Paul Davies - Why There is ‘Something’ Rather than ‘Nothing’?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 дек 2022
- We know that there is not Nothing. There is Something. It is not the case that there is no world, nothing at all, a blank. It is the case that there is a world. Nothing did not obtain. But why? Why hasn’t Nothing obtained? Is this ‘ultimate question’ a legitimate question? What can science contribute? What can philosophy?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on existence and ontology: bit.ly/3I2NfBg
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
This question haunts me everyday. And I've been doing this since I was a child. What's funny is im almost 40 and never in my life has anyone brought up this question to me. People just assume existence is normal. Being a human being is normal. And the point of life is to make as much money as you can buy as much stuff as possible. This should be the most important question on earth.
I wish we were friends! Lol I try to ask people around me how absolutely mind boggling it is that we are the ultimate thing. the universe is literally IT we are part of that thing and we have the ability to die within it.
It's very lonely and painful to be intelligent
This is a frightening concept to most, including me. 99.999 percent (rough estimate lol) of people do not want to think about this question even if they understand what you are asking.
@@allocke9446 all I want to do is think about that stuff lol. It can disconnect you from reality in ways though
@@FRElHEIT lol I suppose that's true
This is actually the mother of all questions.
You can go further. For example, why is there the *possibility* of something or nothing existing ?
Don't give you on your own history Braj...
The answer is: साहचर्यम्
Full explanation:
किं न स्मरसि यदेकत्र नो विद्यापरिग्रहाय नानादिगन्तवासिनां साहचर्यमासींत् Māl.1; Ku.3.21; R.16.87; Ve.1.2; Śi.15.24.
Why something?
Because...
Nothing has ever been proven to exist.
The notion of "Nothing" is utterly absurd...
@@typedef_ you don't know that the "possibility" exists. it might be that only one of them is "possible", and the other option is impossible
since we exist, we happen to know which of the two happens to be the option that is true, and - if it's the only one possible - then - it couldn't have been otherwise, in any meaningful sense. i.e. - the thought that there could have been "nothing" is simply not true --- nothing could not be the state of things, "something" is the only state possible.
@@typedef_ I even solved your question in the comment section. There is a deeper question than that.
Every time I think about this conundrum, it makes my brain bubble, because, in my mind, there should be nothing, and, in my opinion, the theory that you can have something spontaneously erupt out of nothing, means that it can't really be nothing, otherwise, nothing would come of it. So, in other words, a nothing that can produce something, is not truly nothing.
Sometimes, while sitting in my room, I'll look around and have this really profound sensation that this should not exist, and yet it does, so what the hell is going on? The implications are mind-bending and overwhelming.
I don't believe that anyone has ever located any nothing. So there's no way to know whether something can come from it. I have never heard of a theory that says something can come from nothing. Where did you hear it?
@@russellmillar7132 wrote: "Where did you hear it?"
Google is your friend.
Nothing, cannot be infinite. Consequently, it has a boundary. And every boundary is likewise bounded. So... the universe did erupt out of nothing. I'm writing a book - 'Read this First - on the origin of space, time, particles, people and minds'. We'll see what people think.
@@stephenanastasi748 How was it determined that "Nothing, cannot be infinite"?
Yea johndzwon, you so accurately described how the question (why something rather than nothing) nagged and perplexed me for years. Usually when waking up in the morning and coming back into consciousness, that strange sense of what the hell is going on? Exactly. It haunted and nagged me relentlessly. I was finally able to mostly resolve it by coming to terms with the apparent fact that nothingness is a fiction that resides in the imagination only. The question postulate nothingness as something that could've possibly existed, but the somethingness of reality completely and permanently negates that possibility. So the question itself is flawed because one of the 2 options is a literal/physical impossibility. Absolute nothingness has never and could never have existed. Like asking why do birds have wings instead of jet engines, lol. One of those options is an impossibility and so the question makes no sense. Why is nothingness an impossibility? Who knows, logic/observation just tells us that it is. Like why is it impossible for birds to have jet engines instead of wings? Because nature doesn't work that way and it doesn't have the capacity to create that sort of thing. Likewise, the nature of reality is existence, and for that reason nothingness cannot and could not ever have existed. It's not a full answer to the question of course, but for me it helped to re-frame the question to take most of the bewildering nagging edge off it, lol. Why does a flower bloom? Why does a tiger hunt? Why does reality exist? Because that is its nature. Why is that its nature? That's the real question, I believe.
Let's have a full list of all of Robert's obsessions
God, Consciousness, The Mind, Theology, Philosophy, Ontology, Quantum Physics, Simulation Theory, Reality, Infinity, Cosmology, Aliens, Something, Nothing
@@genandnic does Robert ever post a discussion like this where the topic they're discussing is not one of Robert's "obsessions"?
I shouldn't be criticizing though. It's good for people to be thinking deeply about these important fundamental subjects
....just an inquiring mind. He's curious. That's good and makes for interesting content.
That was the most succinct explanation of the delayed slit experiment and it’s implications I’ve heard so far
I once had a general anaesthetic. I woke with the bizarre feeling that it was as if I'd died. No sensations, no memories, no thoughts, no pain... it was the most peculiar feeling, because during that period 'I' was literally 'nothing' and yet life was going on all round me, everywhere all over the world, it was just me that was absent from it. I think of that often, and that must be what it's like when we die.
Same experience when we sleep. Apart from an occasional dream we are awake in the next instant having no memory of the last 8 hours. We have no concept of time. Does sleep simulate death? Did Closer to Truth try to answer that question? If not he can add another episode.
Occasionally I can get the same feeling waking up. You're a blank slate, no memories, and if you manage to pay close attention, then you can consciously observe what feels like a flood of memories of who you are and what your past is being progressively programmed into your brain like a boot up sequence for that day. Fun stuff :)
@rockwell marsh your raise some interesting questions about sleep, and I agree with you. Did you know that death is likened to a deep sleep? That is to awake again when he ( GOD) calls, and you will answer.
Well, either there is nothing after death, or we are eternal spirits who are having fun in this temporary physical reality. I like to think its the latter. And if not? Well, if there is nothing and I am dead, I won't be disappointed, because I am DEAD!! It's not that I am dead and think "darn, I fooled myself, there is nothing, what a bummer", because if I could think that, I would not be dead. But I hope of course that we are indeed eternal spirits and that the physical reality is merely a play ground that prevents us from going crazy, with nothing to do but being aware that we are. And in that scenario, death is merely an awakening, in which we remember our true eternal self and can relive all the adventures we (collectively) experienced. And when we get bored up our spiritual butts, we can be born again, as whatever. And while alive we forget our true nature, because remembering would spoil the fun. It's either that, nor nothing at all. At least that is my hope :)
@@m.k.wallner3145 I like that! ☺️
Paul Davies did as good a job riding the rocket as anyone I've seen on this program. And that, my friends, brings me closer to truth.
Paul Davies one of my favorites
Once we realize that human knowledge is fallible, we realize also that we can never be completely certain that we have not made a mistake.” ~ Karl R. Popper
And Popper knows this exactly how? He is a nihilist mind-destroyer.
But he wasn’t completely certain of that, was he?
This is such an interesting topic. Thanks!
This question is equivalent to asking if there is a meaning of life. Why we should exists over not existing and what is the reason for it.
Wheelers Delayed Choice was one of my favorites!
The answer is surprisingly simple: because there is something. If there is something then nothing can't be and that's the whole reason why nothing is merely an abstract concept, like zero. Zero doesn't exist, we made it up, same thing for negative numbers, they mean absolutely nothing in reality, we just made them up. There's not a single natural example where negative numbers can be applied.
This to say that nothing is just an abstract concept like many others, they only exist in the conceptual form, they have no reality besides the concept itself.
I read your comment a few times and it’s quite a mind bending. So if I’m understanding you correctly…existence or something has always been?
@@tonymclaughlin4053 Well, yes. How can something be created from nothing? That would be magic. If you believe in magic that's one approach but hardly true because to prove something as exotic as magic it would probably be harder than to prove God exists.
Something emerging from nothing is far more unrealistic and exotic than something emerging from some kind of supreme consciousness.
@@tonymclaughlin4053 If you take the mathematical and more logical approach: if you have zero (which equals to nothing) and you add one more zero, you still have nothing. The only way for zero to disappear is by adding something, but if there's something, zero doesn't exist, it's only there as an abstract concept, same for negative numbers. I would even say imaginary numbers but I do not know enough about complex numbers and their implications to have an opinion on it, yet.
@@privateaccount8027 No, I went in the Santa Claus school.
Wild stuff, I said the *exact* same thing and so did another commentor on here. Uncanny, love it.
I'm on binge watching of all the videos related to this particular question of Robert Kuhn "Why there is something rather than nothing" and Paul Davies's version is the most fascinating one among all the Physicist to whom he has enquired this question. The problem is we are imagining Nothingness always in term of absence of something. We can't have other way around. IMO Absolute Nothingness is impossible to imagine or comprehend until we are stuck in the duality of something and nothing.
My #1 question in life.
The ultimate question, the one from which all other questions have their source . . .
The #2; the #1 question is "does she loves me?" 😊
A cause actualizes a particular outcome. If there is no cause, no particular outcome or possibility is actualized over any other. Therefore, in the beginning, all possibilities exist on equal footing in superposition because there is no individual cause to cause reality to be a certain way. Perhaps God as the “uncaused cause” is this superposition? This is the best answer I found so far.
@@pabloquesadamartinez5405 The answer for 1st question is yes. Now something rather than nothing becomes your first question lol
@@pabloquesadamartinez5405 Followed by, 'who farted?' and 'who let the dogs out?'
His books are great BTW. His work was my first deep immersion in particle physics and cosmology.
I still own the first book I ever read by Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint.
I read most of his books. They are really good.
I was twenty in 1997 and I remember reading everything he had published up to that year by around that year. I too loved it. Hope I get back into reading, it's taken an unwanted break from "life"
Happy to meet again at the Agora! ☺️👽
It's quite hard to envisage 'nothing'. Laypeople like myself tend to think of 'nothing' as an empty. timeless void, but of course that wouldn't exist if there was nothing at all that existed. I've thought about this for some time, and my view is that 'nothing' precludes its own existence simply because the concept of existence itself wouldn't exist.
Bloody hell, that sounds like something you'd hear on a bad episode of Doctor Who.
Well, if we assume our universe is all there is, and you run the "movie" of the universe backwards, you will arrive at a time when nothing existed. That would be than your absolute nothingness, which we perceive as space. But if there is no matter in space, space for all purposes does not exist, it only exists "potentially" and is "potentially" infinite. Same with the past and the future: our past is only potentially infinite, since regardless how many years we count backwards, we will never arrive at the lowest possible number, because there is none. Same with the infinite future: Think a ahead as far as you want, you can always add more and more years to it. You will never reach an end. Same with space. There is also talk that space and time are the same. Possible, since space only starts to matter once matter appeared, and that is also true for time.
It's not possible to imagine "nothing" because the act of imagining it is actually thinking of it as something that you decide to call "nothing". Hence true nothing is abstract and cannot be thought of consciously.
I am grateful for Paul Davis's books written for the layman.
I read "Other Worlds" nearly 40 years ago and it it had a profound impact on the way I saw things.
Didn't expect to find answer here, not surprised.
Is it possible we’re just making too damn much of the double slit experiment? A simple diffraction pattern has caused us to reject everything we ever learned about what is reasonable. The cat was put forward as an illustration of how absurd the conclusions of quantum physics were, and so alternative explanations should be explored.
The Laws of Physics are the rule set for this particular VR.
Phenomenal
Everything Exists! For some reason
this makes Absolute sense to me.
🎸❤
7:46 is the biggest stretch of "we can't determine position and velocity at the same time' that I've heard so far. Its the same thing as: We don't know what the 'hidden variables' are, so there must not be any...
Could listen to this erudite scholar for hours.
It seems to me in the distant future we still won't know the answer to the fundamental questions of the origin of the Universe but we'll have a lot more and better questions that will still need to be answered.
Great way to focus on the reality that science is still a social construct
A topic that has fascinated me for about 60 years (I’m 66!). The thought that lingers after watching this interview is that it seems to imply we humans may have this cosmic playground to ourselves. If observations can influence the past as well as the here and now, if another sentient life form 90bn light years away made an observation that changed the understanding of the energy levels of a particle, I know it’s reduction ad absurdo, but that might preclude the formation of nuclear fusion, then the sun would cease to exist and our heating bills would rise quite sharply! So to have two “observers” could surely create paradoxes that may have deep and unexpected consequences?
"if's" don't fly, because that would mean that my uncle would be a bicycle IF he had paddles instead of feet.
Nancy Cartwright has interesting things to say on the laws of physics . I'd love to have you interview her if you haven't already
Interesting!
we chase material luxury, but it's nothing compared to the cosmic luxury we have
You damn right
I have no idea what he just said, but bloody hell it was interesting.
Not a lot. Basically said he didn't know and hopes science can figure it out someday.
A good, honest discussion. Too many of the physicists who debate this topic tend to pretend they understand the universe rather better than they actually do. Wheeler's ideas are especially interesting, especially his conception of a participatory universe. I also suspect that past, present and future are entangled in some hidden way.
I read most of Davies books, but three of those I had to read them over again: About Time, How to Build A Time Machine and The Mind Of God. They were just that good.
ive asked myself this question alot and stopped because you will tourture yourself trying to find out how and why. Im lucky enough to forget about it but it pops into my mind here and there and bugs me so much
8:15 this belief is what creates the hard problem of consciousness, but a consciousness-first model such as Bernardo Kastrup’s eliminates the problem 😃
I agree with Mr. Davies that the laws and the universe require observers. Perhaps that's the line of reasoning that will get us closer to an answer.
Whatever Paul Davies says opens more my eyes about the Universe and reality. He is so coherent. Mr Kuhn has to shut up at least with Paul Davies.
The anthropic principle is a decent explanation. We are conscious in the universe that allowed us to evolve.
The anthropic principle explains nothing; my oven allows a cake to be baked but for some reason there’s no cake there, no matter how often I look.
@@thomasengle1686 You clearly don't understand the anthropic principle, not even vaguely.
"something" and "working" are two very different things. And if there is no "intelligent push" is not only already strange that there is something but that is almost impossible that there is something that works on a complex level. Was really an option that a no complex reality was possible ? 2 electrons bumping into each other for eternity ? a cloud of hydrogen standing there forever ? Was that an option ? I think this is a good proof of a somewhat intelligent design...
awareness is that intelligent design which is not something you do it,s all ready their ocean of awareness the more aware you are more intelligent you are since awareness is not a thing there is no limit to it.
@@Braun09tv An infinite universe is more less likely than a universe that had a beginning. Because everything that we know in science has a Cause and Effect. Law of Thermodynamics, Law of Cause and Effect, law of karma , etc .
An infinite universe doesn't compute .
A fixed state universe has already been disproven by the Big Bang theory.
If that is proof of intelligent design, the who designed the designer?
@@m.k.wallner3145 a system can start just with a 0 (nothingness) or a 1.., since we know that there is no nothingness i deem more probable the starting with a 1 (god or an absolute consciousness) that something in the middle (some quantum fields and some material or whatever) that have no explanation to be there in that form.
Vedanta is very clear on this premise as well as it is clear on why all living beings exist
Indeed! The discursive mind can never understand Brahman anymore than I could put the Earth in my pocket!
Since time does not exist in nothingness, there can only be two possibilities : nothing for never, or something forever.
I would propose that time does "potentially" exist in nothingness, but it does not matter, since it needs matter to matter (no pun intended).
interesting point.
great video, very odd camera movement
are we not building the piers of our own minds, board by board, with each question, answer, discovery, etc?
do equations of quantum mechanics and E = m * c-squared have the potential to bring about nature?
Everything exist, so nothing also exist (is a part of everything).
What if we apply the two slit experiment to our observations of the universe and the objects within it? Would that prove that the distant stars and galaxies did exist or did not exist in the distant past, depending upon whether we are observing them today or not observing them today?
I love learning about all these deep philosophical topics.
It's comforting in a way - there's so much significance in life than just playing the day-to-day grind of the "rat race."
Even if I lose the race, I'll always remember that I was a part of something bigger in the grand scheme of things...
You said EXACTLY what I always think
.... only that you put it so nicely.. 🌸🌺🌸🌺🌸🌸🌺😊
The definition of philosophical topics is, ideas for which an answer cannot be verified. Thus centuries of ruminations and competing conclusions, the sum of which can be boiled down to: that’s, like, just your opinion, dude.
Dig a little bit deeper and you will understand you are more significant then you think you are...
We don’t lose my friend, we live it and realize we are here. That’s cool stuff. It is comforting like you said
@@skeptic_al This is your definition. It is not what philosophy really is.
These are interviews are gold.
Englert showed how Bohmian mechanics can account for Wheeler’s delayed double-slit experiment. We are not required to abandon past, present, and future; "entanglement" is a feature of non-locality.
Even if Bohmian mechanics is inadmissible, I would want to reach for alternative ways of interpreting Wheeler’s experiments before reaching for such a radical move. Would Quantum Bayesianism escape bypass the weirdness?
Here’s a paper on it: www7.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/DelayedChoice.pdf
Qbism is certainly in the “observer-centric” side of the QM interpretation spectrum. Everettian Many Worlds is the hard physicalist bookend whereby the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, Wheeler’s participatory model, and Donald Hoffman’s Conscience Realism model all make up the “idealist” bookend. So pick your flavor of absurdity.
@ Jan-Peter Schuring
I hung a question mark after QBism because it’s not clear to me how exactly it would deal with Wheeler’s delayed double-slit experiment. It seems to require something like the following reading: our past subjective probabilities are affected by our future measurement operations. My hesitation was because it is not clear to me that this epistemic casting of the problem is any less weird than Wheeler’s radical-sounding “participatory reality". The two readings often get lumped together, so it makes sense that they should have similar features.
It seems to me that Bohmian mechanics interprets Wheeler’s experiment most elegantly - or, at any rate, whilst doing least violence to ordinary realist notions. The past is mind-independent and determined, but the subsequent change of the measurement apparatus instantly (because of non-locality) alters the quantum potential which forms the guiding wave of the particle, thereby determining whether it will exhibit “wave” or “particle" behaviour upon interacting with the measurement apparatus.
Of course, Bohmian mechanics has its own flavour of strangeness, and is clearly an incomplete physical theory, but it seems to have the advantage in accounting for Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment. I tend to think these little victories in explaining quantum conundrums count for something, because in the absence of empirical means by which to sift through interpretations we are simply confronted with a choice of which philosophical prejudices to trade-off against one another. Action-at-a-distance and “hidden” unobservables are a heavy price to pay, but in return we seem to have a relatively uncomplicated realism.
I’m more interested in the physics than the philosophy, but quantum mechanics is plainly unsettling and it should disturb us all. I can’t take Bohmian mechanics too literally - it seems to be a good heuristic for one or two particle non-relativistic systems, but beyond that it loses its ‘picturable’ ontological simplicity, and the peculiar quantum potential seems rather unnatural and ad hoc. But QM forces us to entertain bizarre ideas.
* Or, equivalently perhaps, QBism says that our present measurement operations affect our subjective probabilities of the past.
I struggle with the intimation of backwards causation here. How could our present measurements "defuzz" our past knowledge without retroactively *changing* it? There seems to be an asymmetry here: there is nothing mysterious our present measurements affecting our present knowledge of future events, because this does not involve any backwards causation.
It seems that, to avoid these difficulties, Wheeler takes the very radical step of dissolving time into an ontology consisting only of observer-event interactions. This seems to be more extreme than is required.
And it seems that QBism bottoms out at saying “this is just how the predictive machinery of QM works”, and we can ask nothing further about why our subjective probabilities and our acts of observation are related in such peculiar and unintuitive ways. Perhaps this sort of refusal to be drawn into the swamp of unobservables is intellectually hygienic, but it nevertheless feels unsatisfactory. The only sorts of “realism" that can survive this kind of approach seem rather obscure and anaemic.
@@Samgurney88 I think you have formulated the issues and paradoxes very well and you seem to have a very informed understanding of the overarching thorny problems that need to be resolved. It astounds me that this years Nobel hasn’t illicited more extrapolations of foundational questions in regards to what Bell’s inequalities are possibly telling us about reality. Most of the discussions are about the practical applications such as in encryption technologies and perhaps one might see a passing comment about non-locality and realism-but with no words added about what the implications of what this startling fact even means. It tells me that the deeply held presuppositions on a “realism based reality” is a sacred cow that is inviolably sacrosanct. I greatly appreciate that while you too seem to hold realism (wishing to minimize violence to it) and perhaps also seeing it as a somewhat sacred and necessary presupposition you have at least done the necessary thought experiments to see the underlying absurdity issues lying within each postulate. Yes Wheeler’s participatory universe is radical and absurd but likewise my understanding of Bohmian mechanics-with such features as a super deterministic hidden variable aspect to it-is in my opinion equally shocking to our deep intuitive notions of what reality is.
Sean Carroll who is a strong advocate of many worlds-but who at least cognitively entertains other interpretations-has said that you need to grant one absurdity/ miracle to each postulate.
The epistemological data and the science is giving us a radically counterintuitive picture-perhaps beyond our sensory capacities to truly capture and ever to understand.
Unlike you I care more about the metaphysical and philosophical questions underlying what the weirdness of the data might be telling us. For me the mind/body question is of equal and perhaps even of tangental importance. I of course realize that the minute one conflates these two deep mysteries howls of dispersions will arise. Wheeler certainly gets a lot of grief for his bold endeavor to bring the observer fully into the equation.
The idea that perhaps time-space and the phenomenal appearance of an objective and material “world out there” is the extension of “mind stuff” rather than from the ontological primitive of matter can-like Bohm’s postulate-resolve a lot of the weirdness. Of course the price for this inverted reality-where matter is derivative of mind- is the abandonment of the most cherished and deeply held presupposition of local realism. But I ask why make this one metaphysical assumption so sacrosanct? One can keep naturalism and explanatory causal chains intact if one sees a paradigm of a network of consciousness interlinked “events” (Carlos Rovelli’s and Alfred North Whitehead’s model) leading to this phenomenal experiencing of “a world in spacetime” -thereby in essence projecting a fully mental derivative -one that has material qualities in tight correspondence to the contextual “mental reality substrate.” Under this metaphysical paradigm we end up with the “hard problem of matter” rather than the “hard problem of consciousness.” Of course this naturalist version has “phenomena” -coming to us via a mind stuff substrate-as the “observable epistemological layer”-however the predictive scientific modeling and the manipulation of such phenomena remains fully intact. It is only on extreme close observation at the micro-scale that the classical edifice is cracked. When we look really closely the phenomenal veneer becomes incomplete showing us that we cannot capture all aspect of it. The observer suddenly becomes central.
Donald Hoffman ( who coined this “conscious realism”) compares reality to a representative-dumbed down-version of a computer desktop-whereby we (entities made from a vast network of smaller nested conscience agents) have evolutionarily formed our filtered down “physical interface” from the much more chaotic and overwhelming underlying “mind reality.” We live out functionally on this “lived experience of physicality” within this projection of spacetime-allowing for much easier fitness goals to be achieved. This is actually how Wheeler himself portrayed underlying reality-an entropic chaotic soup of potentials and where physical laws are without laws -only our “observation based world” puts order and solidified perceptibles into place. Of course this world view requires a deep adjustment to our deepest experiences of a material world “out there.”
In any case I appreciate the discussion and your wonderful response has motivated me to reinvestigate Bohm’s work. I will attach a fairly brief chapter from a textbook by Wheeler that I feel explains his thoughts on this very well-but it is no less radical by any means.
psychonautwiki.org/w/images/3/30/Wheeler_law_without_law.pdf
It's the uncertainty principle: we must have uncertainty ... which we cannot have without uncertainty itself, at minimum!
can physical laws of nature be derived from infinitesimal zero dimension points of time? maybe through time / energy uncertainty, or another way?
Seems like different particles are subject to different forces based on their properties (charge, mass). The "laws of physics" are just the forces, etc that happen to be applicable to the particles and space we have now and if we had a different collection of particles we would have different laws to care about, even if all the laws were valid/"in force" all the time.
Because there can only be one or the other. When it is something, any nothing would be immediately displaced by something. When it is nothing, there is only nothing and therefore nothing to displace or be displaced.
I think this guy is onto something. Really.
Indeed, why _is_ there me?
We know there is something. We have no idea if there can be nothing. Until we do, there is no reason to ask why
"Why hasn’t Nothing obtained?" ---- As logical antinomy demonstrates, truth cannot not be. Existence in and of itself, logic, to be, truth: these are transcendental synonyms.
Then you have to define clearly what that "thing" really is; and why there must be thing that is in contrast to no-"thing"? It is after all conceptualizing plays of mind in the realm of relation and relativity.
The thing with observation is that by observing we change the very nature of we are observing...ain't physics grand 😂
I've been asking my brain this question for years.
I answered it in the comment section.
It's at the heart of science. Is it at the heart of the Universe though? Information is getting grounds in science and Paul's 'theory' makes it central again.
The Idea that the past can be altered by observers in the present is truly amazing. I wonder if religion could have something equivalent? 🤔
Would listening to this episode change its content (recorded in the past)?
I wonder if that would depend on who observed the content first?
The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is meaningless, because the question itself is "something".
Surely the participatory universe might suggest that you can get different answers about the past depending on the question and how it is posed; but that just goes to understanding, it says nothing about the Truth. The past has a single truth. Something like Schrodinger's cat; philosophically it might be alive or dead, but in reality it is one or the other - there is actually only one truth. I am grateful to Professor Davies who many years ago opened my mind in a spectacular way. Such a clever man!
How about this: Why are you alive now, and not 200 years ago?
What condition stopped you from being born two hundred years ago?
Every ingredient possible for you to exist today is occurring right now, but these same ingredients were also here 200 years ago.
So why now, but not then?
@@nativeamericancowboy5028 A lizard or a plant alive 200 years ago would be indistinguishable from a descendant today. Humans however are different due to consciousness. The studies of near death and after death experiences shows that we are unique and have a purpose aligned to the circumstances of our lives and the interactions with everyone around us. For me every bit of science I learn leads me to believe in God. You and I were in contemplation at the commencement of the universe and we are alive today for a specific purpose unique to ourselves and our time. One of these interviews they discussed how scientists have been able to bring together every protein and element needed for life but not been able to create life. Some people say that God has a purpose for everyone of us and when we die we find out what we did to muck it up.
These interviews are great fodder for the mind - so much to think about ... Have a great weekend!
I like the idea of a 'Super Turtle.' Cool.
Something turns out to be a one-way lock upon mantissas that cannot be eliminated, while the distance between e and zero is greater than that between e and pi.
It seems as if there is a difference between the absolute "nothing" as a philosophical concept and a physical "nothing" which is defined as absence of space-time. This leads to the question of whether there are physical facts outside of spacetime that do not establish spacetime, but have something like potential physical regularities in them ("laws" as in "laws of nature" is an interpretation, actually observed are "regularities"). This leads to at least two possible postulates: Time-independent infinite potential existence of everything, or some kind of "primordial phenomenon" that makes the transition from "nothing" to "something" so smooth that it is virtually imperceptible.
An attempt at the latter: On the level of the physical nothing (which is just not identical with the philosophical nothing) exists as a primal phenomenon a regularity in analogy to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. This forces the areas outside of a space-time to "flicker" permanently back and forth between nothing and something. Thereby, sets of properties are produced, the vast majority of which vanish practically in the same moment in which they are created, because they contain inconsistent regularities. At least one such set contained consistent regularities, we know this set as our universe. There may exist other sets, perhaps even infinitely many.
Laws are nothing more than building blocks... simple to complex, yet if the origins are simple, must there not be a simple string (entanglement) within and throughout? The, and our, very existence, is a miracle beyond statistical comprehension, at the moment, if one is honest with oneself, this is a MOTO event. (MOTO, Charlie Chan, Master of the Obvious)
Another wildly thought provoking episode, and a must finish and re-watch later.
That nothing is awareness which is background of everything ocean of awareness without boundaries.
The question for me at least is why do laws exist - mathematical, physical, moral laws etc. Which existed first - law or matter?
The premise that there was ever a true state of "nothingness" in existence (even in relation to things we are yet to comprehend or quantify) could potentially be flawed. It's plausible that the notion of "nothing" is simply a human-made concept. When we refer to "nothing," we're always drawing a relation to "something." For instance, when I say I have zero (or "nothing") apples. Therefore, it's conceivable that there has always been "something" in existence, including those entities or phenomena we haven't yet discovered or understood.
Before asking nothing vs something, one needs to start with the fact that "something" does exist. Furthermore, if absolute nothing is defined as a state without any possibilities - it follows that absolute nothing cannot bear fruit to anything but more absolute nothing. Therefore, existence of "absolute nothing" as a primeval state is precluded. The conclusion follows that "something" is the only possible state and has aways been so.
Because we can.
If there was nothing
We would have nothing to complain about
I think the key question in all of this is the statement, "Observations. Whatever they are."
awareness base of our observations which not a thing that,s why it has no boundary which is background of everything
@@djsahilking3807 I won't try to figure this one out.
@@bobtimster62 Because you can,t it is not a thing let me ask you one simple question how do you know that you exist.
Observations tell you "what." They don't tell you "why." This is about why.
@@fluffysheap I was quoting what Davies actually said. Exactly what constitutes a measurement, e.g. in quantum mechanics? When the observer makes the measurement? When a recording device does? When someone/something does the measuring? This is something that physicists still can't agree on. The Schrodinger equation tells you how the quantum state of a system evolves in time. But the "collapse
of the wavefunction", i.e., when a measurement is made, is not described by the Schrodinger equation. So what exactly constitutes a measurement? I think that's a "what", not a "why" question.
We forget that causality or the law of sufficient reason in (from) classical logic, works if and only if there is time-space.
Why? Because Cause C at time T0 give the Effect E at time T1, and T1-T0>0, so it is strictly positive and greater the 0. If there is no time T1=T0=0, so beyond time any cause it also an effect. Beyond time (and space) cause and effect are the same. So causality (and classical logic!) it is no use anymore.
Bill Cosby's third album was titled "Why is there Air?" (1965)
I was eight years old then, and I thought it was just a goofy title by a goofy comedian, especially since he doesn't address the question in any of the tracks.
As a kid, it was obvious to me why there is air. We need it to live. That was it, and that was all.
After watching this video, I immediately thought of Cosby's album. As an adult I now know that air is also what allowed me to hear Cosby's jokes, and it allowed the voices of Cosby's victims to be heard.
If there are more layers to the answer of why there is air, i probably won't be alive when they are revealed.
So he essentially answered the question without answering the question.
The is a certain amount of timelessness to indeterminacy, but that is relative to the last decoherance event. I suppose you could have a electron flying through the universe at c that has not undergone decoherance since its production 13.8 billion years ago, but by and large most matter we know of has been through a long series of decoherance events and so the past universe we see is a relatively accurate representation.
Our known universe begins at the viel of CMBR, there are a few neutrinos flying around that are older, but as of yet they are 'not kissing and telling'. The insistence that expansion begins with an inflaton almost guarantees that there is minimally a branch of obscure physics that we have yet to understand.
But thats not the only problem. If we were to take a black hole, set that black hole in a place were it could not absorb any more energy or matter, then Hawkings describe it as a photo producer. When matter enters a black hole, from our perspective that matter stops, but the same event horizon is creating photons. So from our perspective as matter disappears into a black hole it produces photons. As it shrinks due to photon production the matter thats in the black hole eventually becomes hv. So the physical process of how matter vanishes in a black hole is obscure to physics. At some point the black hole will reduce in size and become a brief flash of hv. The matter vanished. The way physicist try to explain the geometry within a black hole is making space timelike and time spacelike, but the problem is that there is no quantum theory of gravity that suggest that time is not an emmergent property of the quantum field. Therefore for gravity to exist in a black hole the spatial component needs to become time, and space would become an emergent property of time. Matter exists as a distribution of energy in space that propogates through time, and at this point its dubious that matter can exist in a black hole other that something that can travel forward in time from its last position, IOW a veritable spacetime traffic jam. The physics again is obscure. One group in looking at the problem described spacetime in terms of a foam that flattens at the event horizon, but ultimately its flatness has a limit, and below this limit its shape becomes frozen in time.
I dont know the answer to this but I dont need to create a new philosophy to know that there are limitations to the physical understanding of the universe. Our laws of physics exist between two extremes. On the one hand there is the fundemental uncertainty that reversing expansion causes. In our world infinities create problems in solving physial problems, but in a shrinking universe there comes a point in which classic space disappears and only infinities can exist. In order for this not to occur the finely divided universe needs to unify into a particle of unknown physical properties or the laws of physics after inflation need to have evolved from dissimilar preexisting laws. There is a bit of a hint that several papers have hinted at, the gravitational constant is, in fact, not so constant. It seems to have some variance in the seventh and eigth decimal places, and this variation seems to be a feature of the testing methodology, particularly the use of extremely hot or cold testing environments.
The other extreme in physics may be pointed to by dark energy, what happens when the energy in space becomes very diffuse.
I agree this is the 1st question period. All others follow, there is no such thing as nothing.
Heidegger is the only thinker in modern times to seriously ask this question. It’s the crux of his Introduction to Metaphysics lecture series.
Over 2000 years ago Parmenides demonstrated that there IS Something because it is impossible for there to be nothing. Non existence cannot exist, or What is not cannot be what is. It is as true today: how can something that has non-existence be something that has existence.
I thought that the question of the fundamental forces was resolved with symmetries. Or is it just theory?
Edit: about the video, awesome as usual.
I thing that he suggested the idea that if we asume that there's no God, we could asume the multiverse. Makes sense
Edit2 😅 the past isn't uncertain, is already entangled with us, I think that's was proven already.
But agreed with the thing that through time forces could change...
S
I like the Vedantic theory that the only reality is Consciousness. Every thing else is conceived by Consciousness.
So you are conceived by consciousness?
@@robertmiller2367 obviously yes, conscious effort makes it happen or do you need the birds and the bees talk right now?
You are conceived by a sperm and egg, not solely for anything else.
@@robertmiller2367 As per the Vedantic Darshan whole universe is a lower form of reality or a dependent reality, like a dream.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our being. In reality, there actually is no thing, and it is that no thing that appears to be something. Humans realized this thousands of years ago, and it still eludes most people.
Yes. Very hallucinogenic to think about the point of the "big bang". What "lit that match" and where did the ingredients to existence come from? Turtles on down really. But the bottom turtle...had to be something before that lol
A turtle
@@baronvonhoughton 🤣
Our universe is an anthropic part of the self computing mathematical bulk of existence, and mathematical objects are necessary. Laws of physics consist of mathematically necessary symmetries and anthropic contingencies. Observer self selection means we observe anthropic and random parts of the bulk, but we don't create it.
The theoretical form of energy at the most fundamental beginning of nothing and the next created state out of this is the highest form that everything else is created. And all other created are given its own energy from this beginning to create and with its own creation energy to create other lower forms of creation (where we exist)? And then these lower forms of created universes evolve which in turn reciprocates this evolving process back to the next higher universal form? The universes would not all be at the same levels of evolution?
Where is everyone? Perhaps any life that has developed by a million years or more beyond our own evolution has left this 'time' dimension for reasons unknown to us at this current level of evolution. It may be all about protecting their inner state of peacefulness and intellect and have just evolved out of this ? As well as indicating some understanding of leaving any underdevelopment of nature (that includes us) to the mistakes inevitable of those by 'time' of a lesser evolution and as a law of nature that cannot be damaged by interference? Meaning when any being this advanced of their own evolution by 'time'? And for those equal or less than our own evolution it is not possible to reach any others like ourselves as of this period of time. And then it changes at some point in evolution of any being which perhaps would allow an ability to move within dimensions to more evolved realms? That was enjoyable.
What does it mean "to exist", anyway? One thing seems clear: every existing thing is logically possible (consistent), in other words the thing is what it is and is not what it is not. But is there any difference between logical possibility and existence? If not, then everything that is logically possible necessarily exists, by definition.
Your comment reads like word soup that purposely tries to sound more clever than it needs to in order to get your point across.
@@TheSpeedOfC Actually I tried to make it as simple as possible.
@@glidingforward oooooooh ahhhhhhh
Absolutely, every time I think about this I have to draw the conclusion that it's way more likely for nothing to have existed at all (highly unlikely), non-existence is more expected than the likelihood of something existing. Why existence? I get corrected every damn time I post this question on Quora.
Nothing is more likely I would say from a naturalistic perspective.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 There's not even entropy at the place just above the North Pole, so the ignition of non-existence into existence is absolutely bizarre and highly unlikely. No chicken. No egg. No hen house. Our universe can be explained by the multi-verse, an logical antecedence. But ultimately once you work through the regressions, you arrive at a starting point. And the question remains. Existence out of non-existence, it's crazy unlikely. I bet a mathematician can put a number on it.
@@ejw1234 And life from non living matter conciousnes from unconcious matter highly unlikely as you say yet here we are.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Yes, you're right, the same can be said about the emergence of consciousness. Highly unlikely, but slightly more likely once the laws of physics promulgated the universe.
well it's all speculation, it might be that existence is inevitable. my pet theory is that life pops up everywhere, but it's rare because the universe is just really a lot better at killing than survival.
How could the complete lack of existence occur as a real state? What does that even mean? Look, I'm not a physicist, but a much more relevant question seems to be "Is absolute nothingness a possible state?" We know "something" can exist. But can "Nothing" exist, so to speak?
We have no idea how this current state of affairs occurs as a real state (only that it does). So why ask why the non-existent could occur? We probably won't be able to find out. However, total non-existence of the physical world seems to be a coherent concept: it can be intuited in thought, is not logically contradictory, and can be semi-formalised within modal metaphysics.
Nothing can exist do you want to know what that nothing is. It,s awareness let me ask you a simple question how do you know that you exist right now what is base of that.
@man with a username So when you are in deep sleep. When there is no thought you does not exit that what your are saying right
We’re just here in the middle of the same explosion
Consciousness is time
Absolutely wonderful, thanks again!
There IS an undeniable link between perception and the world around us. I believe consciousness is the "universal goal", and the implications are profound.
This was fascinating - first how science (more specifically astrophysicists) are confounded by the ‘tower of turtles’ Paul Davies alludes to. The need to rationalise an explanation for our existence (which we being human beings have the unique capacity to do). The other interesting point for me was how many ‘scientists’ try to avoid an explanation that could resolve all their quandaries and in balance imho provide a completely adequate explanation for ours and the universes existence, though I understand the reluctance to admit to such an obvious explanation. The reason to avoid the blareringqly obvious answer is because so called religious experts have failed to thoroughly represent God (in their portrayal of him). Eg the idea a loving God would torment people people ‘forever’ in a fiery hell is one, the non sensical ‘trinity’ doctrine is another not to mention the corruption immorality greed and exploitation of many innocents leaves religious people with no credibility when ‘speaking’ about God. So I understand completely the reluctance of scientists who probably pride themselves on being objective rational individuals buying into a notion of God that humans instinctively sense God isn’t. So my point is for anybody that has stayed with me this far (and if you can remove yourself from pre religious sentiment) God makes the claim that he never had a beginning he has always been there. Counter intuitive I know and it blows my mind as well. But accepting this notion of God would certainly resolve Paul Davies ‘tower of turtles’ problem and provide an explanation for life on our planet (and no where else to date). The earth seems to be made for humans to enjoy Eg contrast Earth with Mars many of the things we have so called ‘discovered’ have in fact been in imitation of things that have already existed. The complexity and beauty of life on Earth testify not only to a loving and generous God but an unimaginable intelligent creator that continues to astound and intrigue us with every passing year. Well if God is so intelligent and wise then why is suffering so much apart of our existence? I hope it is question people reading this comment ask themselves (I’m sure they have many times) we all do. I will disclose I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and my beliefs are based on the Bible and I would like to encourage anybody reading this to have another look at what this book reveals free of pre religious bias. I will close with a heart warming vs from the Bible that gives insight into the type of person God is. Job:34:10 ‘So listen to me, you men of understanding. It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly. For the almighty to do wrong’. There are many references to Jehovah God being ‘king of eternity’ 1 Tim: 1:17 living forever, always being there. If you want to know those references they’re not difficult to find the Bible (the scriptures) are replete with them. All the best.
Let's try this ... either there is certainty or uncertainty or neither or "none of the above" ... one of these states of affairs must exists ... unless none of them does ... which still yields that option :-)
Could another universe exist without any laws of physics as we know them? What caused the laws of physics to come into being in the first place?
There are certain facts of the Universe that cannot be otherwise: mathematics and logic. For example, pi = circumference\diameter must be true regardless of the laws of physics. (Right? Can't imagine when this equation wouldn't hold true.)
Can we then derive the laws of physics and existence that must necessarily be true based on the framework of mathematics?
Like Paul Davies' "bootstrap" theory suggests - perhaps consciousness (life!) is required to observe the fundamental truth of mathematics, and life requires certain laws of physics and kinds of matter & energy and no others.
Can there truly be nothing? Not even space or darkness, truly nothing. Perhaps, that's impossible.
Paul Davies said his mentor was John Archibald Wheeler whom I believe said that there was only one electron in the whole universe. Talk about entanglement!
That's only a thought experiment - not a real scientific claim. And it's not really possible in the expanding universe we live in.
4:25 physical laws are what they are because of our unidirectional perception of time... if time could be multidimensional then everything is possible, including the wildest laws imaginable 🤔