Why Anything at All? | Episode 1213 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июн 2020
- Why are we here? Why is there a world, a cosmos, something-instead of absolutely nothing at all? Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why? What can we learn from "nothing"? Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Bede Rundle, Max Tegmark, Simon Blackburn, Quentin Smith, Victor Stenger, Peter van Inwagen, John Polkinghorne, Richard Swinburne, and Paul Davies.
Season 12, Episode 13 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth 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.
#Existence #Reality
I always count the seconds before Robert inevitably takes a slow walk down steps or along a picturesque pathway whilst looking around meaningfully🤣 love it!
This sums up the whole genre. Why do we exist? We don't know now let's walk.
Robert your series are amazing and highly educational, and what amazes me is that less than a million follow these and more than a million follow garbage. Thank you.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about Closer To Truth.
A of people seem to think it's just a dude with a RUclips channel. It's not. These are posts to RUclips of episodes of a long running PBS television series (US, obviously).
Most of the 'new' videos are actually many years old. The series started in 2000, and has been running off and on (mostly on) ever since.
In addition to this, even some of the more recent episodes appear to have interviews recycled from earlier episodes.
This is apparent because in some episodes, the original broadcast date is long after the death of a participant, and if you know what some of the people he interviews look like today, it's obvious the interview had to have taken place well over ten years ago.
@@b.g.5869 I would of never knew that. Just looked him up there! Impressive guy
I just did a Google search and was surprised to find out that Robert lawrence kuhn is an international big shot and has done a lot of work with the Chinese government and also is in investment banking big time and regularly appears on US and Chinese media.. He's not just a philosopher with a youtube channel..
Here's the heart of the problem with most of Robert's chosen themes... _ignoramus et ignorabimus_
So while his topics are interesting, the answers are ultimately unattainable, and at best make agnostics of us all. These sorts of unsolved mysteries of reality are the pablum of a lazy and uncommitted generation. And even worse, we don't bother to do more than scratch the surface of these complex questions.
@@b.g.5869 okay
Closer to Truth has just GOT to be among the top five RUclips channels for the value its content offers our lives. And I couldn't name with any certainty the other four… Thank you RLK for all that you do bringing the public this monumental resource.
Most of our generation rarely,if ever, ponder these deep questions, I suspect
Its also my favourite question and as Robert I am fascinated by it again and again. Its just mind- blowing! This channel is definitely the best Ive ever seen and I feel sad that not more people are interested in the big questions. It should be number one channel for its profundity!
Why does garbage not exist?
Such an excellent series! Outstanding questions and cosmically interesting answers...
and what have you tajen away from it
I love these inquiries and the way Robert goes about exploring them.
Definitely my favourite channel. Brilliant content!
Amazing, right!
Watched this episode several times.. it remains so impressing. My absolute favourite topic
@Andrea S. As a tip of my poor old hat to a wonderful Andrea I knew more than 50 years ago, I suggest you ask yourself this: What rules does 'nothing' have to follow?? That is, what laws of physics must nothin exhibit? If you consider this for a while, I believe you might conclude that there are no rules whatsoever that nothing must obey (or exhibit, or follow, if you like). This is the begging of a long, and perhaps terrible road. If nothing has no physical laws which it must obey, then a universe simply coming into being 'from nothing' is in no way prohibited, or even improbable. You must go on from here... Cheers.
My comfort comes from the notion that the universe is, or was created, to know more about itself. This is not under my authorship , but found in the Upanishads. For me, I find comfort with this . It also suggests that I too am an agent of this discovery , and provide some assistance to this notion.
I would hope that Closer to Truth would spend some time with those people of the East that have pondered much of the subject matter that is brought to this channel. It would be an excellent addition to compare and contrast the knowledge. Many would first ask " Who is asking this question ? ". They take great interest in the person/apparatus that is pondering these 'Closer to Truth" Ideas, as the perceiver/subject cannot be disconnected from the reality of the answer.... ( I found this to be true )
Alan Watts pretty much covered most these Eastern ideas very comprehensively. Any attempt to reboot it will mostly create redundancy bc of course the upanishards didn't really evolve much since the 70s...
Couldn't agree more ,
@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 Alan would say /\/\/\/\/\/\/
I have read Upanishads, but didn't find it saying universe created itself to know itself. Can you give any referential quote?
@@irfanmehmud63 Hello, Yes. Let me look it up ( again); and, also consider the verse in the Bhagavad Gita where Krsna ( Self) says curving back onto myself I create again and again. So, let me go look up the Upaisad or the agama that refers to this creating itself to learn about itself.
regards,
Man!!
Robert knows how to end things!!
Amazing!!
And the theme music 🎶!!
I came here sane, the longer I watch the more I'm questioning my sanity
In truth, you actually accepted the experience of 'insanity' by projecting Consciousness from infinite formlessness into an experience of limited form that it may perceive the illusion of imperfection and objectivity to the point where you place more belief in the reality of the illusion than you do in what the mind can no longer perceive.
Judd Otto
It's good to ask questions but don't let them take over your life. Most people have these questions. They have challenged minds over the ages. Our technology has developed exponentially over the last 100 years. But totally satisfactory answers for the age old questions could well be beyond us even if human civilisation lasts millions or billions of years in the future. Just bear in mind you are not alone in feeling insane.
My favorite question. " why should there Be anything at all?". And yet, there is all this, magnificence, beauty,awesomeness, glory, expansion and celebration. Or are we so dumb, not to recognize it.
So true
Hey Haim.... I agree. I wonder if the Cosmos itself asks the "question?"
lol. Not to mention all the ugliness, disease, excruciating suffering and death. Not to mention that our planet and our universe will one day be destroyed. Of course, our species will have gone extinct long before that happens. What's not to celebrate?
@@publiusovidius7386 most of your above mentioned ill effects are our own doing.
@@haimbenavraham1502 lol. Yes. The end of our universe and extinction of our species is due to our own doing. You don't know much about physics and cosmology, evidently. You're delusional.
Thank you for these shows.
Observation and the ability to observe pops up again and again. Observation requires conciousness... Wonderfully puzzling!!!
Best. Closer To Truth. Ever. 🌴😎💯
Thanks.!!
Been watching this since 2004 just awesome finally we had uploads, uploads that will last into the future
You make excellent documentary's, I love them so interesting and well made
23:25 Again, the end is always a good bookmark!
I believe that if it existed and we had a direct line to the all knowing ultimate consciousness, god or the universe itself "it" wouldn't be able to tell us why there's anything at all. "It" wouldn't know.
Some of these answers seem to not align yet there's truth in every single one of them. However it will always be up to speculation and we will never be able to find a definitive answer to the question.
Thank you for devoting your life to the ultimate question and as much as I believe we'll never get to the truth, thanks to you, John Leslie and the other brilliant minds you've invited in your show we're closer to it. I look forward to reading your book and indulging in this wild goose chase further.
It would know. The answer is that nothing negatives itself so something has to exist
Loop
Great series. Very much enjoyed.
What a great series of videos. Great conversations. Enlightening even.
This channel is the best ever!!
Period!
The greatest Question ever.
I think so.
I think consciousness is almost as big of a mystery.. but you’re right.. this is the big one.
@@BrockNelson well maybe it’s even greater, without it we would not even be able to ask no question, to think about the universe at all, it’s like the universe created something to understand itself and that for me is really crazy to think about it.
@@patrickgomes2261 One of the ways we can seek to understand consciousness is to explore ways in which we can turn it off (i.e. shooting someone in the head or giving them anesthetics). These examples point towards consciousness happening through mechanisms in the brain. On the other hand, if something did have the ability to be conscious without a brain (or any other physical matter), how would it communicate this information to us? It seems it would be impossible.
Spiritual, religious or materialistic… it matters not. In any case, no matter the root cause (if there even is one), we ARE the universe experiencing itself…. And that alone is incredibly profound.
@@BrockNelson very true my friend, this keeps me up at night wondering why. Why are we here? We are nothing or we are actually something in this universe? Before we were born we were nothing and maybe when we die we’ll become nothing again, so nothing it’s possible at least for something small like us. But does that applies to the reality itself? There are so many questions that we may never know the truth and it drives me crazy if I stop to think about it
I found the answer to Why Anything At All in the comment section of a RUclips video. What a time to be alive.
This was a great episode with the abstraction comment especially and the value comment
I'm starting to beleive Robert created the universe and forgot. He is slowly pondering and one day will remember.
Mfers will literally make a philosophy docuseries instead of going to therapy smh
But really, this is a great series and I love to see it
I see most philosophers claim that why there is anything at all assumes that there is a state of before the start of the existence of time is not valid because it refers to a time before time, therefore is not a valid thought. Well there is a problem here as I see it. We are beings bound by space and time and our language is also bound by these two realities of space and time. So what if the question while being valid is bound by the problem of space and time? What if we are asking the question of infinity in a language of space and time? That would mean we are asking a valid question in the wrong language. What I mean is that this question is not invalid!!
This channel tries to tackle such mighty conundrums that instead of being more clear on the explanation, Ironically, I get more confused than I begin with.
Perhaps it's because that's how it should be: we should limit ourselves to the things we can understand. Anything beyond we're just kidding ourselves. An infant shouldn't mess with economics.
6:06-6:10 love the interaction between the two here
It's almost impossible to tackle this question without involving any subjective bias!
could you elaborate a bit?
We often define "nothing" as an absence of something, it may work well for literature but not in this case. There are probably countless things to take in account for before deriving anything close to nothingness.
@@rubiks6 What about nothingness being that which negates its own existence, hence why there is something rather than nothing?
Interesting
@@rubiks6 I think it's very difficult to often recognize our own bias. However I prefer the words "perspective" or "worldview."
This is the big one, I agree. I don't think a day goes by that I don't think about it. And I am still shocked that there is something, rather than nothing.
Nothing doesn’t exist.. right?
So there’s the answer.
That which can be, is.
Nothing can’t be. By definition.
So that’s that.
Namaste 🖖
I love this segment, but no one should have to endure the amount of commercials interrupting it. I'd rather watch...nothing.
Just use an Ad Blocker.
Go premium. You get 2 months free and no ads. Once you try it you'll never go back!
Oh man, I was just sitting here thinking the same thing, it's torture by commercial, i've never watched a single commercial on youtube, do the people who make these instruments of torture actually believe that anyone watches them?
1.Stop watching you tube end the torture. 2. go and make your favourite hot drink. 3. go to internet and take time
to find an adblocker that is compatible with your 0S and your browser.4. I have windows 10 ( big mistake but there you go)
and use Ghostery i have no ads.
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can create the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist.
If nothing was the initial state of reality reality couldn't have come into existence so well it's better to conclude there was always something
Max Tegmark explanation at 5:15 mathematics is the most credible to me. But even perhaps "Information" could be even a more encompassing potential candidate for the absolute, without depency, self-existing, limitless.
Sometimes a question is difficult to answer and the answers you get don't satisfy you, because there is something wrong with the question.
For example, ancient people asked why does the Sun and the Moon rotate around the Earth? And they've made up all kinds of myths and explanations, all of which turned out to be wrong. And the reason why all of their answers were wrong was because their question contained a false assumption. This question assumed that the Sun rotated around the Earth, rather than the other way around. This was literally a false question, and that's why there was no right answer for it.
It might be the same thing with this question, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" This question assumes that it's possible for there to be nothing. Which might or might not be true. And if this assumption is false, then this means that there is no right answer for this question, no matter how much people think and no matter how many ingenious answers they come up with. Because they would be trying to explain something that's not true.
A question, that contains a false assumption, doesn't have a right answer.
Yup.
@@rubiks6 My point is that questions contain assumptions. And these assumptions need to be true. Or else, the question doesn't have a right answer. Because all of its possible answers are false.
So, before you even try to answer a question, you need to make sure that the assumptions in your question are true. And whether something is true or not often requires scientific investigation and experimentation.
Philosophizing about assumptions can get you only so far. This much you can see from history, where ancient Greeks have devised an elaborate scheme and even a working mechanical model that showed how the Sun rotated around the Earth. This model worked alright. But it didn't represent reality. It took Galileo looking through a telescope and gathering scientific evidence to disprove this theory and show how the orbits actually worked with the Earth rotating around the Sun.
www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/ancient-greek-astronomy-and-cosmology
I love this channel.
The questions I have been asking since ever are almost the same.
Human curiosity is so "limitless" that even the ultimate reality seems to be limited. However, I'm happy to be mocked an agnostic one.
Bruce Lee eh?
Let's define a mathematical quantity, the ratio of the number of nothing that may have existed to the number of something that may have existed. The only make sense value is either zero or infinity. The value of zero means there is no such thing as nothing, and the value of infinity means that the big bangs have occurred infinity times. Either way, any finite number of big bang models, including a single big bang model can not make sense.
Reading the'Tao te ching':
'...The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.'
What works for me: silence the thirst of questioning, and let yourself be drenched into this mystery. Only then your thirst will be quenched. You'll find that the question itself won't be there anymore, because you'll be staring at the answer right in front of you. Cheers.
I love your reply.
I would add, very simply, that “non existence.. doesn’t exist”lol 🤷♂️
Namaste 🖖
❤
I read this book over 45 years ago
Why is emptyness?
Dear closer to truth friends, I hope to help:
The question could be no so difficult indeed:
The existence is an absolute logical necessity because the nothingness is an absolute logical impossibilty. Nothingness is just a concept of the absence and, itself, can not exist, by definition. Nothingness has not ever existed, does not exist and can not ever exist. Same with the concept of infinite (never-end regression).
Thus, we can realize that the question "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" is a non-sense question and perfectly equivalent to "Why is there anything rather than unicorns?".
In fact, there is only one singular possibility: the existence of something. So there is not a causal explanation, a "why?", for the existence. And this must be because In the deepest level the existence there should be THE simplest way of existence. So far, it can not "not to be" and can not be other way. We should say it autoexist.
We can deduce that the only thing that technically "exists" is a singular and present entity that it is itself, or generates inside itself, all the space, time (relative speed between particles) and all the physical matter and energy (wich are properly events, not beings).
The physical laws are due to the properties of this singular, zero-energy, permanent, but dinamic and potential entity.
I think the question is posed because we know that everything is something but where everything came from is doxing. I think the better question is what is the original something?
"The existence is an absolute logical necessity because the nothingness is an absolute logical impossibilty." --- Based on? Are you to decide what is logical or illogical?
This. is. circular.
that's scapegoating the question. then why this appearance? why is nothing an impossibility? how can something come form nothing if nothing is an impossibility?
there is a need to answer it because it had a supposed beginning.
you can't have an accident if you have nothing to work with. you need some tools to begin with.
Math is only the shadow; life is the light.
I ask myself this everyday
S Gloobal it surely won’t lead you to nothingness. It will lead you to a first cause, unmoved mover, uncreated creator, timeless and spaceless inmaterial being.
Here's your answer. Nothingness is the negation that which negates itself out of existence.
@@Ndo01 No that doesn't make sense because 0 - 0 = 0!!
@@MonDieuMaCauseMonEpee Exactly. It negates its own existence.
@@Darksaga28 titituiiitiiguigigiguiigiiuuigigttsgdf in r
The most basic state is not "nothing" but "everything", the white noise of totality. Absolute nothing is absolutely unstable since it would require an infinite number of reasons why there is nothing rather than something. So in a very real sense, nothing causes existence.
Why does Nothing needs infinitely many reasons?
Nothingness wouldn't even have the property to be unstable.
@@Ndo01 But also not the property of being stable. There would be no reason for stuff not to appear spontaneously, so "eventually" totality of existence would appear spontaneously out of nothing
@@Neomadra because Absolute Nothing has no law, logic or property whatsoever. Hence why would spontaneous creation ex nihilo not happen?
@@maxcoletti It would be neither stable or unstable. It doesn't have properties. Things don't have to have spontaneously appear from nothing, that would give nothing a function. Things could have just always existed.
I think another question is, “Can there only be a logical explanation?” Logic starts with axioms and guides us forward from an accepted point of departure. Robert should be digging into why we accept axioms without further explanation. The acceptance of axioms is like the acceptance of the existence of underlying math and laws of nature as pre-existent and unchanging. And logic should not be confused with intuition as there are plenty of counterintuitive laws that we accept as logical. Can illogical concepts exist?
Well done discussion of the ultimate questions. But why did it have to be this well done? Yet another mystery, sprouted from the other.
I have been bothered by this question for past 26 years and only answer I could think of after a lot of reading is that human mind is not yet evolved enough to answer this question. If we go by science, even our consciousness is some form of materialistic interactions, and we don't even know what our consciousness is yet. If our consciousness is matter, how can something that exists can visualise nothing, or rather, something appearing from nothing? Our consciousness has not got that ability yet. Humanity will have to wait till it finds the answer.
Ok, I've been binge watching these videos and I'd like to make a very small observation. I had recently been reading a sci-fi story, and not high sci-fi either, some pretty, well let's say grimdark kind of stuff. And I was reading a story where in the far future, humanity fights its wars with weapons so powerful they have the ability to literally delete space-time. So one of our characters comes to the edge of a continent that has been deleted. Just absolutely removed and all that remains is a chasm of nothingness. After having thought about it for some time, I think I've realized that it's impossible for me and perhaps for others to actually perceive the concept of nothingness. It's like seeing other dimensions in string theory. So far distant from our realms of perception, even the act of trying explain causes the whole thing to fall apart. And what that means to me at least, I don't know.
Ok then
It's just a word that has always represented a missing thing, area, or concept. It's only meaning in in the world of things.
In a way, "nothing" is fully intact because everything that never existed still doesn't.
I think Max Tegmark’s idea is the best here.
Watched about a dozen of your videos. Not sure about you yet, but your production quality is great on this platform. Getting a flavor of your thirst. I am highly confident you will dive into Clee from QGR, Quantum Gravity Research group on the beach south of LA. I've been following them for years. Think spiritual physics with receipts (I before e except after c), they are on YT.
Have a GROOVY Day, tommyj
I'm going to by ALL of your books
Acceptance and enjoy the journey.
The one big question that comes to mind watching this series is - Who does their landscaping? I want my lawn & schrubs to look like that. As far as Why Something RATHER than Nothing? It pre-supposes they are both opposites and mutually exclusive. Maybe we have Somethng and Nothing. Just like zero times anyting equals zero, Nothing plus anything equals something.
the most profound question, for sure!!
The answer is "stranger than we can think".
The host visited the brightest minds on earth. They all showed bravery in attempting to answer the question. They didn't shun or shy away.
After pondering this question for a while I came to the conclusion that there is something instead of nothing because nothing is not a possible state of affairs. Having said that the next difficult question that follows is "why there is THIS specific something instead something else?" To that either chance "selected" one specific state of affairs or all possible states of affairs exist in some way and were are just aware of the state of affairs we live in.
I ask myself, are there more ads on this channel than regular TV? To answer this question, I turn to the leading experts on YT channel monetizing... Were there more ads before? Will there be more ads later? Where did the ads come from? Do the ads go anywhere? To ask these questions drives me nuts!
Haha I love this
After the 4 th add I was convinced adds exist
In order to understand nothing we have to become nothing and only through emptiness, the Answer, do we understand that there's no need of questions. The Answer is within!
Yeah I went really hard trying to answer this and all you normally get is fluctuations in nothing, this is why I wondered where you got to with categories of nothing and that was good. It’s showed how the levels can build on one another like infinity’s, like tools from wood to steel to titanium
It's fluctuations within the perception of nothing, not nothing itself
My answer is that nothingness does not deny potential, so the universe began as a realization of a randomly selected potential state. It's also why quantum particles can exist in coherent waves; these are possibility states. The big bang singularity had all the mass of the universe in coherent quantum form, which is as close to nothingness as possible. The bang is essentially the collapse of that initial wave (decoherence).
Mick Ronson But that's the best kind of rambling 🤣
Robert, here is what me let sleep at night.
Nothingness maybe precondition to everything:
If you ask, why is the state of the universe as it is right now, you will find a whole possibility space of earlier universes from which it could have been arisen. (Maybe only one, if it’s deterministic)
However, this is still a STRONG and complex precondition of the current state.
This is the same to say: The more facts or “Robert layers” you subtract from any reality, the richer is the possibility space of succeeding states.
If you start with true nothingness, you are not determined by anything.
So: Nothingness is a necessary precondition to a causal EVERYTHING. And we are part of it.
Let me add: thanks a lot for all the beautiful episodes.
True nothingness wouldn't be able to give rise to anything though. The possibility space is reduced as we remove things from reality but at the point of nothingness, the possibility space itself is removed
Nando N, I agree, if you start with a possibility space, you already have something - and you are determined to continue with a possibility space. Nothingness does not even constrains you to have a possibility space.
... you can imagine the existing set of all mathematical proofs that are false. Some kind of an impossibility space.
Maybe the even bigger question is why we live in such a universe where answers to such questions are impossible.
I am watching this channel after my father's death trying to understand what is the meaning of this life and everything around us.
your father had a father, and so did his... god is our ultimate father (literally) -- existing even before the germ cells in the primordial sea!
You don't actually have a 'father.' You don't even have the 'self' that you identify with. The 'you' you believe yourself to be is an imaginary self much like the 'lesser' you whom you imagine you are during the dream state. We Are All One Consciousness PRETENDING we are many 'individuated' variances of a Whole, the purpose of which is to experience FOR God what God Itself cannot, which is to be 'less' than whole; to be "not God."
@@pandemicplayers3695 let the man grieve
Yes. That is I think coming close
to the Truth. Also , despite critical comment ( below ) there is
some comfort in your answer.
Its sort of a redundant question in view of the fact that "there is" but thinking about it makes a great way to meditate or fall asleep at night
I still say it. There will never be an answer to this question.
Appealing to a deity is another way of saying "I don't know" without admitting that you don't know.
I just can’t imagine or visualise nothing before everything. Seems to me there has to have always been something even if it was different than everything we know.
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).
that is a beautiful thought. #respect
we don't have enough knowledge to answer that question
I think that the traditional question of "why is there something rather than nothing" may be an erroneous formulation. Maybe the correct question is, why does THIS specific (universe)/(field of reality)/(realm of existence), take your pick, exist rather than another.
Perhaps, if we were capable of seeing far enough into the question (I'm not saying we ever will be able to see far enough), we would see that it would be a logical self-contradiction for nothing to exist. Consider the hypothetical proposition: Nothing exists. Within what reality would that be a true proposition? What's the frame of reference (in the Physics sense) within which the proposition is true? "Everywhere?" But what's the "where" from which every "something" is being excluded?
We agree that unicorns don't exist, by which we don't mean that the idea of a unicorn is a contradiction in terms, we just mean that since unicorns have appeared in human fiction stories, but nowhere else on Earth, we're certain they were made up and don't exist anywhere. In other words, reality has such a nature that it doesn't include unicorns.
I'm not religious in any way but the more we dig into the nature of the universe the more perfectly designed it seems. Either there's an infinite multiverse where the constants of nature vary and we just happen to live in a habitable universe much like we happen to live on a habitable planet. Or something has set the universe up in this way but then of course who made their universe. Either possibility involves infinites which are hard to wrap out human minds around. I wonder if we'll ever be able to answer this question.
I like Tegmark’s idea about mathematics, that mathematical abstractions exist even if nothing else does.
So, if what we think of as God is actually a set of mathematical relationships, voila! We have explained how an uncreated being has always existed.
and mathematics explain him
I'd say the closest we can come to truth is the concept of non-duality. That ultimately, everything is simply undivided in nature - and therefore happens naturally, spontaneously and inevitably. This can't be fully understood or explained within the (natural) limitations of human thought [which tends to make it unsatisfying and meaningless to most people] but it's possible we can have an occasional glimpse of it in our own personal experience. Some people have more of these glimpses than others.
What if there isn't anything at all? What if what we perceive as anything is nothing? And, that we are nothing?
But we believe that we are. So, there is something that we perceive as anything.
What if there is nothing and there is something?
There is never one view / one correct answer / one perfect perspective. The fact that there is perfection in this imperfection is 'magical'. Our and our world's very existence is 'magical'.
For that question to even make sense, one would first need to prove nothing is even a possibility. Nothing, like infinity is a concept not an actual thing you can have.
"There's only one way for the universe to be nothing..."... had to tear my phone out of my pocket to look at the face of the person who said that.
If there is something, it goes to conclude that there can't be nothing.
we exist simultaneously with nothing.
there is a 0th dimension; a 1st dimension; a 2nd dimension... etc. because of this fact:
0=1 (space);
1=2 (space & time / allows for the point);
2=3 (space & time & length / allows for the line);
3=4 (space & time & length & depth / allows for the cube);
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=1%3D0
Because "THE CREATOR" spoke it into existence. It's the ONLY simple and logical answer there can be.
We are here, so we exist; it seems logical and irrefutable to admit it. But when we ask WHY WE EXIST, SOMETHING seems to prevent the answer. This SOMETHING is the great mystery and, for me, it will NEVER be answered because this SOMETHING will always prevent it.
@S Gloobal kkkk
After viewing this episode and reading these comments I've come to the conclusion that even the Universe doesn't know how the Universe was created.
Im starting to think that we should not think about a start date of the universe in years. We created the concept time, which describes for us a a start and end of a period. But maybe time does not work as we think it does. There for it does not exist. and infinity in our terms of concept is actually a very plausible thing. But something we can not comprehend at this moment.
It's mathematics. Reality is dual from a conciousness standpoint as existence itself is. For nothingness to exsist, it's defining counterpart, everything or infinity must also exist.
I say great answer. I'd like to add. Loop
Another thing I was thinking about is that they say that time itself started existing when the universe came into being. So does that mean that time only exists in what they call the universe, and still doesn't exist outside of it ? If the answer is yes, then that has to mean that time is a property exclusively belonging to this universe since it was created by this universe. This also implies that time cannot escape this universe. How could the universe create itself and after that create time in order for it to exist ? That doesn't make any sense. That sure sounds like a dead end paradox
To answer the creeky guy, the logical master, we are simulating
We were thinking in the wrong direction. Instead of some thing from nothing; start with the something we have and get to nothing. Universal heat death? It’s certainly a possibility moving in this direction, so why not in reverse, theoretically? Tomorrow’s nothing becomes the day after’s something.
Also, Robert M. Pirsig is one of the earlier “value” theorists. Except he called it quality.
To Tegmark - How do you get subjective experience or conscious first-person experience out of mathematics or computation?
He seems to be too afraid to state that anything bound to space-time must be a work of art hence requiring an Artist for an explanation. He gets around that by bringing up the mathematical laws with no space-time hence existing by themselves. Then associates the things we experience with those laws and by a sly movement of an argument, equates them! All his endeavor seems for not acknowledging that they are carefully crafted to be exhibited to conscious eyes.
@@celalalagoz9026 Exactly. i never heard him explain how to get subjects from objects. In fact, i've never even seen a testable hypothesis for how that's even possible, anywhere... It's not even in any of the science texts books (physics, biology, computation, mathematics...). Seems to me his equation is all muddled up.
@@Corteum The textbooks all over the world takes causation for granted. There seems to be a global agreement on labeling the events as "just happen" by using rhetoric like "naturally happening, emerging this way, force acting, energy doing, laws making, .. etc". Hence, the question of "How come things happen in an orderly and meaningful way right now?" is aborted, and big time ignored. Mainstream fashion is that they just happen and no need to question that. Minds are stalled with the theories like big bang to avoid the question of existence of events here and now. We are lingering with the theories that we never observe, closing our eyes to lively messages sent through constantly renewed universes/events. If that is not strange, what is I wonder...
If you want to sound "scientific" you have to repeat the chant of "just happens so" in a considerable amount with various emphasis. You have to accept the rule that observing events in a certain sequence is the explanation of existence of events. You have to be contend with this Pavlovian conditioning. Otherwise, you are dogmatic. If you don't buy this kind of explanation, there is no more explanation for you. This must be the only kind of "explanation".
A placeholder is nothing but the validation of space as a necessary condition of existence. So what is that which isn’t anything but the impetus to ask? I am not convinced that we are dealing with a dead end question; being no-thing means that which has no epistemology, only absence of consciousness. We are driven creatures. The magisterial conundrum is the essence of moot-juice, and being a true light unto ‘Who’. 🌊 What was the question? Who narrates the matter. What is important.
The only solution to this is that the fundamental nature of reality must be that of perpetual existence without a beginning or end. 'Nothingness' is ontologically impossible. I would love to have a glimpse into the higher-level structure of what this looks like - it must be amazing.
But it would still be logically possible. So why is it such that it is metaphysically impossible for there to be nothing? At the bottom, it seems something has to be a brute fact that is without reason.
@esomeone25 I wonder if it might be logically impossible too. For example, what if there is a fundamental flaw in our understanding of 'something' and 'nothing' as two separate concepts and they are really just emergent properties of a deeper reality or at least intrinsically connected (like space and time) such that one cannot exist without the other, or that they both merge into 'somethingness'.
@@jonathanspruance4502 Unless it can be clearly demonstrated to be internally incoherent, I can't see it being more likely to be logically impossible than logically possible.
When I ask myself this and contemplate it, I get a sudden jolt of awareness. Kind of like a conscious-gasm.
Please, the piece of music from the intro. Name pls! Thx
the best youtube channel
If there was nothing, we wouldn’t be asking the question. The question exists because there is something. What was the question again?
Nothing is like infinity. Both cannot be fully comprehended by the human mind.
"Why?" is the question the child asks his parents because he/she is still a child. The lesser one who asks the question is less than the one who gives the answer, becoming more.
With all due respect Robert, you have WAY too many ads playing during your videos (like every four or five minutes?). At least today, as I watch this one they are peppered liberally throughout your video. I don't experience this with other RUclipsr's channels, so I wonder if it's something that you have control over. It's a shame the way it is, because the high-frequency of ads playing makes it almost impossible to follow the flow of your presentation. I'm sticking with it because the subject is so interesting, but it's a struggle to get through. Is there any way you can ease up on the frequency of ads playing? Much appreciation for your time on this!
And the strange thing is... most of the ads seem to be about nothing.
$
The ads are Google's work. I'm surprised you are not aware of that.
I used to have this thought a lot when I was younger. I still do but it gets exhausting. I remember talking about it to my friends at school. I would say what would be there if there was nothing! Empty space? Okay, why even have empty space, why anything at all? And after a point, I would feel like my mind wasn't able to comprehend my own thoughts. I used to think that I was not able to convey my thoughts or most of them just didn't get it or thought to themselves of me as crazy. Haha I don't know.
I read somewhere that mind is not capable of imagining "nothing", maybe that's . . . Okay bye.
I had that thought at 18 out of nowhere after Journaling about my day. Out of the blue I thought what if this universe didn't exist, what would exist? It left my mind blank so I just forgot about it til 11 yrs later (which is now).
Even if there was nothing space would still be there, so that's something. Space must go on forever, if it stopped somewhere then there must be something beyond what's stopping it. If something has created everything, what has created the something? My head hurt!
Even empty space is not nothing. The vaccum itself is roiling with particles popping in and out of "existence."
To try too make sense of what dose not make sense is not nonsense. Why is there anything at all; maybe is the result of nothing existing that then began the chaos of everything to come to existing like for us humans to seek this existing to experience it all. What if GOD knew if he created the material that there would be suffering from that existence do to cycle of form changing from form to creat a new form from that was once non-existing to existing??? Well this is why I watch Closer to Truth. Great channel of great minds
There cannot be nothing at all. There cannot be anything at all. Ying Yang baby, and the big wheel keeps on turning.
That last part at the end of the video is what I think... To me, it at least answers HOW something exists, but perhaps not why. something exists rather than nothing - because something has always existed... have no idea what that could be - but that is the only thing that seems to explain how something could be...