Why something instead of nothing?

[PrivateVoid]

Why do things exist as opposed to there being nothing?

I don't mean "what is the meaning of life"? What I mean is: What is existence itself, what is matter, why is there matter?

God is not an acceptable answer. Might as well say "I don't know."

I know no one can answer but what do you think?

The universe supposedly came into existence from vacuum energy. But where did that vacuum energy come from?

Again, I'm not asking for what "purpose" are we or everything here (since there isn't any).

Just that: out of the two possibilities of either nothing (and I mean nothing) or something there ended up being something.

Or is existence and non-existence the same thing?

Or are there more than two possibilities?

Since there is something, it had to have existed always but what IS it? Thinking about it I see an infinite regress that I don't see a way out of.

[Santini]

The billion dollar question . . .

Wish I had an answer for you. Heck, wish I had an answer for me . . . but I don't.

Why all this???

The "gods did it" thing is too simplistic and, actually, doesn't answer the question anyway. I mean, then the question only becomes "Why do gods exist?" doesn't it?

Why does anything exist (including god(s) if it (they) does (do))?

Maybe it's because it's impossible for nothing to exist?

This is the one question that truly blows my mind.

[Belinda]

[lifegazer]

[Santini]

[lifegazer]

[ape]

Hi PV! Welcome!


The answer has to do with ontology: words and their opposites are also composites, which proves that reality is also composed of something/everything and nothing.


Example: Giving can not exist without taking since to give is to take from oneself and to take is to give to oneself.


This interdefinability applies to all words and their opposites.

[PrivateVoid]

Thanks everyone for all the enlightening and enjoyable responses.

Santini: “because it’s impossible for nothing to exist?”
Yes, I’ve considered the same thing but it’s just not satisfying.

Lifegazer: I used the word “matter” as a placeholder to represent “that which exists”. Whether that matter is our normal everyday matter or some other thing that we don’t understand doesn’t “matter”. Am I not asking why “X” exists? Only thing is by “X” I am referring to existence itself. If you have a box of toys, you can ask “why does the box have a toy car in it”. What I am asking is “why is there a box of toys and why is there a place in which the box of toys exists instead of there not being a place?”

I agree that in a way the question may be nonsensical and meaningless but I disagree that it is “futile in asking why it exists”. It’s nonsensical and meaningless because we are currently incapable of answering it. Either we will be able to answer it someday or we will learn something new along the way.

I don’t accept “God” as an answer because the word carries too much meaning behind it. It implies a conscious, intentional, meaningful being that just delays the infinite regress one more step and doesn’t answer the question.

Ape: The duality idea is convenient but I want to be careful using it as an “answer”. It might be a limitation of our brains that we only see two possibilities. Also, we say “matter exists because there is anti matter” or “everything must have an opposite”. But I am asking why do the two (matter/anti-matter) exist? Now here, by “matter” I don’t mean our everyday matter but “existence”. You say “no answer is an answer” but why IS there an “answer”?

I don’t understand your question about seeing a flower when seeing a river.

[Santini]

This may just be one of those deep mysteries about which our brains are incapable of discovering the answer . . . assuming there is an answer out there awaiting discovery.

Maybe in time (geologic time, that is) and with future evolution, we'll discover the answer. Or perhaps we never will. Who knows?

FWIW, I'm with you on the "god answer." Too facile, too obviously incorrect. But I do wish that it were the answer if somehow I could know it to be the answer, if you follow what I'm saying.

[Simon says...]

I don't know, but I think it must have something to do with the rule of process of elimination. I would guess that the universe, "must" exist because it can't not, as in to not exist would result in a logical contradiction, thus, nothingness cancels itself out of existence leaving only somethingness. If its not the case that it "must" exist, then perhaps its also not the case that it "must not", (which we know to be so cos it exists), and so if that's the case it exists due to plain old simple random chance, but I don't think that's true because its too obvious (nor do I believe in random chance). Why would nothingness be contradictory? Well, I'm not sure, but perhaps this may be it:

Possibility, is something, ergo nothingness negates it, in the absense of possibility, then nothing is possible. If nothing is possible, how can it BE possible, that nothing exists? Nothing means "a lack of something", so if there is a lack of possibility, how is that possible?

So if we eliminate nothingness, that leaves only one option, somethingness. This idea is supported by the notion of TIME, which appears to be an internal property of the universe (there is much debate but that's the general consensus). As such, it is a mistake to view the big bang as being, once there was nothing and then there was something, that is not the case. There was no time before the big bang, time is not linear, its more like an exanding circle whereby the further in time you go the greater the radius of that circle, and the further back in time you go, the smaller it becomes. You cannot be smaller than zero (assuming of course that there is no such thing as "anti-time" which would be where the radius is in negative figures), ergo that singularity of spacetime and energy, would be the "uber domino", which starts the whole thing going. There has never been a time in which nothing exists, because time is itself something.

Actually if you view it in terms of dominos, it would be that there are many lines origionating from a center point in which there are four dominos that are only held up by the fact that they are so close togethar BUT one of those dominos is missing (gravity is weaker than the other three fundamental forces and thus cannot support the origional super symmetry structure (superstring theory)) and so the whole system unravels.

[ape]

[PrivateVoid]

Simon says...:
How can "nothingness cancel itself out of existence"? There would be nothing to cancel out.

[JPhillips]

Santini said:

[Santini]

[James S Saint]