This is off-topic here, so you'll find my reply there: viewtopic.php?p=392732#p392732sammygolddigger wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2021, 6:52 amIf subjective idealism were true, then why would subjects exist? Where would they come from?Consul wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 5:37 pmEven if nothing existed but mental subjects and mental items (ideas, impressions, images), they wouldn't be mere objects of thought in the sense of being nothing but figments of fantasy. On the contrary, if subjective idealism were true, they would constitute reality—a wholly mental reality, but a reality nonetheless. If something is a mere object of thought, it is nothing in itself; so there are only the thoughts about/of it (and the words, concepts, images, or pictures representing it). Existing mental subjects and mental items, including thoughts, are something in themselves, so there is more to them than my/our thoughts about/of them.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
- UniversalAlien
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
All it is is a simple answer to a simple question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" - nothing more.PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2021, 2:24 pmThat something, then, is ever all here, as a default entity.UniversalAlien wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 7:20 pm As nothing does not exist by default something must exist.
Is the default a capability/possibility or is it something actual, like energy?
And I only give it as an alternative to the many more complex answers this question generates
- It is not supposed to be the be all or end all to the question.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Everything that is/exists is actual. There are no merely possible entities. Capabilities/abilities/potentialities/dispositionalities are all actual properties; only their manifestations are unactual as long as they are unmanifested, but an unmanifested capability is as actual as a manifested one.PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2021, 2:24 pmThat something, then, is ever all here, as a default entity.UniversalAlien wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 7:20 pm As nothing does not exist by default something must exist.
Is the default a capability/possibility or is it something actual, like energy?
- Halc
- Posts: 405
- Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Something I would have said. The OP seems to ask a biased question rather than first questioning the bias.AverageBozo wrote: ↑August 16th, 2021, 10:28 am The question assumes that there is something and, by LEM, there cannot be nothing if there is something.
I find no empirical difference to being or not being a member of the 'set of things that exist'. I find no meaning to membership in such a set, but I suppose it all boils down to one's definition of 'exists'. I find a relational definition to be more reasonable: The cup exists to us because both you and I share a mutual agreement about or experience of it. Not that I define existence in any kind of conscious terms. Just a shared relationship.
If the list of things that exist was empty, then it would distinguish nothing from anything else, and be no different that everything being on the list. That renders existence (as a property) meaningless, which is how I find it.The truth is that there could be nothing rather than something.
Then here exists to us (a relation), but it doesn't imply meaning to the existence of 'us' or 'here' (properties).That there is something rather than nothing is verified by the fact that we are (or at least I am) here to discuss this.
If there is a property of existence (meaning to a thing being real or not), one must answer the obvious question of how the thing happens to be on the list to the exclusion of things that are not. For example:
Right. God creating reality doesn't explain the reality of god. It just pushes the problem to a less accessible level. If a god can always have been (a self-contradictory assertion given the typical definition of god), then so can reality without the god.So, why is there something at all? Some would say that its because God created things. Then what created God?
If such a universe is, then it is something, even if it is empty of the sort of stuff that we find populating our universe.In the multiverse there may be a universe where there is nothing
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
BTWHalc wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2021, 11:11 amSomething I would have said. The OP seems to ask a biased question rather than first questioning the bias.AverageBozo wrote: ↑August 16th, 2021, 10:28 am The question assumes that there is something and, by LEM, there cannot be nothing if there is something.
I find no empirical difference to being or not being a member of the 'set of things that exist'. I find no meaning to membership in such a set, but I suppose it all boils down to one's definition of 'exists'. I find a relational definition to be more reasonable: The cup exists to us because both you and I share a mutual agreement about or experience of it. Not that I define existence in any kind of conscious terms. Just a shared relationship.
If the list of things that exist was empty, then it would distinguish nothing from anything else, and be no different that everything being on the list. That renders existence (as a property) meaningless, which is how I find it.The truth is that there could be nothing rather than something.
Then here exists to us (a relation), but it doesn't imply meaning to the existence of 'us' or 'here' (properties).That there is something rather than nothing is verified by the fact that we are (or at least I am) here to discuss this.
If there is a property of existence (meaning to a thing being real or not), one must answer the obvious question of how the thing happens to be on the list to the exclusion of things that are not. For example:
Right. God creating reality doesn't explain the reality of god. It just pushes the problem to a less accessible level. If a god can always have been (a self-contradictory assertion given the typical definition of god), then so can reality without the god.So, why is there something at all? Some would say that its because God created things. Then what created God?
If such a universe is, then it is something, even if it is empty of the sort of stuff that we find populating our universe.In the multiverse there may be a universe where there is nothing
I have since abandoned the position above (that a universe could exist that consists of nothing) because there cannot be only nothing under any circumstances.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Consul!Consul wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 10:19 pm "The proof that something is has no other meaning than that it is not just something thought."
—Ludwig Feuerbach (Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, §25, 1843)
The "is" in this statement is synonymous with "exists", so to say that something exists is to say that there is more to it than its being an object of thought. What doesn't exist is nothing but an object of thought, and what exists isn't nothing but an object of thought.
With respect to things that exist, can you reconcile which view is the correct one (thought itself, or independent existence--'objective existence' or otherwise) ?
A few things to consider (among many) in a possible response to that question:
1. Subjective Idealism: This form of idealism is "subjective" not because it denies that there is an objective reality, but because it asserts that this reality is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it.
2. Transcendental Idealism: ...which views the mind-independent world as existent but incognizable in itself.
The simpler answer, may be that there is both a subjective and objective existence (truth) to the nature of our Being (how humans perceive/cognize things in the world of objects, and means/method of cognition itself) from our understanding of reality. Meaning, we 'need' both, in order to completely cognize a some-thing that is being perceived (mind and matter) to make sense of it in every way. But in theory, this thing (this existent thing-in-itself), because we are unable to produce ex nihilo (hence understand it completely), remains a rather ubiquitous or to some, a rather infamous Kantian 'incognizable' thing-in-itself.
As a real-world (pun intended) implication(s), I go back to the structural engineer who's designing a tall building using abstract math to produce its structure. We can say that we completely understand the building's existence both by observing/perceiving its physical appearance, as well as by understanding its abstract mathematical formula. But unfortunately, we can't do the same with the Cosmos and all of the existing world of matter. But if somehow we could, this question (the foregoing) would be rendered obsolete and unnecessary, because we would obviously understand and know everything that is conceivable (logically possible) about the nature of that existence/existing thing. In other words, there would be no reason to ask such a redundant/superfluous question of that sort in the first place.
I think when one considers the age-old philosophical question of something v. nothing, you can't help but suppose its reality. What that reality consists of, makes it all the more intriguing... . And so, this adds fuel to the fire when one is asking about what is 'actually' something, and what is 'actuality' nothing. Or in this sense, the 'reality' of that existence/existing thing. Again, philosophically, if one wants to simply posit: there exists at least one true proposition, that's fine. But logically necessary truths get you only that which you put into it; it doesn't uncover the nature of its existence. And it that case, the logic/development/antiquity of language itself.
So I agree with your notion that there is more to 'something' than just the thought of it and/or the speaking of it...just wanted to draw some more distinctions there.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why Something?sammygolddigger wrote: ↑August 15th, 2021, 4:31 pm why is there something rather than nothing? I would like to hear your opions on this question.
Quantum states melt via uncertainty,
And this means that no quantum property
Can e’er be zero—a precise amount,
And so it is that motion can ne’er cease.
The Something
The quantum field is the bridge between ‘Nil’
And basic matter, and can ne’er be still;
Thus the ‘vacuum’ is the quietest field—
The closest approach to ‘Nothing’ that can be.
No ‘Null’ nor Matter Full
‘Nothing’ had no chance to be the hero,
Plus QM scrubs the idea of zero
Out of the physical world of being;
‘Zilch’ ne’er sleeps, but is e’er up to something.
A Mere Blip
But for the small quantum uncertainty,
The Cosmos sums to naught, its lunch being free:
No net electric charge; a weightless brick;
Minus-potential = plus-kinetic.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
An unusual track was found in a cloud chamber
That Carl Anderson was using
To watch the trajectories of cosmic rays
Streaming in from space.
The track was like that of an electron—
Except that it curved backwards
Under the influence of a magnetic field.
It was the positron, now used in the PET.
A particle and its antiparticle annihilate,
Giving back in the process the energy it took
To create them in the first place.
Do they live on borrowed time and energy,
A creation near ‘ex nihilo’ all over the universe?
Can they sneak out of the vacuum
So long as they snuck back in again
Before anyone has noticed?
“What is the point?”
Thought Richard Fenyman:
“Created and annihilated,
Annihilated and created—
What a waste of time.”
They come and go like dreams,
The lighter ones, like electrons,
Popping out more often.
They are the ghosts of the yet unborn.
The road from ‘nothing’ to something
Goes in both directions;
With enough energy they can become real.
The once melted vacuum fell and froze,
Gaining structure,
Such as when water becomes ice.
The so-called ‘vacuum’ is creative.
The field fluctuates this way and that;
On average the net energy is near ‘zero’.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
‘Nil’ can’t be, else there would be a lack of anything, which there isn’t. ‘It’ has no properties and so ‘it’ cannot even be meant; yet, as a non-existent absolute, ‘it’ serves as a boundary that can never be breached. One can never claim ‘it’, not even as little spacers between entities, nor as a lawless ‘realm’ in which anything goes, such as spontaneous happenings, for that capability would be something, not ‘Null’.
Thus, the basic something has to be so, as a must, without option, and always, as in ever, with no parts, which would have be more fundamental than it, and with no beginning, as unmakeable, since partless and not able to come from ‘Nothing’, and with no end, it being unbreakable, since partless. It might be called One or All, but this doesn’t mean Full.
The basic something can’t be still, as in not moving, or full, as 100% chock full, as completely dense, as in being so solid that there can’t be any movement. Full, or ONE, is yet another non-existent absolute only finding use as a boundary that cannot be breached. If there were stillness or fullness, then not anything would have happened.
There is a lightness of being, then, for the universe is a near zero-sum balance of opposites; so now we have to look in the direction of the slight, the little, and very much close to ‘Nothing’.
There is the quantum fluctuation and the zero-point energy that isn’t zero.
Movement, and thus change, is continual, and this begets all that goes on.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
'Nothing' is dead; long live the near nothing!
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Does anyone wonder why such smallness
Is at the bottom of all that later gets writ larger?
Is it that there is some great power
Of flexibility in the really tiny elementals
That larger fundamentals could never possess?
Now, wait, isn’t size relative,
Such as many things are,
An atom possibly being an universe
Or or our universe really an atom,
As is repeatedly “discovered”
In late night dorm room discussions?
No, for the scale of size is absolute,
For the Planck size is near the limit
Of anything going inwardly small,
Of how tiny something can be;
Thus, tiny is indeed small,
Even minuscule, absolutely.
And, although, theoretically,
There is no limit to
How large a structure can be,
It may well before that collapse into itself.
Somehow,
The elementals being very tiny
Seems to be a key
To all that comes forth,
As we could see
That bigger, cloddier elemental things
Might have too much gravity, stability,
Or something else that would limit them
To do little more than accumulate [or not]
And make a black hole or whatever
Doesn’t really go anywhere
Into complex composites
Of recombination.
Now, before we run away with this thought,
It should also be, perhaps,
That it, it must be, as well,
That the emitting puffs of energy are small,
Thus, the sizes of the elemental particles are
Reflected in that which may have been a limit
Of what the vacuum energy could do.
- Psych-Philosopher
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 26th, 2021, 8:09 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
However, there is more to the question than that. Reality is based in chaos because at a fundamental level nothing can have a solid answer. There is something because the infinite chaos that is fundamental to reality creates finite substance. Within a chaotic reality order can exist without contradiction, it makes sense for things to make sense in places where nothing is supposed to make sense. Because true nothing is impossible, the next best nothing would be the void that is our infinite reality. Matter is finite in an infinite space which doesn't make sense when you ask how that is possible.
The answer is that something is an inevitable product to the chaos of an infinite space of nothing. Substance is a result of chaos.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
That's an interesting, if apparently contradictory, statement. Would you care to elaborate on how order can exist within chaos, without contradiction?Psych-Philosopher wrote: ↑September 26th, 2021, 8:41 pm Within a chaotic reality order can exist without contradiction...
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
A void idea is of what is not there and so it must be avoided so as not to step into nowhere. The void that is not there is a true vacuum, emptiness, nothingness, nullity, blankness and a vacuity. It is, compared to what is there, a gap, cavity, chasm, abyss, gulf, pit, and a black hole. One must invalidate, annul, nullify, negate, quash, cancel, countermand, repeal, revoke, rescind, retract, withdraw, reverse, undo, and abolish the void idea, abrogating its existence, for it is not to be. One cannot really make so much ado about nothing.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023