interested in the correct interpretation of that "in-between" state, original poster, please, as that's something new all right.
Nothingness? His dreams are fear of nothingness? In my dreams I'm always in trouble. Last night I dreamt my dog got out in Switzerland and I was charged with 7 felonies. I live in Pennsylvania and don't own a dog, just always a fear of trouble.
@@jjcm3135 pure genius, or like my dad used to say "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance,baffle them with your bull.😏
Wake up inside your dream and change it, design a new dream
This is true for me too. I have dreams where I’ve broken hella serious laws and I’m PHUCKED...then I wake up
Laughed so hard I almost spat out my coffee! Thank you, while you may not have had the best night's rest, I certainly had a great minute or two laughing about it! 💯
He started with that nonsensical statement as who would be the knower of the nothingness 🤣
Because nothing never existed. There was always and always will be something. The cosmos is an endless transformation from one form or state into another.
Just 4 shots and giggles 😃 What if ALL the NO THING is conscious of Itself?
First there’s nothing. Then something. Then nothing. Best to get over it when you are 7 years old. So many of these so called puzzles are structured to defeat a real answer. They are purely rhetorical questions. When the question is meaningless, the answer is meaningless. 2 + 2 = 4.
Might mathematical necessity be reflected by time; and logical necessity be represented by energy; with a language necessity communicating between the two as causation?
Mathematics is not a necessity it just a useful tool that we can use to describe reality. Logic is not a necessity either because it is contingent on reality.
When we can't explain Nothingness , we can't explain why there should be something at all. It is the place where the Supernaturalists and Naturalist stand together in awe and wonder still projecting their ignorance .
Is there a language necessity?
How do you know there is something?
Be still for a long time and let the concept of Absolute Nothingness really sink in. Nothing (i.e. absolute absence of anything at all, including potentiality, etc) is impossible. Human language evolved to describe things, reifying everything it touches, fooling us into thinking Nothing is just another way that things could have been. But ... if anything at all exists, then "existence" had no beginning and will have no end, and Nothing is not possible.
Nothing doesn't exist.
I currently think that nothing is impossible, or almost impossible.
There is only one way there could have been nothing, but an endless number of ways there could be something.
Also, since we have no evidence, that something can come from nothing, it seems that since there is obivously something, there was never nothing.
I agree. There BEING nothing is an impossible contradiction. If there would BE nothing, then nothing would have to be something.
The only reason this is a problematic question, is because theists poison everything with their ridiculous fantastical nonsense, their fallacies, and their general sloppy thinking.
Very accurate finally someone who understands, there was never nothing.
And, since ‘was’ and ‘never’ are time bound, something has to exist outside of time, or in other words, forever, constant, always.
@@ShyguyMM There are not many options left. Since an absolute nothing can not exist, there must always have been something.
The problem may be in the definitions.
Some people call “empty space” nothing. Scientists do not, neither do I.
The complete absence of everything (including empty space) is an incomprehensible proposition.
@@ShyguyMM the room is fool or air, if you tried to pull a full vacuum on the room it would implode. So philosophically you can consider a room empty but you can never achieve a state of nothingness because it will try to destroy its self. Nature abhors a vacuum, in fact it’s nearly impossible to even achieve a full vacuum on earth.
It is impossible.
The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System, with finite matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature and INCREASING entropy.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ( with purpose & form) ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the mater & energy and the time, space and laws to exist & to function.
Thermodynamic Systems proves there was something.
These numbnuts have no evidence but only their beliefs in the unnatural. smh.
Because if there weren't anything we wouldn't be able to talk about it.
Hi closer to truth. Someone please tell Robert Kuhn about the Mandelbrot. It fits with all theories.
Fits with what theories and how?
The zooming effects are disturbing.
Existence is well thoughts of and plan out that the reality it comes from must be abstract.
"Creation is all that God has created within time and beyond time. You live within time, so you live in a part of Creation that is in motion, that is in flux, that is unstable and that is evolving and expanding. This part of Creation was established to provide a home for the separated, where they could experience Separation and have the opportunity to choose a way to return to that part of Creation that does not change, that is complete and eternal.
The Creation that you must be concerned with is this temporary Creation-a place of time and space, a physical reality, a reality of constant change, of evolving systems, a reality of contrast and conflict, a reality of life and death.
Separation created this reality, for God knew that the separated must have a foundation upon which to exist. This has set in train the physical universe that you are only beginning to comprehend and that you must learn to serve and to recognize if you are to outgrow its fascinations and to forgive its tragedies."
_The New Message from God » The One God » Chapter 5: What is Creation?_
You’ve missed out the important bit : demonstrating that the universe is indeed created
@@tonyatkinson2210 How is it not?
@@ronaldmorgan7632
Because there is no evidence it was . Complexity is an emergent property of reality as far as we can tell .
Your position is that complexity existed at the beginning . You need need to demonstrate that .
@@tonyatkinson2210 I am not arguing that. The universe was created, and eventually galaxies, then stars, then planets.
Thanks for sharing.
Who is the entity that distinguishes something from nothing?That has to be settled first.
If the universe isn't infinite, what's at the edge where the universe ceases to be? When the universe expands, what is it expanding into? What is nothing? IF you adhere to a cyclic universe, are we just an accidental formation on this, the nth iteration of a trillion year cycle?
My intuition is that something is easier to explain than nothing.
Why wouldn’t there be?
Necessity.
Like the hollowness of a bowl.
Quantum mechanics at its root must give rise to something.
A singularity.
Is nothing only nothing when compared to something?
This would be a great Sesame Street episode. Maybe Bert and Ernie could have this conversation. The result would be just as useful as what we got here.
Hey
Nothing is the most real thing there is!
“Why are you depressed, Alvy?” Dr. Flicker asks.
“The universe is expanding,” Alvy says. “The universe is everything, and if it’s expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything.”
“Why is that your business?” interrupts his mother. Turning to the psychiatrist, she announces, “He’s stopped doing his homework!”
“What’s the point?” Alvy says.
“What has the universe got to do with it!” his mother shouts. “You’re here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!”
Dr. Flicker jumps in: “It won’t be expanding for billions of years, Alvy, and we’ve got to enjoy ourselves while we’re here, eh? Ha ha ha.”
The Universe is not expanding that is just mathematical nonsense. The redshift observed is caused by distance and the apparent surface area luminosity.
@@kos-mos1127 good thing I can find experts on social media comment threads who are smarter than all those annoying egghead astrophysicists out there
@@tinetannies4637 Astrophysicists have always known that the Universe was not expanding its just they get funding to lie. Research into the Big Bang Cosmology gets a lot of funding. If a cosmologist has research that demonstrates the Cosmos is not expanding and shows there was no Big Bang they would not get funded.
@@kos-mos1127 it's appropriate we use a Carl Sagan quote here: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And you're typical of today's "thinkers" who confidently make extraordinary claims.... presented as "fact".... with zero evidence. So....you say "astrophysicists have always known that the Universe was not expanding it's just they get funding to lie." Since you're making a sweeping statement across the entire field of astrophysicists you should have no problem pointing to a few specific examples. Please enlighten us with the names of a few astrophysicists who know the Universe is not expanding but lied to get funding. Who are they? And what was the funding that would have been withheld so we know they aren't just some quack flat Earthers but actually had been coerced? Give us names. Dates. Grants rescinded. Because I call BS. I say you invented all it and can't provide one shred of evidence. I predict that if you respond at all, you'll attack me, or throw out more general assertions, but what you won't do is actually defend your own assertions with any verifiable facts.
There's a lesson here for anyone reading this thread. People on social media often made sweeping assertions-as-fact like this person did, but when pressed for specifics or proof all you'll usually get are more assertions, excuses, or attacks. What you won't get is verifiable documented evidence because much/most of the time people are full of sh*t. The best are conspiracy theorists who use the absence of evidence as evidence of cover-ups. How convenient.
It's kind of like muilitplying by -1 twice. The problem is if their were nothing then the concept of nothingness would not exist. In order for the concept of nothing to exist there has to be someone to conceptualize it.
"Laws" are a misnomer - they are an expected geometric consequence. We just don't understand it well enough.
Law noun a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions
b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
Metaphysics
Here on earth like it is in heaven
Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant black hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate).
Also, Love spent billions of years creating this this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be".
Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
To me, the universe exhibits behaviours which we try to describe consistently. We call these descriptions physical laws and mathematics. 2 + 2 = 4 is simply a consistent description of what happens when we pick apples and see how many are in the basket. It’s a language but it doesn’t define anything and it doesn’t make anything true. Einstein’s relativity is a description, a very good one, but it’s not complete yet. As for why there is anything, we’ll, it’s a deep question. I suspect there are many universes that don’t exist. I hope ours does.
The distance between e and zero is greater than that between e and pi.
Anything is Self.
Yes, your mind just goes completely blank, as it does for anyone I talk to about this. It might just be the one commonality we all share?
If there were no sentient beings to be aware of it, cosmos or no cosmos is irrelevant.
True nothing is an empty set. The empty set always exists as the set of everything that doesn’t exist. Just as the empty set is a subset of every set, “nothing” is a subset of every possible universe. So the question isn’t why isn’t there nothing. There is always nothing, because nothing is a subset of everything.
One reason physics can’t answer the question is because physics depends on the assumption that “there is anything.” Can’t use a conclusion to prove one of its premises.
Here's the thing- if we're going to go back and try to explain the origin of the universe then- we have to start somewhere, from some initial state or intelligence. Because otherwise you have an infinite regress- I can always just say "Well where did that come from?" Even if you do away with all spacetime and thus every single ting that exists within it- you would have to have an intelligence, some kind of agency, or some phenomenon that starts everything- so where did that come from. It or they- however you explain it- has to be by definition more complex and improbable than the universe it or they created so- surely it or they must be explained as well. See what I mean- so we have to pick some arbitrary starting point and it would seem to me a good place to start would be deriving everything from the laws of physics. I am quiet comfortable not asking where they came from- at least not until we can derive everything from those laws. We can't even do that yet- in other words we don't understand the universe we live in- so don't you think it's a bit cocky to start asking where it came from and demanding we regress all the way back to what you guys are calling "nothing".
Life is very short and death is eternal. In my opinion there is no reason to waste you life wondering what happens when you die as we will all find out in time. By thinking or worrying about it you manifest anxiety by worrying about the future and just living in the present.
This guy was great. I think the philosophers are closer to truth than the scientific method guys.
Cos science is becoming more like sci fi. Rushing to find sth without evidence and get money for projects.
@@mitch5222 That's kinda jaded Einstein, Newton and Maxwell, just to name a few, came to their great discoveries through simple thought experiments.
Nothingness is a bliss. No problems to deal no pain, etc ...
Bliss "perfect happiness; great joy." Not sure I see how nothingness could be that.
@@lrvogt1257 i am just saying its just better than existence. No drama, no pain , no dumb questions, no wars, no depression , no anxiety....
I would describe LAWS as if they are parts of a computer all working together and combining to create.whats on the screen? The laws of graphics ... and so on?
You can’t ask the question if there is nothing, you can ask the question if there is something.
If there is no apple, you can’t ask a question about a apple.
If you don't have the apples I need for the pie you have nothing I need.
What do you mean by 'nothing'? 'Nothing' is something perceived. By whom? To perceive it, someone has to be present. If not, then this question about why there is something instead of nothing is irrelevant, I think.
Not necessarily..in multiverse there could be endless number of universes, some of which would contain nothing. We can perceive it from our universe via speculation and it will still be empty with nothing inside it to make that perception.
@@optionmaster221 why would there be a universe which contains nothing? can nothing exist?
Why was there imbalance between matter and antimatter study big Bang
"nothing" is physically impossible.