@USA TAMONDOMUNI Sure but no matter how one "constructs" the word that intends to represent verbally the thing it is assumed to represent the construct may still be misleading or simply wrong. After all the evening star IS morning star and I am not the God of war..
(0:33) *VS: "It's a crystalized nothing."* ... The term "crystalized nothing" is a self-contradiction. "Nothing" is void of any and all properties. That includes "crystallization."
Exactly. That literally doesn't make sense... Crystallization implies it has some sort of form.. but if it's nothing then it would have no form necessarily. This guy doesn't know what he doesn't know.
@@nicholasdaniels1306 *"This guy doesn't know what he doesn't know."* ... In fairness, "nothing" is a very difficult topic to discuss. It's easy to misspeak or use references to already existing items when trying to articulate "nothing." My argument is that _"nothing"_ does not exist. That's the only language-based claim that can made that still adheres to logic.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Clearly nothing doesnt exist since something exists. The question is why. Physics can only go from one something to another. The same limitation exists with logic. But our tools are useless when it comes to grappling with concepts like true nothing. It's similar to infinity. Regular logic breaks down. How do we make any progress 🤔. It's like a logic black hole. We need something to work with to draw any conclusions and yet no information is available.
Clearly, they got their wires crossed. I perfectly understand, what Kuhn's "nothing" means, while Stenger thinks about emptiness or void of particles. That is something different entirely.
I was walking home from school one day when I was in the 4th grade, and the thought came to me, "What if there was no God?". It rapidly extrapolated to no universe, no earth, no family, etc. I felt chills up and down my spine and what I later realized was depersonalization. It was also consistent with what some people describe as the beginning of an "out of body experience". I was afraid, so I shifted my focus. But the fear was mixed with awe and curiosity. I thought about it again and the depersonalization returned. I remember exactly where I was on my walk home when this happened. I thought about it at various times afterward, and though I have to this day a very vivid memory of the event, the idea of "nothingness" has not triggered the same intense emotional and sensory experience.
I remember one time i tried really hard to think about the "why is there something rather than nothing" and I felt the greatest fear I have ever experienced in my life. There was this feeling like nothing is real and it is impossible that anything should exist at all. I was terrified and exhausted, I felt dizzy and exactly like you said almost like an out of body experience, I hug and kissed my wife and daughter in despair.
Respectfully, the guest failed to understand the question and spoke completely off point. As much as I love science, it has its limitations and a certain scope. The question of “why is there something rather than nothing” is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. These people don’t seem to get that. That’s why when scientists (physicists) are brought in to weigh on the issue or when people try and analyze it scientifically, they end up sounding absurd. Having said that, here is my take on the issue: I believe the question is an invalid one simply because “nothing” or “non-existence” (in its true sense) is not logically possible. Its simply a concept we came up with. It doesn’t apply beyond our minds. “Existence” is a necessary default in all possible worlds. More can definitely be said on this. I believe classical theistic philosophy (classical theism) has the best approach to this question.
I agree with your assessment. However, for your take, why is non-existence not possible? The idea that we made it up is a plausible explanation for having an invalid belief but it doesn't explain why (or how) it is invalid.
Jeff, houve um equívoco. Eu sou fã da não - existência, pois ela é um organismo vivo. Não - existência é um termo com cilada cerebral. Vence a cilada cerebral, e obtens o ser vivo que habita lá. O vês.
@@edwardtutman196 He explained it as all symmetric states collapse into more stable less symmetric states. Nothingness is perfectly symmetric therefore it must collapse into less symmetry which is something. Nothingness is symmetric because there is nothing to measure it against to make it asymmetric. He used the example of a void in space with no objects or particles to orient.
*"I believe classical theistic philosophy (classical theism) has the best approach to this question."* ... You have every right and reason to believe this is the case. However, there is another option that has never been presented before until now. What would you say to a revolutionary proposition that demonstrates via logic how atheism and theism are both "correct" and "incorrect?" What if *science* and *religion* are key components to something humanity has just become aware of this year? ... Something that transcends both?
Good thing for Robert that his guests always attempt an extensive answer to that question. Still, I prefer the kind of answer that's summed up by "I honestly can't pretend to know, but I'm willing to talk nonsense for 10 minutes".
Nothingness does not have quantum property or symmetry or properties or laws or activity or mathematics... Those things would be already a lot of stuff !! Was so hard to understand that ???
I remember when I was around 20 yrs old, I got up one night to get a drink of water, the thought of this struck me. I paused, thinking about it. And lately I've been thinking about more. It can be a mind f**k.
I had the very same thought in my late 20's and the same reaction,... completely creeped out (existential dread is the phrase someone less lowly might use). I had to shut the thought down. Came after a long spell of reading (layman) physics/cosmology books in my free time which, perhaps not coincidentally, tailed off after this moment. The thought has never returned in the same way, I guess the brain had to be prepped to fully comprehend/submit to that idea.
I think there's a basic logic here: when you address the properties of the universe, the very basic fundamental state of the universe is a boolean value: before everything else, the universe has to be in one of either of these states: either nothing exists, or something exists. as it happens, the value of that specific state is "something exists", otherwise we were not be able to ask the question. if that value was "nothing exists", we could bring up this very same question, we might just as well demand to know "why does nothing exist? why is the basic state of the universe that nothing exists, instead of something existing??" (of course we can ask this only in theory). if time goes backwards endlessly, there's no point in asking "well who turned it on?" - it's always been like that. it could have been just as easily "always off", but then we would not exist to ask the question.
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 but in this case the "something" that must have always existed is the "physical laws" that allow something to come out of nothing.
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 okay the laws only describe the phenomena, but then it was the phenomena that always existed. the basic logical value of the universe I was trying to put into words above is a bit like it has to be inevitably in one state (either "nothing exists" or "something exists"). as if you find a coin on a table. it must show either heads or tails. it simply has no other option than being in either the "heads" or "tails" state. it logically must have one of these states! you can ask the question: why does it show heads? did someone turn it on its "heads" side? but then before that happened, it was on its "tails" side. then you could ask, why was it on its tails side? did someone turn it on its "tails" side? no matter which one was first: it always must have been in one state, because it is a thing that can only have these 2 states and that's it. just like our universe with the "nothing exists" or "something exists" states. the difference is that when "nothing exists", it is not possible to ask the question, because noone exists to do so.
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 well yes but you can still have the concept of the "universe". maybe "universe" equals "true nothingness", but maybe not. there must be a boolean property attached to the concept of this universe: does it equal "true nothingness"? yes or no?
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 ... or you may imagine the aforementioned coin (which is the universe) as a magic coin, which has this magic about it: when it is Heads side up, it looks like any other coin, but if for any reason it is turned Tails side up, it ceases to exist. it just pops out of existence. Now after you turn this coin to its Tails side, and it ceases to exist, can you still tell anything about it anymore? not really, because it simply does not exist. however at the same time you can still talk about how "it is with its tails side up now". Now imagine that you walk into a room where this coin is on the table. noone has turned it before, so it is still in its original state. Now if it's heads side up, you can ask the rhetorical question: "Why is it heads side up?" - it's simply heads side up, because it must be either heads or tails, and Heads happens to be its original state. On the other hand, if its original state was Tails side up, then when you walk into the room, there is simply nothing on the table. you do not ask any questions about the coin that does not exist on the table, because it's not there. So the original state could have very well been Tails side up (it doesn't exist = nothing exists in the universe), but then we could not ask any questions about it.
I think the closest you're going to come to a real answer to this question is simply, "because there is." I feel like we can only know so much about how the universe works before we hit a brick wall, whether it's because we're limited in terms of our ability to detect the origins of everything, from a technological perspective, or because there may very well be some things that simply can NOT be known. The answer may lie so many levels below that which we are able to detect that there's just no way to ever understand it. Sucks that that may ultimately be the answer but... *shrugs*... We're a limited species... And that limitation may persist indefinitely.
My dog is probably in a better position to comprehend why light behaves both as a wave and a particle than I am to understand why there's something rather than nothing.
I’ve been contemplating the idea that existence really did come from absolute, true nothing. And even I think Stenger, in this video, either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or can’t explain it in a coherent way.
Absolute nothing is not a scientific concept, but a useless theological one. Existence coming from absolute nothing was never a scientific idea. It is only a dishonest apologetic straw man.
I agree. I thought Victor Stenger waffled his way through this video and didn't answer the question. "Nothing" means no space, no dimensions, no matter or energy and no god. I gave this video a thumbs up purely for Robert Lawrence Kuhn's determination to get him to answer the question. The problem is, physicists cannot imagine absolutely nothing. They can have a good guess at "How", but have no idea when it comes to "Why". When I was a child, I used to wonder why there was something rather than nothing. I thought surely it would be easier to have nothing at all. It didn't scare me though. I thought it was amazing that we're here. If we weren't here, we wouldn't even notice. I would like to say the puzzle has got easier as I've got older. But it hasn't.
@@Laffy-ix5xy Lawrence Kraus definition of nothing is not coherent. It has no properties or definition at all. Without a useful definition of nothing there is no way to answer that question. "The problem is, physicists cannot imagine absolutely nothing" The problem is no one can imagine absolute nothing they ether imagine darkness everywhere or empty space. That is not nothing that is a perfectly symmetric something. Victor answered Lawrence's question. Lawrence was being intellectual dishonest because he was not really imagining absolute nothing. The question why is there anything at all never made sense to me. Absolute nonexistence always seemed like a state that was impossible because no matter how much gets removed from reality I could always think of something that still existed. You remove space, time, matter and energy the cosmos is still making computations to form a new environment.
"The situation in the 'void' is going transform due to natural processes" sure doesnt sound like "nothing". Its obviously something with a rule set that enables this transformation. This age old question, fascinating as it is, can not be *answered* by speculative reasoning, it can only be discussed.
I don't think "the rules" need to pre-exist the first time/space/energy/matter. It's possible they are dependent on the other stuff. I'm even kinda sure they must be dependent, since you don't need rules for energy if there's no such thing as energy. So, time-space makes it own rules. Or, maybe the laws were in flux in the first micro-moment, then froze out into what we see today. (Maybe arbitrarily, maybe with or without the influence of time/energy etc.) Or it may be that no other rules are possible. It seems like 1+1 has to equal 2 in any universe, and so on. Unavoidable truths like that might not need anything to create them or calibrate them. A few simple rules can give rise to ~infinite complexity. Assuming a larger universe outside our large universe doesn't solve the problem of where the rules come from, it just puts the problem on the next turtle down. It may be true anyway, and I'm not against it, but it still wouldn't answer the question.
Whatever answer one comes up with there be another question waiting.. If you say e.g. some processes are inevitable like 1+1 = 2, then why did this universe happen ~13.7bn years ago, why not 100000 billion years ago. There was something that wasn't nothing that cased it to happen exactly then, not sooner, not later.
If the question is why is there something other than nothing, and this guy says that the answer is because the universe is nothing, then what is the answer to the question?
Nobody will ever answer the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' I suspect that the answer is simply unknowable by something as simple as a human mind. It will always appear paradoxical. All we'll ever have access to is 'How you get something from something else'. Such as the answer in this video.
What if consciousness is the universe’s byproduct of moving towards entropy/a less symmetric shape... like consciousness just happens to be the path of least resistance towards the most stable state
What is the nature of the universal consciousness? Does it think in sights or sounds, does it have a memory? Does it make decisions? Is it even aware of itself? By what means does it perceive itself? All of the evidence for my own mental existence self is based on material underpinnings. Retinas that systematically and materially respond to light reflected in a mirror, a cochlea that systematically and materially responds to air vibrations made from "my" mouth, and a hippocampus that mostly reliably stores sensory impressions of what "I" did yesterday and what I was thinking about at the time. I can move my arm because I have an arm to move, and a neural pathway to activate the musculature which moves it. Consciousness might be separate from my brain, but a whoooooole lot of my identity and functioning absolutely involves and is directly influenced by the matter of my brain and body. But what would my consciousness look like if I had none of these things? No vision, no hearing, no memory. What would my thoughts be like? I couldn't think in words because I'd have no language. How could I know a word if I have no memory? I couldn't think in pictures because I'd have no concept of space, dimension, color, etc. If I didn't have the right neurotransmitters, I wouldn't even experience emotion. Subjective identity depends on a multitude of physical sensations and phenomena. Consciousness and experience is probably fundamental, but a universal consciousness is unlike anything we'd ever know as a being or entity. There really isn't even a reason to believe it would be self aware.
When I was 5 I became obsessed and annoyed at the passage of events. They never stopped! Ever! I later conceived it was time which caused everything to flow by me, including my thoughts, and that it wouldn't ever stop. This fact of reality so annoyed me I used to try to stop it. Stop time. With all my will I would squint my eyes and try to make my world stop... moving. Of course I couldn't do it and aren't all of you lucky I couldn't! I wonder now how much of a trait of autism such thinking might be. If I had not been able to release my obsession with stopping time what might it have done to my brain? It might have created a psychotic delusion that I had successfully stopped time that rendered me catatonic.
@@francesco5581 *"that's why consciousness IS primordial"* ... Very good, Fransesco! Consciousness is "information," and information has always existed. "Nothing" (or "Nonexistence") is merely an opposing reference point abstractly assigned by consciousness in order to clarify what Existence represents. For the past 13.8 billion years, Existence has been defining what Existence represents via an ongoing evolution from *0* and *1* (Nonexistence and Existence). You are the perfect "target reader" for my book!
Nothing is needed to exist in order to be able to say or experience that something does exist. They are both necessary. The same thing applies for nothing. If nothing existed it still would need something to exist in order for that nothing to be nothing. Nothing creates something, and something in turn creates nothing. Both are needed to create reality as we know it
"Nothing" is a human concept. There is no such thing. We once thought that air and then vacuum are nothing. There, I solved it. And you cannot define "nothing" in the absence of "something". There, I solved it; again.
Yeah “rationally” and “logically” this is the only thing that makes sense with our current understanding of the world. It’s such a weird abstract theory but a sound one.
(0:40) *VS: "What we have now is a phase transition from nothing to something."* ... It is impossible for _something_ to emerge from a *state* that is void of any and all properties. Even calling nothing a _"state"_ is necessarily assigning nothing a property. ... When you rewind everything back to the origin point of existence, the only scenario that can be supported by logic is a binary scenario: *Existence* and *Nonexistence* ... *0* and *1*
@@nelsonpinheiro1148 *"Before binary code 0 1 there is no math. There's the whole word sequenced."* ... *0* and *1* are "symbolic" references to mathematics based on human language. Mathematics predates human language by 13.8 billion years (and 1-trillionth of a second). Everything that exists can be observed/dissected/predicted via mathematics because mathematics is found at the very core of Existence. Rewind Existence back to the beginning (or reduce mathematics down to its most basic precipitate) and you get *0* and *1.* Existence doesn't necessarily use the same numerical symbology that humans use, but the mathematics (logic) is the same.
Senhor doutor, notável retórica. Mas tu tens super inteligência para a fazeres subir bem mais alto. A palavra é um organismo vivo, ela criou a matemática para a cobrir, vesti-la. Imenso doutor, desvia a curtina da matemática e vê o explendor da palavra. Depois acrescenta a tua retórica.
Don't forget that Mathmethics is the language we know which gives a good idea of how universe works there maybe something which can come up and explain everything so easily. Nothing might be just space with no geometry, geometry gives space for particles to exist. You can also consider -1+1, universe is just an complex zero as gravity just gives the necessary to make the total energy as 0
We're looking a symmetry zero, so the sum of all positive and negative energy equals zero. In our universe that would be the sum of gravity (negative energy) and other stuff (positive energy). So this "nothing" is not the absence of everthing in the way the Dr Kuhn is saying.
For me all the laws of physics, mathematics etc are just inventions describing patterns and what we experience. If there are no particles there is nothing and that state is unstable so I agree with what is being said here but I have no clue what the catalyst is for that instability to state change, if I did I'm sure I would win a Nobel prize.
The distinction between being and non-being can be traced back to Parmenides. The west still thinks such a distinction is valid while in the east Buddha called anyone who thinks this way crazy.
A drop of water does not turn into a snowflake by a phase change. A snowflake grows from a small solid accumulating more ice as it floats around. When we try to picture nothing it is like an empty room. Even if we pumped out all matter there would still be something in the form of radiation, the various forces like gravity. Eliminate all that and there would still be space-time that is a long way from nothing. Nothing might be impossible to pin down. What might frighten a person is the idea of a universe without any awareness, especially that seemingly personal awareness.
I dont think the man being interviewed has ever truly conceived of nothing and so isn't quite able to apprehend the question. True nothing is very difficult for us to even consider.
Wow. Atacas quem argumenta e não o seu argumento por ele não ser proferido por ti. Pois é um argumento tão óbvio que até a matemática o saúda. Homem, experimenta isto 3 exercícios para bíceps 3 exercícios para triceps 3 exercícios para antebraços 3 exercícios para abs 12 exercícios vezes 3 igual??? Vês é fácil. E agora tens que falar do meu físico e isto não é matemática. Fostes facilmente derrotado por palavras.
It's a question that has no answer. Systems with perimeters can have reduced entropy but taken as an open system entropy as a whole increases. Why? We don't know and may never know.
So at the start of the interview, he said that the universe is nothing. He then said that nothingness is the most symmetric state possible, and should therefore give rise to structure (something) over time. Don’t we already have structure in the universe, and therefore something? I just don’t get his first statement.
Nothing is just a state we either gonna achieve when the universe dies off Or it's the state which was before the universe. As far as I see, just a plain 50/50 to not violate each other ..
How can you give rise to structure over time when according to science time and space didn't exist prior to the big bang, and it is the big bang that created them. Contradiction after contradictions. What a joke
@@francesco5581 that's meaningless since you cannot say what that something that always existed is. Everyone uses the word ALWAYS as a substitute of having to say "I don't know the answer". The absence of an answer is answered with the word ALWAYS
if you believe there was nothing before the universe existed, as Robert does, then you must also believe nothing can somehow “become” the universe. if no time can elapse between “nothing” and “something” then nothing must immediately become something. in other words, that idea of “nothing” is so unstable it can never be achieved. this goes along nicely with the instability described by Stenger here.
There is both something and nothing. If there was just nothing, there will not be nothing without something - if there was just something, there will not be something without nothing.
One thing about reality, it's never nothing. Nothing is a meaningless word, when it comes to the toughest cosmological questions. There can be no nothing, so we could simply say, we exist in the hollow universe. That's right, universe must be surrounded by everything, like some endless and infinite substance, without any properties that fills the entire eternity. Or not, since there can be other kind of implosions of reality nobody can even begin to imagine and might just as well not exist, because nobody will ever detect them in any possible ways. Here is how i imagine the problem. There can be a volume of space without any massive substance inside. That doesn't mean this kind of space is not under gravitational tension and must still be teaming with virtual particle pulses of potentials, it's just not physical in the objective sense of the word. Real nothing is not like that, if nothing could exist, then nothing else can exist besides that awful concept of not something. This is why we're left with completely energetic phenomena, best described by the theory of quantum force fields, distributed over the entire reality of existence. But once we start talking about arcane forces alone, with no material references, we find ourselves in totally abstract dimensionality, far beyond the capabilities of human intellect to be imagined in any way, including mathematics. So it would be only far if we conclude with, nobody knows and probably never will. We will learn more with time, but no amounts of science can help, only nothingness we know is the fact we didn't exist before we got born and our consciousness was formed, and we will return to nothing after life force will vanish from our bodies. Why is there anything at all, so we can have something to think and talk about, probably. I mean it, the concept of nothing is best described by information theory, it seems nature can't exist without it, for some reason.
@@xspotbox4400 but you aren’t a thing, you are a concept. If U think of a rainbow colored unicorn. Is it really a thing or a concept in your head. Reality is the same way. It doesn’t exist in the way you think it does and it’s the reason we are here.
@@JBSCORNERL8 You don't get it. I am a thing, not no thing but some thing. Why would i think of rainbow unicorns, i'm not 5 years old. This is exactly why i don't believe any nonsense that goes against objective observations we all share. Of course there's more to reality, it's not that simple, but we're talking very definitions here, what some word means and also what it doesn't mean. What you're saying is only an idea, it doesn't exist in reality, and you have no means to prove any of your nonsense, so stop telling me I'm wrong.
@@xspotbox4400 how can abstract laws create a physical world? You do know that laws are abstract right? They don’t have a physical existence. So we are a virtual projection of mathematical laws. What I’m saying is common sense. We are video game characters that think the game we are in is real. Now I’m not saying we were created by someone but we do exist as bits of information in an abstract realm.
Plato-Aristotle conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must be caused by something that is itself uncaused, which they claimed is that which we call God: The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. … … … Alexander Pruss formulates the argument as follows: 1. Every contingent fact has an explanation. 2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. 3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. 4. This explanation must involve a necessary being. 5. This necessary being is God. (Creator, Designer, Programmer, Initiator, First Cause, Unmoved Mover) … … … … William Lane Craig gives this argument in the following general form: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
I really like where this discussion comes down to in the final minute .Lawrence Kuhn tries to fence off the idea of nothing to be no paper-no quantum. But somehow Victor Stenger was not having it. I'm very much oriented as Kuhn frames the argument, but Warren has this thing of space being a human construct. I need to understand the twist better, that allows nothing as a symmetric state allowing for something as a less symmetric state. I'm probably hearing one state of something (pure null, not even nothing) as opposed to many states of something..
The presumption of space is a persistent intuition, but only in three dimensions. Trying to visualise higher dimensional spaces is counterintuitive but compelling, especially now that we can use technology to create functional interactive models of higher-dimensional spaces. A four-dimensional space has objects and features that are invisible from any particular 3D space, even though the 3D space is entirely a subset of the 4D model. I think the conservation laws of physics, particularly (haha) the conservation of universal energy, is a useful philosophical concept that allows a better discussion. If space and time are themselves "something" then whatever else it may be, it has an energy associated with it. When I was a kid the idea of conservation was thought to apply to baryons, so that any mass particle had to come into existence in a pair of matter and antimatter particles. But now if I understand correctly, it is not the particlular forms that are conserved, but only the energy. Using the inertial concept of action and reaction, which is a result of conservation principles, it seems clear to me that space and time are a form of density that is energetically balanced against mass densities. As a requirement for both matter and spacetime. So that every massive particle that exists, is accompanied by a corresponding container of spacetime. In terms of density, the positive mass density of particles is pefectly balanced with the negative density of space and time. So space is not only not nothing, it is specifically the absences of something that eventually turns matter into nothing again, erasing the particles by recombining the positive and negative energies associated with the temporal appearance of matter. In other words, gravity may be interpreted as the negative pressure that causes objects to cohere, and which impels objects to motion, and is the reason that every galaxy is being pushed away from every other galaxy. In this sense, the expansion of space is not a kind of motion as much as it is an increase in the amount of negative density that is equivalent to the matter that is presently being created by solar systems and so on.
Stengler appears to think nothing means no particles in space, but nothing is much emptier than that, It means no time, no space, no energy, no matter, no consciousness, and by definition it doesn't exist. So claiming it to be unstable is a bit rich really. The existence of anything is both astonishing and mysterious, we may never have an answer.
We can imagine a state of the universe with no space and time, but that would require the big bang to be the creator of space and time. That might not be so.
Another assumption that people make is that answers to these types of questions exist when in fact probably don't, and even if they do, are out of our reach
I had to go back he really did say the universe is nothing later he says time is an invention well I am old now and my body dont work as well as it did before.how real does it have to get.
@Alpha Omega I don't prefer anything. I don't subscribe to a god. If the was nothing then how did it start. If there was something and had been forever (infinity) then I still need to ask the same question: why/how/what for etc. I don't really know the point of your reply.
Interview me. I have never understood that fear. I am sorry 😢 I actually can tell you what it is. He doesn’t know. That’s why I am here. There’s a World of difference between describing what or how to seeing why. To seeing the higher reality. There’s no such thing as nothing… but if you want to continue believing in ghosts, be my guest. There is no controversy. I actually know. Math will NEVER tell you as currently conceived. Math schmath. It’s like looking for meaning in grammar or word frequencies. Sorry to be blunt, but I know this answer and if someone would have the balls to interview me publicly, then everyone will know that I know overnight. I always speak as accurately as possible and this theory does predict. Let’s say that’s my first prediction. 😂👍🏻 This is not ego, but something I worked on through blood and tears for many years and now I see that it was definitely worth it. ❤️🔥🚀 I think people are just afraid of the truth. It’s not that they cannot see it per se. They don’t even know that they are rationalizing to avoid knowing… never underestimate the subconscious. 🤷♀️
Dons Scotus's explanation for God's existence is long, and can be summarised as follows: 1. Something can be produced. 2. It is produced by itself, something or another. 3. Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing. 4. Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself. 5. Therefore, by another A. 6. If A is first then we have reached the conclusion. 7. If A is not first, then we return to 2). 8. From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite. 9. An infinite series is not possible. 10. Therefore, God exists. … … … Only things which begin to exist require a cause. (Before the Big Bang event; the Singularity, nothing existed, not even time.) On the other hand, something that is without beginning has always existed and therefore does not require a cause. The Cosmological Argument posits that there cannot be an actual infinite regress of causes, therefore there must be an uncaused First Cause that is beginningless and does not require a cause. … The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. Asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. … …
He is saying that it's a rearranging of the elementary particle fields in such a way as to have matter, but a different arrangement could have no matter and maybe no space. However, as the interviewer (and many commenters here) have pointed out, that's not REALLY nothing). It's interesting, and might be how the big bang worked, but it's not what is being discussed. So he's using a different meaning of the word "nothing" i.e. no matter and no space. However, true nothing would have no laws of physics from which to derive anything else.
The answer is so simple, yet is frowned upon by theorists alike because the answer violates the laws of thermodynamics. Yet all the observations point to the same answer. The accelerated expansion of space with distance violates the laws of thermodynamics yet it didn't stop theorists from blaming it on dark energy even though it violates the laws of physics. The answer is over-unity of energy. There is something rather than nothing because energy and matter can be created but cannot be destroyed. It explains so many observations, even the accelerated expansion of space. No one can come up with the answer because when you submit a paper for peer review to scientific journals and it mentions over-unity of energy the paper is rejected. This is what keeps science from advancing.
This is really pathetic. Two grown up scientists agreeing that nothing is something unstable... They make a big effort to try to say without laughing, that something comes from nothing... Please, try to give decency to scientific talks.
You would have to ask that question to whatever created the big bang. Your answer is in the fourth dimension looking into our universe, like how we look at our earth from space.
I need to answer a few comments direct at me but first I have one for all who can't decide whether the universe always existed or had a start. It goes like this. The universe ALWAYS existed since it STARTED. Now you can all go to sleep and stop worrying
Beautiful. Finally I understand why Robert Kuhn is doing this. At 12 years old he had a waking experience of nothingness that involved no space whatsoever, and it terrified him. Consider the intense claustrophobia of such an experience for a boy who had no clue what it could have been about. Could it have been real, and could our universe have come from that? (great question!) And so he's trying to figure it out by asking scientists and philosophers, along the way helping everyone else who has the same questions. But what I really hope is that some day he asks a madhyamaka master, or some great vedantic swami, someone grounded in nondual realization, who can help him cut through the subject-object distinction. That presumption -- the belief that "I am in here" and "the world is out there" -- is exactly what is preventing Mr. Kuhn, imho, from making definitive progress on his quest. I don't think he's going to get to his answer as long as he stays within the subject-object paradigm. From that point of view, "no space and no time" will seem like a terror, like annihilation -- because there's no room to be. But what if that whole way of seeing things is just a mistake? Every night in deep sleep we experience no space and no time, and it's really not so bad. We come right back, well-rested, and continue our pursuits.
There is a theory that if anyone in the universe ever figures out what the purpose of the universe is that the universe will instantly transmororify into something infinitely more mysterious. There is another theory that says that this has already happened.
8 minutes and 28 seconds of I don't know why there's something instead of nothing but I'm going to describe it to you by imagining things that don't exist and I can't prove.
IMHO, the premise that pure nothingness could exist (which is where Kuhn starts) needs to be challenged. Perhaps it's the other way around, and total nothingness is impossible. Taoists call this would-be timeless and spaceless reality "the pregnant void", and while I wouldn't call myself a follower of the Tao (interested but don't know enough), the idea is very poetic and has stuck with me since I came across it.
Olá. Bem sabes que o vídeo carece de empírico entendimento. O nada é uma palavra de múltiplas interpretações. As conhece a todas. É saberás isto nada é o começo inesgotável.
Top of the bill remains Paul Davies. That what is selfevident by itself. So the Nothing is not nothing. There is always potentiality. It is even worse. Matter as such is still grossly nothing. There must be potentiality of observation, meaning the requirement of a potentiality of conscious consciouness. That is the chicken or the egg first zillion USD questionaire. Anyways, this what we experience as universe, must have preceded by something else, that turned potentiality of conscious consciousness into existence, whether it was from the other potentialities or preceding the other potentialities into becoming delivered. Anyways, it must have begun from sheer phantasia. The interesting thing though is, that once into existence, the potentiality of conscious consciousness, turned into conscious consciousness, to proof to itself its own existence, requires at least two other conscious consciousnesses, albeit not yet capable as selfevident by itself or entirely independent entities. Initially them believing and also doubting at the same time is a first step, is sufficient, hence like experienced consciousnesses in a simulator. The ultimate confirmation though is a completed simulation, that promotes to the level of independency. But this can be bypassed, if a simulation is created, with near to vountless entities that need a majority of others to agree, in order to achieve or accomplish a temporary entry pass to the direct observations of the algorithms that drive the entire simulation. We seem to be entering a phase of the simulation that we have been rapidly closing in on levels of appreciation of what it takes to pull of something like this. Yet the proof is in the pudding and what a mess we have made, albeit we did not aim for that mess, but the Architect behind the algorithms of the Simulation, for a learning curve process, that ideally ppl remain unaware of, until the mistakes that were needed to make, have become part of history. The Matrix Book or Book Job / Hiob says it all, at least readable between the lines. The Messiah, the Grail, the META-Covenant, it was always there in plain sight hidden - only Spinoza and Plato managed to figure that out, of course by the imprints of that Architect of the Sim itself. I do not think that I wrote this myself or even one bit of the entire internet is manmade, it is all the product of algorithms behind a Simulator, that also imprints the synchronic impressions all that is expressed originates from individuals, instead of all having been cooked by means of a bunch of algorithms. So the purpose of everything is to enable mankind to step towards a purely metaphysically oriented teleologica as decision making, management and planning model for human behavior, that gets rid of all profit driven flaws, as nobody will gain any entry pass to the algorits, before all others share the same ideal purest perspective, and thus requires demonstration. That begins with sound scientific problem solving. Openness and transparency about what is precisely going on in labs. Gain of function research and flawed vaccines can wipe out mankind, silently yet more effectively than nuclear bombs. It is not an innocent game.
What a bizarre strategy: re-define nothing as something, then one can heartily dismiss the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'. On to that piece of prize pottiness? Never mind, try the following all too convenient way of dismissing the question: space is something we 'invent'. But aren't inventions something? If that doesn't work go for throat with 'we are nothing anyway'. If Stenger is nothing then why should another nothing be required to respond to his arguments (which, in any case, would be nothing themselves)?. Then we have my personal all-time, academy award winning favourite: 'Nothing cannot exist anyway' (said somewhere in the comments below and all too frequently elsewhere). Of course it can't, if we can say that x exists, then x is already not nothing. But so what? That wouldn't stop it from being logically possible that there might have been a complete absence of anything. Conceptual confusion reigns, OK! Any (suitable dressed up) nonsense will do in the service of simply not facing up to the basic ontological question.
A lot of of these type of these sessions would be considerably shorter if certain people would just concede that they just don’t know - or maybe ‘can’t know’ the answer. I know nothing about this interesting question, yet still was more sympathetic to the questioner, whose “nothing was more nothing” than Venger’s nothing. Venger’s ‘nothing’ wasn’t ‘nothing’ - it was nothing like nothing - as he could only envisage ‘nothing’ as an empty space between somethings. That’s not nothing.
I think their main point was that there was never truly nothing. Even in the case of some kind of god, then where did the god come from? If it has to be an act of creation, who creates the god? Would that not mean there was something before? It's likely that true nothingness is just a human idea.
@@Sylvie_X If you argue for there was never really nothing then you're arguing for causation. That there was never a first cause, that causation extends back forever to eternal infinity. The opposite of big bang. Creation, on the other hand, requires a creator: a first cause. Which, paradoxically, doesn't exclude nothing as that cause.
@@kallianpublico7517 It absolutely excludes nothing as that cause. The creator either always existed, therefore things go back infinitely, or it's no different than a universe coming from nothing without a creator. The creator needs a creator. Your logic is inconsistent.
The universe couldn’t have come from nothing, because even if it did just “pop” into existence with no material predecessor, its origin is still the rules that allow such a phenomenon to happen in the first place. And that’s not nothing.
Dear host. In your description you state that "to have anything existing demands some kind of explanation" - no it doesn't, you are employing the commonly used "begs the question" fallacy. It is however an alluring question, the answer to which seems out of reach for at least the moment. I'm sure it's been pointed out to you countless times that inserting a prime mover into the equation of existence doesn't solve the equation, it fact quite the opposite, it makes the equation orders of magnitudes more complex. It's obvious that you are merely entertaining the question in an attempt to justify a belief in God. First of all, why do you feel compelled to justify your belief in God, is it not self evident? If it were self evident, then it wouldn't require justification. Obviously the answer to my rhetorical question is that the existence of God is no more self evident than the reason the universe exists, the difference being that the existence of the universe is in fact self evident.
phase change, eh 🤔 transitory phenomena like lightening might model our brief somethingness best. especially if we assume nothingness the default we're returning to. perhaps when the electron (changes) jumps from one q state to another there is "existence" in that moment, that reconfiguration, that journey, that lifetime
Space and time inst creation in human mind as he said. He wrong. Einstein minds picture reality Universe. Space and time is Universe Not Eínstein mind invention. He simetry inst serious Science, so bizarre rethoric.
.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”
Neither do the scientists that answer the question.
And yet that's a perfect answer for the question..
@USA TAMONDOMUNI Sure but no matter how one "constructs" the word that intends to represent verbally the thing it is assumed to represent the construct may still be misleading or simply wrong. After all the evening star IS morning star and I am not the God of war..
@USA TAMONDOMUNI Sure, but what is the etymology of.. cognitive psychotherapy?
@USA TAMONDOMUNI 666 years old man is a child who asks such a question?
This channel is the current peak of human philosophy.
Ofcourse a open platform to learn from great minds of our times
He asks the same types of misguided questions repeatedly to people who have no clue. It's almost painful to watch.
(0:33) *VS: "It's a crystalized nothing."* ... The term "crystalized nothing" is a self-contradiction. "Nothing" is void of any and all properties. That includes "crystallization."
Exactly. That literally doesn't make sense... Crystallization implies it has some sort of form.. but if it's nothing then it would have no form necessarily. This guy doesn't know what he doesn't know.
@@nicholasdaniels1306 *"This guy doesn't know what he doesn't know."*
... In fairness, "nothing" is a very difficult topic to discuss. It's easy to misspeak or use references to already existing items when trying to articulate "nothing."
My argument is that _"nothing"_ does not exist. That's the only language-based claim that can made that still adheres to logic.
I've stopped listening at this exact moment. There's nothing he could say to bring me back
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Clearly nothing doesnt exist since something exists. The question is why. Physics can only go from one something to another. The same limitation exists with logic. But our tools are useless when it comes to grappling with concepts like true nothing. It's similar to infinity. Regular logic breaks down. How do we make any progress 🤔. It's like a logic black hole. We need something to work with to draw any conclusions and yet no information is available.
Clearly, they got their wires crossed. I perfectly understand, what Kuhn's "nothing" means, while Stenger thinks about emptiness or void of particles. That is something different entirely.
“I’m going to try to explain this by using something to describe nothing”
I was walking home from school one day when I was in the 4th grade, and the thought came to me, "What if there was no God?". It rapidly extrapolated to no universe, no earth, no family, etc. I felt chills up and down my spine and what I later realized was depersonalization. It was also consistent with what some people describe as the beginning of an "out of body experience". I was afraid, so I shifted my focus. But the fear was mixed with awe and curiosity. I thought about it again and the depersonalization returned. I remember exactly where I was on my walk home when this happened. I thought about it at various times afterward, and though I have to this day a very vivid memory of the event, the idea of "nothingness" has not triggered the same intense emotional and sensory experience.
I remember one time i tried really hard to think about the "why is there something rather than nothing" and I felt the greatest fear I have ever experienced in my life. There was this feeling like nothing is real and it is impossible that anything should exist at all. I was terrified and exhausted, I felt dizzy and exactly like you said almost like an out of body experience, I hug and kissed my wife and daughter in despair.
Ah, but what if there was no 4th grade?!
Respectfully, the guest failed to understand the question and spoke completely off point.
As much as I love science, it has its limitations and a certain scope. The question of “why is there something rather than nothing” is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. These people don’t seem to get that.
That’s why when scientists (physicists) are brought in to weigh on the issue or when people try and analyze it scientifically, they end up sounding absurd.
Having said that, here is my take on the issue:
I believe the question is an invalid one simply because “nothing” or “non-existence” (in its true sense) is not logically possible. Its simply a concept we came up with. It doesn’t apply beyond our minds. “Existence” is a necessary default in all possible worlds.
More can definitely be said on this.
I believe classical theistic philosophy (classical theism) has the best approach to this question.
Estás totalmente certo. Lê o evangelho gnostico dos egípcios e o tens a fortuna que procuras.
I agree with your assessment. However, for your take, why is non-existence not possible? The idea that we made it up is a plausible explanation for having an invalid belief but it doesn't explain why (or how) it is invalid.
Jeff, houve um equívoco. Eu sou fã da não - existência, pois ela é um organismo vivo. Não - existência é um termo com cilada cerebral. Vence a cilada cerebral, e obtens o ser vivo que habita lá. O vês.
@@edwardtutman196 He explained it as all symmetric states collapse into more stable less symmetric states. Nothingness is perfectly symmetric therefore it must collapse into less symmetry which is something. Nothingness is symmetric because there is nothing to measure it against to make it asymmetric. He used the example of a void in space with no objects or particles to orient.
*"I believe classical theistic philosophy (classical theism) has the best approach to this question."*
... You have every right and reason to believe this is the case. However, there is another option that has never been presented before until now. What would you say to a revolutionary proposition that demonstrates via logic how atheism and theism are both "correct" and "incorrect?"
What if *science* and *religion* are key components to something humanity has just become aware of this year? ... Something that transcends both?
“Well the answer is that the universe is nothing…” this kind of silliness is why we can’t have nice things🙈
Nothingness, it’s impossible.
Because we have something
Nothing doesn’t not exist it is not realistic so having something is the default constant state.
Good thing for Robert that his guests always attempt an extensive answer to that question. Still, I prefer the kind of answer that's summed up by "I honestly can't pretend to know, but I'm willing to talk nonsense for 10 minutes".
Nothingness does not have quantum property or symmetry or properties or laws or activity or mathematics... Those things would be already a lot of stuff !! Was so hard to understand that ???
It's amazing that physicists keep calling "something" nothing.
0:06 This is exactly me at 5 years old. I used to get panic attacks and sadness thinking of that.
I remember when I was around 20 yrs old, I got up one night to get a drink of water, the thought of this struck me. I paused, thinking about it. And lately I've been thinking about more. It can be a mind f**k.
When I five I was thinking about Christmas gifts and milk and cookies.
Because if nothing existed we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
I had the very same thought in my late 20's and the same reaction,... completely creeped out (existential dread is the phrase someone less lowly might use). I had to shut the thought down. Came after a long spell of reading (layman) physics/cosmology books in my free time which, perhaps not coincidentally, tailed off after this moment. The thought has never returned in the same way, I guess the brain had to be prepped to fully comprehend/submit to that idea.
I think there's a basic logic here: when you address the properties of the universe, the very basic fundamental state of the universe is a boolean value: before everything else, the universe has to be in one of either of these states: either nothing exists, or something exists. as it happens, the value of that specific state is "something exists", otherwise we were not be able to ask the question. if that value was "nothing exists", we could bring up this very same question, we might just as well demand to know "why does nothing exist? why is the basic state of the universe that nothing exists, instead of something existing??" (of course we can ask this only in theory). if time goes backwards endlessly, there's no point in asking "well who turned it on?" - it's always been like that. it could have been just as easily "always off", but then we would not exist to ask the question.
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 but in this case the "something" that must have always existed is the "physical laws" that allow something to come out of nothing.
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 okay the laws only describe the phenomena, but then it was the phenomena that always existed.
the basic logical value of the universe I was trying to put into words above is a bit like it has to be inevitably in one state (either "nothing exists" or "something exists"). as if you find a coin on a table. it must show either heads or tails. it simply has no other option than being in either the "heads" or "tails" state. it logically must have one of these states! you can ask the question: why does it show heads? did someone turn it on its "heads" side? but then before that happened, it was on its "tails" side. then you could ask, why was it on its tails side? did someone turn it on its "tails" side? no matter which one was first: it always must have been in one state, because it is a thing that can only have these 2 states and that's it. just like our universe with the "nothing exists" or "something exists" states. the difference is that when "nothing exists", it is not possible to ask the question, because noone exists to do so.
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 well yes but you can still have the concept of the "universe". maybe "universe" equals "true nothingness", but maybe not. there must be a boolean property attached to the concept of this universe: does it equal "true nothingness"? yes or no?
@@dirkjanriezebos2240 ... or you may imagine the aforementioned coin (which is the universe) as a magic coin, which has this magic about it: when it is Heads side up, it looks like any other coin, but if for any reason it is turned Tails side up, it ceases to exist. it just pops out of existence. Now after you turn this coin to its Tails side, and it ceases to exist, can you still tell anything about it anymore? not really, because it simply does not exist. however at the same time you can still talk about how "it is with its tails side up now". Now imagine that you walk into a room where this coin is on the table. noone has turned it before, so it is still in its original state. Now if it's heads side up, you can ask the rhetorical question: "Why is it heads side up?" - it's simply heads side up, because it must be either heads or tails, and Heads happens to be its original state. On the other hand, if its original state was Tails side up, then when you walk into the room, there is simply nothing on the table. you do not ask any questions about the coin that does not exist on the table, because it's not there. So the original state could have very well been Tails side up (it doesn't exist = nothing exists in the universe), but then we could not ask any questions about it.
I think the closest you're going to come to a real answer to this question is simply, "because there is." I feel like we can only know so much about how the universe works before we hit a brick wall, whether it's because we're limited in terms of our ability to detect the origins of everything, from a technological perspective, or because there may very well be some things that simply can NOT be known.
The answer may lie so many levels below that which we are able to detect that there's just no way to ever understand it. Sucks that that may ultimately be the answer but... *shrugs*... We're a limited species... And that limitation may persist indefinitely.
My dog is probably in a better position to comprehend why light behaves both as a wave and a particle than I am to understand why there's something rather than nothing.
I’ve been contemplating the idea that existence really did come from absolute, true nothing. And even I think Stenger, in this video, either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or can’t explain it in a coherent way.
Stenger knows what he is talking about it is just that absolute nothing is not a coherent concept.
Absolute nothing is not a scientific concept, but a useless theological one.
Existence coming from absolute nothing was never a scientific idea. It is only a dishonest apologetic straw man.
I agree. I thought Victor Stenger waffled his way through this video and didn't answer the question. "Nothing" means no space, no dimensions, no matter or energy and no god. I gave this video a thumbs up purely for Robert Lawrence Kuhn's determination to get him to answer the question. The problem is, physicists cannot imagine absolutely nothing. They can have a good guess at "How", but have no idea when it comes to "Why". When I was a child, I used to wonder why there was something rather than nothing. I thought surely it would be easier to have nothing at all. It didn't scare me though. I thought it was amazing that we're here. If we weren't here, we wouldn't even notice. I would like to say the puzzle has got easier as I've got older. But it hasn't.
@@Laffy-ix5xy "The problem is, physicists cannot imagine absolutely nothing."
Nobody can.
@@Laffy-ix5xy Lawrence Kraus definition of nothing is not coherent. It has no properties or definition at all. Without a useful definition of nothing there is no way to answer that question.
"The problem is, physicists cannot imagine absolutely nothing"
The problem is no one can imagine absolute nothing they ether imagine darkness everywhere or empty space. That is not nothing that is a perfectly symmetric something. Victor answered Lawrence's question. Lawrence was being intellectual dishonest because he was not really imagining absolute nothing.
The question why is there anything at all never made sense to me. Absolute nonexistence always seemed like a state that was impossible because no matter how much gets removed from reality I could always think of something that still existed. You remove space, time, matter and energy the cosmos is still making computations to form a new environment.
"The situation in the 'void' is going transform due to natural processes" sure doesnt sound like "nothing". Its obviously something with a rule set that enables this transformation.
This age old question, fascinating as it is, can not be *answered* by speculative reasoning, it can only be discussed.
I do not think philosopher believe that there is an answer to the question why is there anything at all.
I don't think "the rules" need to pre-exist the first time/space/energy/matter. It's possible they are dependent on the other stuff. I'm even kinda sure they must be dependent, since you don't need rules for energy if there's no such thing as energy. So, time-space makes it own rules.
Or, maybe the laws were in flux in the first micro-moment, then froze out into what we see today. (Maybe arbitrarily, maybe with or without the influence of time/energy etc.)
Or it may be that no other rules are possible. It seems like 1+1 has to equal 2 in any universe, and so on. Unavoidable truths like that might not need anything to create them or calibrate them. A few simple rules can give rise to ~infinite complexity.
Assuming a larger universe outside our large universe doesn't solve the problem of where the rules come from, it just puts the problem on the next turtle down. It may be true anyway, and I'm not against it, but it still wouldn't answer the question.
@@bozo5632 It is actually physically possible to have an infinite regression so it turtles all the way down is the correct answer.
@@kos-mos1127 Infinite regression is possible in mathematics. I'm not sure it's possible in turtles.
Whatever answer one comes up with there be another question waiting.. If you say e.g. some processes are inevitable like 1+1 = 2, then why did this universe happen ~13.7bn years ago, why not 100000 billion years ago. There was something that wasn't nothing that cased it to happen exactly then, not sooner, not later.
If the question is why is there something other than nothing, and this guy says that the answer is because the universe is nothing, then what is the answer to the question?
Nobody will ever answer the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' I suspect that the answer is simply unknowable by something as simple as a human mind. It will always appear paradoxical.
All we'll ever have access to is 'How you get something from something else'. Such as the answer in this video.
Quase quase lá chegas. Mas vais lá chegar. Pois tens força para saberes o que é a singularidade. É vais saber.
Considering:
Colder Constructabilities and Hotter Symmetries along with the pursuits of ...Safety, Security, Stability, and Sustainability....
Your guest is an absolute genius.
What if consciousness is the universe’s byproduct of moving towards entropy/a less symmetric shape... like consciousness just happens to be the path of least resistance towards the most stable state
Why do you think our eyes resemble galaxies. Reminder, inside every galaxy is a black hole like our pupil.
Don't ask a materialist the big questions. They have no answers because they all leave out the underlying foundation of existence, mind.
What is the nature of the universal consciousness? Does it think in sights or sounds, does it have a memory? Does it make decisions? Is it even aware of itself? By what means does it perceive itself?
All of the evidence for my own mental existence self is based on material underpinnings. Retinas that systematically and materially respond to light reflected in a mirror, a cochlea that systematically and materially responds to air vibrations made from "my" mouth, and a hippocampus that mostly reliably stores sensory impressions of what "I" did yesterday and what I was thinking about at the time.
I can move my arm because I have an arm to move, and a neural pathway to activate the musculature which moves it.
Consciousness might be separate from my brain, but a whoooooole lot of my identity and functioning absolutely involves and is directly influenced by the matter of my brain and body.
But what would my consciousness look like if I had none of these things? No vision, no hearing, no memory. What would my thoughts be like? I couldn't think in words because I'd have no language. How could I know a word if I have no memory? I couldn't think in pictures because I'd have no concept of space, dimension, color, etc. If I didn't have the right neurotransmitters, I wouldn't even experience emotion.
Subjective identity depends on a multitude of physical sensations and phenomena.
Consciousness and experience is probably fundamental, but a universal consciousness is unlike anything we'd ever know as a being or entity. There really isn't even a reason to believe it would be self aware.
When I was 5 I became obsessed and annoyed at the passage of events. They never stopped! Ever! I later conceived it was time which caused everything to flow by me, including my thoughts, and that it wouldn't ever stop.
This fact of reality so annoyed me I used to try to stop it. Stop time. With all my will I would squint my eyes and try to make my world stop... moving. Of course I couldn't do it and aren't all of you lucky I couldn't!
I wonder now how much of a trait of autism such thinking might be. If I had not been able to release my obsession with stopping time what might it have done to my brain? It might have created a psychotic delusion that I had successfully stopped time that rendered me catatonic.
Thank God I was a normal five year old.
Nobody knows is a incomprehensible question, except the being behind existence.
The reason symmetrical things change is because of imperfections in the symmetry. Nothingness is PERFECTLY symmetrical. It would never change.
Would it be possible to know there was anything if no one was conscious?
nope ,,, thats why consciousness IS primordial
@@francesco5581 *"that's why consciousness IS primordial"*
... Very good, Fransesco! Consciousness is "information," and information has always existed. "Nothing" (or "Nonexistence") is merely an opposing reference point abstractly assigned by consciousness in order to clarify what Existence represents.
For the past 13.8 billion years, Existence has been defining what Existence represents via an ongoing evolution from *0* and *1* (Nonexistence and Existence).
You are the perfect "target reader" for my book!
Nothing is needed to exist in order to be able to say or experience that something does exist. They are both necessary. The same thing applies for nothing. If nothing existed it still would need something to exist in order for that nothing to be nothing. Nothing creates something, and something in turn creates nothing. Both are needed to create reality as we know it
What's wrong with "I haven't got the foggiest"?
"Nothing" is a human concept. There is no such thing. We once thought that air and then vacuum are nothing. There, I solved it.
And you cannot define "nothing" in the absence of "something". There, I solved it; again.
Yeah “rationally” and “logically” this is the only thing that makes sense with our current understanding of the world. It’s such a weird abstract theory but a sound one.
(0:40) *VS: "What we have now is a phase transition from nothing to something."* ... It is impossible for _something_ to emerge from a *state* that is void of any and all properties. Even calling nothing a _"state"_ is necessarily assigning nothing a property. ... When you rewind everything back to the origin point of existence, the only scenario that can be supported by logic is a binary scenario: *Existence* and *Nonexistence* ... *0* and *1*
Não caríssimo doutor. Antes do binário código 0 1 não existe matemática. Existe a palavra toda sequêncializada.
@@nelsonpinheiro1148 *"Before binary code 0 1 there is no math. There's the whole word sequenced."*
... *0* and *1* are "symbolic" references to mathematics based on human language. Mathematics predates human language by 13.8 billion years (and 1-trillionth of a second). Everything that exists can be observed/dissected/predicted via mathematics because mathematics is found at the very core of Existence.
Rewind Existence back to the beginning (or reduce mathematics down to its most basic precipitate) and you get *0* and *1.* Existence doesn't necessarily use the same numerical symbology that humans use, but the mathematics (logic) is the same.
Senhor doutor, notável retórica. Mas tu tens super inteligência para a fazeres subir bem mais alto. A palavra é um organismo vivo, ela criou a matemática para a cobrir, vesti-la. Imenso doutor, desvia a curtina da matemática e vê o explendor da palavra. Depois acrescenta a tua retórica.
Don't forget that Mathmethics is the language we know which gives a good idea of how universe works there maybe something which can come up and explain everything so easily. Nothing might be just space with no geometry, geometry gives space for particles to exist. You can also consider -1+1, universe is just an complex zero as gravity just gives the necessary to make the total energy as 0
Amigo, uma analogia, a matemática é uma luva. A palavra a mão. Tu muito bem recitas matemáticamente a luva. Agora recita também a mão que é a palavra.
How does nothing have a higher energy state than something? Are energy states not a feature exclusive to somethings?
We're looking a symmetry zero, so the sum of all positive and negative energy equals zero. In our universe that would be the sum of gravity (negative energy) and other stuff (positive energy).
So this "nothing" is not the absence of everthing in the way the Dr Kuhn is saying.
For me all the laws of physics, mathematics etc are just inventions describing patterns and what we experience. If there are no particles there is nothing and that state is unstable so I agree with what is being said here but I have no clue what the catalyst is for that instability to state change, if I did I'm sure I would win a Nobel prize.
The distinction between being and non-being can be traced back to Parmenides. The west still thinks such a distinction is valid while in the east Buddha called anyone who thinks this way crazy.
This guy is bloviating. I don't blame him for not knowing the answer. I blame him for pretending to know.
A drop of water does not turn into a snowflake by a phase change. A snowflake grows from a small solid accumulating more ice as it floats around. When we try to picture nothing it is like an empty room. Even if we pumped out all matter there would still be something in the form of radiation, the various forces like gravity. Eliminate all that and there would still be space-time that is a long way from nothing. Nothing might be impossible to pin down. What might frighten a person is the idea of a universe without any awareness, especially that seemingly personal awareness.
6:14 - This is what happens when you don’t have a good answer to a question, and you try to dodge it with irrelevant nonsense.
Well, what would be your answer? It's easy to critique someone else, but entirely different when it's you.
I dont think the man being interviewed has ever truly conceived of nothing and so isn't quite able to apprehend the question. True nothing is very difficult for us to even consider.
Wow. Atacas quem argumenta e não o seu argumento por ele não ser proferido por ti. Pois é um argumento tão óbvio que até a matemática o saúda. Homem, experimenta isto 3 exercícios para bíceps 3 exercícios para triceps 3 exercícios para antebraços 3 exercícios para abs 12 exercícios vezes 3 igual??? Vês é fácil. E agora tens que falar do meu físico e isto não é matemática. Fostes facilmente derrotado por palavras.
The multiverse gambit is about as useful as the fine-tuning hypothesis (and with no observational data unlike fine tuning).
It's a question that has no answer. Systems with perimeters can have reduced entropy but taken as an open system entropy as a whole increases. Why? We don't know and may never know.
Não caro colega. No teu íntimo sabes que existe algo singular. Não combatas a ideia luta por ela.
Since it is so difficult to describe nothing, could be better to focus on an infinity of symmetry?
Well you just ran into a brick wall. Infinity is impossible to imagine or even understand, and that's IF it can actually exist
Obviously, there has always been a “something” finite blob and there will always be that something!
So at the start of the interview, he said that the universe is nothing. He then said that nothingness is the most symmetric state possible, and should therefore give rise to structure (something) over time. Don’t we already have structure in the universe, and therefore something? I just don’t get his first statement.
he just didnt catch the question
Nothing is just a state we either gonna achieve when the universe dies off Or it's the state which was before the universe. As far as I see, just a plain 50/50 to not violate each other ..
@@ManiBalajiC nothing can come from pure nothingness so something always existed
How can you give rise to structure over time when according to science time and space didn't exist prior to the big bang, and it is the big bang that created them. Contradiction after contradictions. What a joke
@@francesco5581 that's meaningless since you cannot say what that something that always existed is. Everyone uses the word ALWAYS as a substitute of having to say "I don't know the answer". The absence of an answer is answered with the word ALWAYS
if you believe there was nothing before the universe existed, as Robert does, then you must also believe nothing can somehow “become” the universe. if no time can elapse between “nothing” and “something” then nothing must immediately become something. in other words, that idea of “nothing” is so unstable it can never be achieved. this goes along nicely with the instability described by Stenger here.
There is both something and nothing.
If there was just nothing, there will not be nothing without something - if there was just something, there will not be something without nothing.
One thing about reality, it's never nothing.
Nothing is a meaningless word, when it comes to the toughest cosmological questions.
There can be no nothing, so we could simply say, we exist in the hollow universe. That's right, universe must be surrounded by everything, like some endless and infinite substance, without any properties that fills the entire eternity. Or not, since there can be other kind of implosions of reality nobody can even begin to imagine and might just as well not exist, because nobody will ever detect them in any possible ways.
Here is how i imagine the problem. There can be a volume of space without any massive substance inside. That doesn't mean this kind of space is not under gravitational tension and must still be teaming with virtual particle pulses of potentials, it's just not physical in the objective sense of the word. Real nothing is not like that, if nothing could exist, then nothing else can exist besides that awful concept of not something.
This is why we're left with completely energetic phenomena, best described by the theory of quantum force fields, distributed over the entire reality of existence. But once we start talking about arcane forces alone, with no material references, we find ourselves in totally abstract dimensionality, far beyond the capabilities of human intellect to be imagined in any way, including mathematics.
So it would be only far if we conclude with, nobody knows and probably never will. We will learn more with time, but no amounts of science can help, only nothingness we know is the fact we didn't exist before we got born and our consciousness was formed, and we will return to nothing after life force will vanish from our bodies. Why is there anything at all, so we can have something to think and talk about, probably. I mean it, the concept of nothing is best described by information theory, it seems nature can't exist without it, for some reason.
Nothing only means reality is abstract. meaning our existence is an idea, not a physical place.
@@JBSCORNERL8 Nothing means no thing. I am a thing, so we are not nothing, by definition.
@@xspotbox4400 but you aren’t a thing, you are a concept. If U think of a rainbow colored unicorn. Is it really a thing or a concept in your head. Reality is the same way. It doesn’t exist in the way you think it does and it’s the reason we are here.
@@JBSCORNERL8 You don't get it. I am a thing, not no thing but some thing.
Why would i think of rainbow unicorns, i'm not 5 years old. This is exactly why i don't believe any nonsense that goes against objective observations we all share. Of course there's more to reality, it's not that simple, but we're talking very definitions here, what some word means and also what it doesn't mean.
What you're saying is only an idea, it doesn't exist in reality, and you have no means to prove any of your nonsense, so stop telling me I'm wrong.
@@xspotbox4400 how can abstract laws create a physical world? You do know that laws are abstract right? They don’t have a physical existence. So we are a virtual projection of mathematical laws.
What I’m saying is common sense. We are video game characters that think the game we are in is real. Now I’m not saying we were created by someone but we do exist as bits of information in an abstract realm.
Plato-Aristotle conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must be caused by something that is itself uncaused, which they claimed is that which we call God: The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes.
… … …
Alexander Pruss formulates the argument as follows:
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God. (Creator, Designer, Programmer, Initiator, First Cause, Unmoved Mover)
… … … …
William Lane Craig gives this argument in the following general form:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
If there is nothing, then we won't be there to be sad about it.
I really like where this discussion comes down to in the final minute .Lawrence Kuhn tries to fence off the idea of nothing to be no paper-no quantum. But somehow Victor Stenger was not having it. I'm very much oriented as Kuhn frames the argument, but Warren has this thing of space being a human construct. I need to understand the twist better, that allows nothing as a symmetric state allowing for something as a less symmetric state. I'm probably hearing one state of something (pure null, not even nothing) as opposed to many states of something..
Time is a construct we humans have made to explain motion we can't really perceive nothing like thoughts there's nothing to a thought
The presumption of space is a persistent intuition, but only in three dimensions. Trying to visualise higher dimensional spaces is counterintuitive but compelling, especially now that we can use technology to create functional interactive models of higher-dimensional spaces. A four-dimensional space has objects and features that are invisible from any particular 3D space, even though the 3D space is entirely a subset of the 4D model.
I think the conservation laws of physics, particularly (haha) the conservation of universal energy, is a useful philosophical concept that allows a better discussion. If space and time are themselves "something" then whatever else it may be, it has an energy associated with it. When I was a kid the idea of conservation was thought to apply to baryons, so that any mass particle had to come into existence in a pair of matter and antimatter particles. But now if I understand correctly, it is not the particlular forms that are conserved, but only the energy.
Using the inertial concept of action and reaction, which is a result of conservation principles, it seems clear to me that space and time are a form of density that is energetically balanced against mass densities. As a requirement for both matter and spacetime. So that every massive particle that exists, is accompanied by a corresponding container of spacetime. In terms of density, the positive mass density of particles is pefectly balanced with the negative density of space and time. So space is not only not nothing, it is specifically the absences of something that eventually turns matter into nothing again, erasing the particles by recombining the positive and negative energies associated with the temporal appearance of matter.
In other words, gravity may be interpreted as the negative pressure that causes objects to cohere, and which impels objects to motion, and is the reason that every galaxy is being pushed away from every other galaxy. In this sense, the expansion of space is not a kind of motion as much as it is an increase in the amount of negative density that is equivalent to the matter that is presently being created by solar systems and so on.
We’re all have our own space, but for some of us to changing the spaces is difficult, do you have any answers for that !
Stengler appears to think nothing means no particles in space, but nothing is much emptier than that, It means no time, no space, no energy, no matter, no consciousness, and by definition it doesn't exist. So claiming it to be unstable is a bit rich really. The existence of anything is both astonishing and mysterious, we may never have an answer.
We can imagine a state of the universe with no space and time, but that would require the big bang to be the creator of space and time. That might not be so.
Another assumption that people make is that answers to these types of questions exist when in fact probably don't, and even if they do, are out of our reach
Do anything exist out of existence.can u get the picture.
If there was nothing, there would be no something 🇮🇪
Because there is nothing there must be something
I had to go back he really did say the universe is nothing later he says time is an invention well I am old now and my body dont work as well as it did before.how real does it have to get.
Existence coming from nothing is just as implausible as the multi universe theories
So there was always something? Where did that come from then? Or has it infinitely always been there?
@Alpha Omega I don't prefer anything. I don't subscribe to a god. If the was nothing then how did it start. If there was something and had been forever (infinity) then I still need to ask the same question: why/how/what for etc.
I don't really know the point of your reply.
Rest in power.
“My nothing is more nothing than your nothing.”
Interview me. I have never understood that fear. I am sorry 😢 I actually can tell you what it is. He doesn’t know. That’s why I am here. There’s a World of difference between describing what or how to seeing why. To seeing the higher reality. There’s no such thing as nothing… but if you want to continue believing in ghosts, be my guest.
There is no controversy. I actually know. Math will NEVER tell you as currently conceived. Math schmath. It’s like looking for meaning in grammar or word frequencies. Sorry to be blunt, but I know this answer and if someone would have the balls to interview me publicly, then everyone will know that I know overnight.
I always speak as accurately as possible and this theory does predict. Let’s say that’s my first prediction. 😂👍🏻 This is not ego, but something I worked on through blood and tears for many years and now I see that it was definitely worth it. ❤️🔥🚀 I think people are just afraid of the truth. It’s not that they cannot see it per se. They don’t even know that they are rationalizing to avoid knowing… never underestimate the subconscious. 🤷♀️
Dons Scotus's explanation for God's existence is long, and can be summarised as follows:
1. Something can be produced.
2. It is produced by itself, something or another.
3. Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing.
4. Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself.
5. Therefore, by another A.
6. If A is first then we have reached the conclusion.
7. If A is not first, then we return to 2).
8. From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite.
9. An infinite series is not possible.
10. Therefore, God exists.
… … …
Only things which begin to exist require a cause.
(Before the Big Bang event; the Singularity, nothing existed, not even time.) On the other hand, something that is without beginning has always existed and therefore does not require a cause. The Cosmological Argument posits that there cannot be an actual infinite regress of causes, therefore there must be an uncaused First Cause that is beginningless and does not require a cause.
…
The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. Asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.
… …
This argument is why Eistein was a pantheist. That all existence is God. He was neither an atheist nor a theist but something truly in between.
What does he mean when he said "the universe is nothing"?
He is saying that it's a rearranging of the elementary particle fields in such a way as to have matter, but a different arrangement could have no matter and maybe no space. However, as the interviewer (and many commenters here) have pointed out, that's not REALLY nothing). It's interesting, and might be how the big bang worked, but it's not what is being discussed. So he's using a different meaning of the word "nothing" i.e. no matter and no space. However, true nothing would have no laws of physics from which to derive anything else.
@@Practicality01 awesome. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Truly do appreciate it.
No shlt because I wish there was nothing at all, specially no humans I can't stand those things.
Don't hate yourself bro.
Também eu não suporto. Mas ambos somos artistas sabemos suportar com estilo de rock. Star
.
Ele o ilustre não se odeia. Ama demasiado. É um birrento carismático.
The answer is so simple, yet is frowned upon by theorists alike because the answer violates the laws of thermodynamics. Yet all the observations point to the same answer. The accelerated expansion of space with distance violates the laws of thermodynamics yet it didn't stop theorists from blaming it on dark energy even though it violates the laws of physics. The answer is over-unity of energy. There is something rather than nothing because energy and matter can be created but cannot be destroyed. It explains so many observations, even the accelerated expansion of space. No one can come up with the answer because when you submit a paper for peer review to scientific journals and it mentions over-unity of energy the paper is rejected. This is what keeps science from advancing.
It looks like we want to deduce that the universe cannot not exist from observations of the universe.
Could this actually be impossible to do?
Does symmetry mean an infinity of nothing? The breaking of infinite symmetry becomes finite something?
This is really pathetic. Two grown up scientists agreeing that nothing is something unstable... They make a big effort to try to say without laughing, that something comes from nothing... Please, try to give decency to scientific talks.
You are absolutely correct
You would have to ask that question to whatever created the big bang. Your answer is in the fourth dimension looking into our universe, like how we look at our earth from space.
If nothing is a by product of the relationships between words in a language, then no nothing is conceivable.
I need to answer a few comments direct at me but first I have one for all who can't decide whether the universe always existed or had a start. It goes like this. The universe ALWAYS existed since it STARTED. Now you can all go to sleep and stop worrying
Beautiful. Finally I understand why Robert Kuhn is doing this. At 12 years old he had a waking experience of nothingness that involved no space whatsoever, and it terrified him. Consider the intense claustrophobia of such an experience for a boy who had no clue what it could have been about. Could it have been real, and could our universe have come from that? (great question!) And so he's trying to figure it out by asking scientists and philosophers, along the way helping everyone else who has the same questions.
But what I really hope is that some day he asks a madhyamaka master, or some great vedantic swami, someone grounded in nondual realization, who can help him cut through the subject-object distinction. That presumption -- the belief that "I am in here" and "the world is out there" -- is exactly what is preventing Mr. Kuhn, imho, from making definitive progress on his quest. I don't think he's going to get to his answer as long as he stays within the subject-object paradigm. From that point of view, "no space and no time" will seem like a terror, like annihilation -- because there's no room to be. But what if that whole way of seeing things is just a mistake? Every night in deep sleep we experience no space and no time, and it's really not so bad. We come right back, well-rested, and continue our pursuits.
You missed the point.
@@xander-012 Okay. Please clarify it.
At its core, matter is eternal light, and it occupies just one fourth of the whole spiritual sky.
What!!!!
There is a theory that if anyone in the universe ever figures out what the purpose of the universe is that the universe will instantly transmororify into something infinitely more mysterious. There is another theory that says that this has already happened.
8 minutes and 28 seconds of I don't know why there's something instead of nothing but I'm going to describe it to you by imagining things that don't exist and I can't prove.
IMHO, the premise that pure nothingness could exist (which is where Kuhn starts) needs to be challenged. Perhaps it's the other way around, and total nothingness is impossible. Taoists call this would-be timeless and spaceless reality "the pregnant void", and while I wouldn't call myself a follower of the Tao (interested but don't know enough), the idea is very poetic and has stuck with me since I came across it.
Were talking about NOTHING at one extreme. What's phase transitions got to do with it.🙂
On the other hand, how can there be nothing?
That nothing has more symmetry than something, is that symmetry something, or maybe an infinity?
Olá. Bem sabes que o vídeo carece de empírico entendimento. O nada é uma palavra de múltiplas interpretações. As conhece a todas. É saberás isto nada é o começo inesgotável.
And it is all about the Math.
Top of the bill remains Paul Davies.
That what is selfevident by itself.
So the Nothing is not nothing. There is always potentiality. It is even worse.
Matter as such is still grossly nothing.
There must be potentiality of observation, meaning the requirement of a potentiality of conscious consciouness.
That is the chicken or the egg first zillion USD questionaire.
Anyways, this what we experience as universe, must have preceded by something else, that turned potentiality of conscious consciousness into existence, whether it was from the other potentialities or preceding the other potentialities into becoming delivered.
Anyways, it must have begun from sheer phantasia.
The interesting thing though is, that once into existence, the potentiality of conscious consciousness, turned into conscious consciousness, to proof to itself its own existence, requires at least two other conscious consciousnesses, albeit not yet capable as selfevident by itself or entirely independent entities. Initially them believing and also doubting at the same time is a first step, is sufficient, hence like experienced consciousnesses in a simulator.
The ultimate confirmation though is a completed simulation, that promotes to the level of independency. But this can be bypassed, if a simulation is created, with near to vountless entities that need a majority of others to agree, in order to achieve or accomplish a temporary entry pass to the direct observations of the algorithms that drive the entire simulation.
We seem to be entering a phase of the simulation that we have been rapidly closing in on levels of appreciation of what it takes to pull of something like this.
Yet the proof is in the pudding and what a mess we have made, albeit we did not aim for that mess, but the Architect behind the algorithms of the Simulation, for a learning curve process, that ideally ppl remain unaware of, until the mistakes that were needed to make, have become part of history.
The Matrix Book or Book Job / Hiob says it all, at least readable between the lines.
The Messiah, the Grail, the META-Covenant, it was always there in plain sight hidden - only Spinoza and Plato managed to figure that out, of course by the imprints of that Architect of the Sim itself.
I do not think that I wrote this myself or even one bit of the entire internet is manmade, it is all the product of algorithms behind a Simulator, that also imprints the synchronic impressions all that is expressed originates from individuals, instead of all having been cooked by means of a bunch of algorithms.
So the purpose of everything is to enable mankind to step towards a purely metaphysically oriented teleologica as decision making, management and planning model for human behavior, that gets rid of all profit driven flaws, as nobody will gain any entry pass to the algorits, before all others share the same ideal purest perspective, and thus requires demonstration.
That begins with sound scientific problem solving. Openness and transparency about what is precisely going on in labs. Gain of function research and flawed vaccines can wipe out mankind, silently yet more effectively than nuclear bombs. It is not an innocent game.
this is what happens when a physicist is asked a philosophical question. Frames of reference get mixed and misused, and faffage commences.
What a bizarre strategy: re-define nothing as something, then one can heartily dismiss the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'. On to that piece of prize pottiness? Never mind, try the following all too convenient way of dismissing the question: space is something we 'invent'. But aren't inventions something? If that doesn't work go for throat with 'we are nothing anyway'. If Stenger is nothing then why should another nothing be required to respond to his arguments (which, in any case, would be nothing themselves)?. Then we have my personal all-time, academy award winning favourite: 'Nothing cannot exist anyway' (said somewhere in the comments below and all too frequently elsewhere). Of course it can't, if we can say that x exists, then x is already not nothing. But so what? That wouldn't stop it from being logically possible that there might have been a complete absence of anything.
Conceptual confusion reigns, OK! Any (suitable dressed up) nonsense will do in the service of simply not facing up to the basic ontological question.
There is no reason, none at all. Everything is ultimately meaningless
A lot of of these type of these sessions would be considerably shorter if certain people would just concede that they just don’t know - or maybe ‘can’t know’ the answer. I know nothing about this interesting question, yet still was more sympathetic to the questioner, whose “nothing was more nothing” than Venger’s nothing. Venger’s ‘nothing’ wasn’t ‘nothing’ - it was nothing like nothing - as he could only envisage ‘nothing’ as an empty space between somethings. That’s not nothing.
Why does no one mention Consciousness? Without that, nothing exists. In Consciousness we create time,
Something from nothing: Creation. Something from something else: Causation. Don't mix up the two.
I think their main point was that there was never truly nothing. Even in the case of some kind of god, then where did the god come from? If it has to be an act of creation, who creates the god? Would that not mean there was something before? It's likely that true nothingness is just a human idea.
@@Sylvie_X If you argue for there was never really nothing then you're arguing for causation. That there was never a first cause, that causation extends back forever to eternal infinity. The opposite of big bang.
Creation, on the other hand, requires a creator: a first cause. Which, paradoxically, doesn't exclude nothing as that cause.
@@kallianpublico7517 It absolutely excludes nothing as that cause. The creator either always existed, therefore things go back infinitely, or it's no different than a universe coming from nothing without a creator. The creator needs a creator. Your logic is inconsistent.
@@Sylvie_X Nothing as the creator needs no creator. My logic holds. Out of nothing something.
@@kallianpublico7517 Then why can't the universe come from nothing without a creator? The creator part seems completely unnecessary.
The universe couldn’t have come from nothing, because even if it did just “pop” into existence with no material predecessor, its origin is still the rules that allow such a phenomenon to happen in the first place. And that’s not nothing.
No
Classic case of an intellectual using word gymnastics to dodge and nonchalantly dismiss the real question.
Dear host. In your description you state that "to have anything existing demands some kind of explanation" - no it doesn't, you are employing the commonly used "begs the question" fallacy. It is however an alluring question, the answer to which seems out of reach for at least the moment. I'm sure it's been pointed out to you countless times that inserting a prime mover into the equation of existence doesn't solve the equation, it fact quite the opposite, it makes the equation orders of magnitudes more complex. It's obvious that you are merely entertaining the question in an attempt to justify a belief in God. First of all, why do you feel compelled to justify your belief in God, is it not self evident? If it were self evident, then it wouldn't require justification. Obviously the answer to my rhetorical question is that the existence of God is no more self evident than the reason the universe exists, the difference being that the existence of the universe is in fact self evident.
I bet you are fun at parties
@@LarsRyeJeppesen Yawn - and there's the predictable ad hominem fallacy.
phase change, eh 🤔 transitory phenomena like lightening might model our brief somethingness best. especially if we assume nothingness the default we're returning to. perhaps when the electron (changes) jumps from one q state to another there is "existence" in that moment, that reconfiguration, that journey, that lifetime
If someone can’t see how ludicrous is that explanation he/she needs therapy to get out of the scientism cult.
Huh? I think I met this dude at a party in 1972. He had long hair and beads and wouldn’t stop talking…
interesting
Space and time inst creation in human mind as he said. He wrong. Einstein minds picture reality Universe. Space and time is Universe Not Eínstein mind invention. He simetry inst serious Science, so bizarre rethoric.
We went from Thoth to Logos. Pretty simple. We are but energy gifted longevity through the whims of a lonely entity.
Why not?
Cut to the chase: it’s not possible to know anything about nothing
I believe Stenger didn't understand.