Everything

[jan]

Why is there something and not just nothing? This sounds like a strictly metaphysical question, and I don't know if we will ever be able to answer this question. It might be nevertheless interesting to try to find different possible answers. At least one benefit would be that we would be able to show that there are different possible answers, so an argument from ignorance ("my favorite religious answer is the only possible one, so it must be correct") becomes harder to maintain. This is what I have found:

• Don't Ask
  The question is meaningless. It asks for a cause of everything there is which is not part of everything there is. It also assumes that the totality of everything there is needs a cause. We may or may not observe that causation is a useful concept when talking about certain objects that are specific parts of the totality of everything, but that doesn't allow us to assume that this concept is also applicable to the totality of everything. Since the question is inherently meaningless, there is no meaningful answer to it.
  
• God Did It
  Our part of the universe (the "Flesh"), is not in itself necessary and therefor needs an explanation. But there is another part of the universe ("Eternity") that, due to its perfection, necessarily exists and explains the existence of our part of the universe.
  
• Physical Laws Evolved
  The rule "something can't come from nothing" is something we observe in our world, but it is not a necessary rule in all possible worlds. If we try to imagine absolute, perfect nothingness, we have to imagine a nothingness that doesn't contain the physical laws as we know them, which means, the perfect nothingness doesn't contain a rule that precludes something to come from nothing. New rules and things formed from the initial nothingness, until the universe was saturated with rules which prevented the advent of new rules and things (this is not necessarily a chronological process, since time came into existence along this process).
  
• Everything Possible Exists
  We are used to distinguish between actual and merely possible things. But this distinction is moot and unjustified. In fact, to assume that such a distinction exists violates Occam's rule. For each thing that is logically possible exists at least one world where this thing actually exists. This view is actually an extreme version of mathematical Platonism: all mathematical structures actually exist, and they are the only things that exists. Our world is a possible mathematical structure (and that explains why science is able to describe it in mathematical terms), and therefor it exists.

Something like (0) was proposed by the Logical Positivists, but I guess it can be traced back further in time. (1) is the traditional religious explanation, and obviously very old. Some version of (2) was proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce; I don't know of any earlier source, but wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is one — with some stretch of imagination, one could claim that the "chaos" of some creation myths corresponds to the "lawless absolute nothingness" presented here. (3) seems to have gained popularity with the rise of certain modern physical theories, like the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics or Inflation models of cosmology, which postulate infinite many worlds anyway. I don't know who was the first to propose such a theory as (3), but, for example, Max Tegmark is an outspoken proponent of this solution.

Although all of these solutions are mere metaphysical speculations and therefor can't be refutated, all of them have their specific drawbacks. The following list is not meant as to be regarded as exhaustive:

• Don't Ask
  I don't like concepts that don't allow you to ask certain questions. It would be more convincing if it could be shown that nothing (the absence of anything) is logically impossible (like in (2)). Merely saying that a certain question is meaningless is a bit disappointing. On the other hand, maybe that's just how it is.
  
• God Did It
  There are several models trying to explain why God has to exist, but they are far from convincing. Basically, this explanation just shifts the problem around. It begs the question who created the creator.
  
• Physical Laws Evolved
  The specific details about the genesis of the universe out of nothing are a bit vague; Peirce, for example, isn't very clear about this point, and I don't know of any proponent of this theory who is clearer about it. The absence of any kind of physical law is extremely counterintuitive, and unfortunately, there is no mathematical model as of yet that could counterbalance this lack.
  
• Everything Possible Exists
  There are some problems with probability in this explanation: a world with lots of improbable things happening seems to have the same ontological status as a world where lots of probable things are happening. Even worse, it seems difficult to argue that the "plausible" worlds outnumber the "implausible" worlds. It seems that we are living in a "plausible" world (that is, lots of probable and few of improbable things happen), and I would prefer a solution that explains why this is what we should expect (besides this, I have to admit that I like this solution: it accommodates my disposition for mathematical Platonism).

The list given above seems remarkably short. This may be because it is a difficult question; or perhaps the incentive to find a non-religious solution is psychologically not very compelling (if you don't stick to solution (1), you are probably a skeptic and avoid metaphysical speculations). But perhaps the shortness of this list just shows my lack of education. At least this last possibility might be curable: what further proposals have I missed?

 

[Iacchus]

Don't Ask ...

Don't ask? I generally find that those who don't ask, are not the ones looking for an answer. Yes, don't ask, if you're not prepared for an answer you don't want to hear. The question is not in the least bit meaningless.

 

[UserGoogol]

I suppose the anthropic principle does work to a degree. "Something exists, because if nothing existed, we wouldn't be here to complain about it."

I do think the "everything possible exists on some frame of reference" theory because it meshes well with my own dim understanding of quantum mechanics, but I don't think that it can completely explain the metaphysical question of why existance exists. People can still ask "But why does a quantum reality exist?" And thus to some degree I suspect the question is unanswerable and is the result of a mind preoccupied with the concept of causality. Some things just happen.

 

[Iacchus]

If we are to discover the origin of the Universe -- i.e., "everything" -- perhaps we should consider all the wisdom inherent in a single seed? At what point does our "seedling" stop growing and, at what point (through its various stages of growth) does it ever look the same? Couldn't the same thing be ascribed to "the effect" we call evolution?

 

[jan]

Don't ask? I generally find that those who don't ask, are not the ones looking for an answer. Yes, don't ask, if you're not prepared for an answer you don't want to hear. The question is not in the least bit meaningless.

As my remarks may have indicated, I myself have some reservations about item (0) on my list. Nevertheless, I don't think your criticism is fair. First of all, note that the caption "Don't Ask" is my ironic comment, not part of the theory of Logical Positivism. Furthermore, the Positivists didn't just forbid to ask: they provided a whole literature why they thought that certain questions are not only impossible to answer, but meaningless. I think a thorough refutation of this position would require more than just the assertion that the question is indeed meaningful.

As far as I can see, the position of Logical Positivism has lost popularity, so I am afraid that it might be difficult to find an adherent of this position to defend it.

 

[jan]

I suppose the anthropic principle does work to a degree. "Something exists, because if nothing existed, we wouldn't be here to complain about it."

I think the anthropic principle can explain why we live on earth and not on Venus. But I don't see how it could explain why the alternative something/nothing is settled as it is.

I do think the "everything possible exists on some frame of reference" theory because it meshes well with my own dim understanding of quantum mechanics, but I don't think that it can completely explain the metaphysical question of why existence exists. People can still ask "But why does a quantum reality exist?" And thus to some degree I suspect the question is unanswerable and is the result of a mind preoccupied with the concept of causality. Some things just happen.

I think of it more along the lines of: all mathematical structures exist because they are logically forced to. A triangle with three sides must exist, while a triangle with four sides can't exist. Our world is just another mathematical structure, just more complicated and confusing than a triangle.

Also, the theory says not only that some things happen, but that all things happen. This could point to some misunderstanding in our concept of "possible" and "actual". Maybe the source of our confusion why we wonder why there is something and not nothing is rooted in this misunderstanding that there is a reasonable or possible distinction between "actual" and "possible".

If this is true, then not only do other worlds like our world exist with slightly different quantum states, but also exotic worlds with completely different laws of physic (in which quantum mechanics would be false). There could be a whole hierarchy of "Many worlds".

Scientific America once had an article^* about such a hierarchy: the first stage is this: we can only watch out in our universe until we reach a horizon where things move so fast away that we will never be able to obtain information from there. So, the "reachable" universe is finite. Since the universe itself seems to be infinite, our finite reachable part of it must repeat infinite often within it, since the number of possible permutations is limited.

The second stage would be the Many Worlds of quantum mechanics.

The third stage would be the many world that are a consequence of some cosmologies based on an inflation model, with those different worlds having different values for the fundamental constants.

The fourth stage would be alternative worlds with completely different laws of physics.




Edited to add: ^*Scientific American May 2003, "Parallel Universes"

 

[Iacchus]

As my remarks may have indicated, I myself have some reservations about item (0) on my list. Nevertheless, I don't think your criticism is fair. First of all, note that the caption "Don't Ask" is my ironic comment, not part of the theory of Logical Positivism. Furthermore, the Positivists didn't just forbid to ask: they provided a whole literature why they thought that certain questions are not only impossible to answer, but meaningless. I think a thorough refutation of this position would require more than just the assertion that the question is indeed meaningful.

As far as I can see, the position of Logical Positivism has lost popularity, so I am afraid that it might be difficult to find an adherent of this position to defend it.

The only meaningless question that exists, is a question based upon nothing. Which is to say, the whole Universe is full of meaning if, it is based upon something.

 

[Tricky]

The only meaningless question that exists, is a question based upon nothing.

And you seem to be the only one asking those questions.

Which is to say, the whole Universe is full of meaning if, it is based upon something.

"Meaning" is a human contrivance. As you well know, two humans looking at or reading the same words are likely to come up with different meanings. Thus, if you were brain-dead, there would be no meaning for anything to you.

I realize that this possibility of being overall meaningless in the big picture, scares the bejeezus out of you, so you have to invent some other thinking being to assign the job of discerning the "meaning" of things.

Don't be scared, Iacchus. Even if meaning is only what you make it, it is still important. My life has much meaning to me, but it will only do so as long as I am alive. Whether or not it means something after I am alive will depend on whether or not I have said or done anything memorable. I'm okay with that.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, I agree that human meaning is relative ... but, relative to what? Do you or do you not believe that there is a true actuality (and with that actuality exists a meaningful relationship) upon which human meaning is based? If not, then here we are trying to derive something from nothing, once again.

 

[Taffer]

Is it even possible to answer this question? As UserGoogol mentioned, if nothing existed, we wouldn't be around to ask the question. It seems similar to asking what is the probability of a particular event happening given that it has already happened (I am reminded of a thread a long time ago where someone asked the question "What is the probability that I was born", and was met with "1.0, because if you weren't, you couldn't ask the question", but that's another story). Or to put it another way, can we, being 'inside' the system, or even 'a part of' the system ('system' in this sense is 'existance', i.e reality, i.e the universe), ever know what is 'outside' the system, if they are unable to 'leave' the system? How can we ask why our reality exists without being able to see what the alternative is.

Consider this thought experiment. A computer A.I. program is run on a very powerful computer. It is given a virtual world to exist in. This world is a room. As the A.I. program first 'gained' consiousness (i.e was first 'aware') inside this room, it has no knowledge of anything outside this room. After a few hours, the A.I. program begins to ponder. Eventually, it gets to the question at hand. "Why do I exist? Why does this room exist? Why does anything exist at all?". James is watching all this unfold on a monitor. james knows the answers to these questions. Why do I exist? Because we wanted to see what would happen. Why does this room exist? Because we wanted somewhere for you to live. Why does anything exist at all? Because we want it to.
However, the A.I. doesn't know these answers. For all he knows, he exists to jump a thousand star jumps while singing 'Mary had a little lamb' at the top of his voice. Since the A.I. cannot survive outside of the computer simulation (in this case, he is the simulation), he can never 'go outside' and look at the outside universe. He cannot ask James (unless, of course, James wishes it, but that's irrelevant). He cannot, in fact, know the nature of his reality, because he has nothing to compare it to.

So the only real answer to the question "why does existance exist" is "because it does".

 

[Tricky]

Oh, I agree that human meaning is relative ... but, relative to what? Do you or do you not believe that there is a true actuality (and with that actuality exists a meaningful relationship) upon which human meaning is based? If not, then here we are trying to derive something from nothing, once again.

I don't know if I would call meanings "relative". Probably just subjective.

But if you wish to call them relative, meanings can be relative to each other. No "actual meaning" is required. Any attempt to discern "actual meaning" will result in humans placing their own template of feelings and opinions over the events/observations.

So how can you ever determine the difference between 'no actual meaning' versus 'actual meaning that you cannot possibly discern? The only reason to belive in an 'actual meaning' comes down (as always) to your choice to believe in it. No evidence will be forthcoming, nor is it even possible. It is just a part of your religious dogma.

 

[Iacchus]

Without meaning, we have nothing to motivate us. Whereas plants are motivated by -- i.e., derive meaning from -- the light of sun.

 

[treble_head]

I suppose I'm going to go with the "Don't Ask" belief, personally, but with a bit of a twist. Ask all the questions you want. It's fun and a great brain bender. Just don't get all dissapointed when you don't get any "real " or firm answers.

Nobody's figured it out yet, and it's doubtful anyone's going to do it any time soon. I like discussing the really deep questions, but I don't expect any answers.

 

[Tricky]

Without meaning, we have nothing to motivate us. Whereas plants are motivated by -- i.e., derive meaning from -- the light of sun.

The word "motivate" means many things. If you are talking about the chemical processess which fuel the operations of our bodies, then it has nothing whatsoever to do with "meaning". Do you see any difference in the way a crystal is "motivated" to grow versus the way a flower is "motivated" to grow? If this is the definition you are using, then you would have to say that people are "motivated" by adenosine triphosphate.

But most people speak of "motivation" as the reasoning they employ for making certain choices. They may take the reasoning from others, such as a "motivational speaker", or from their own experience, as when they are motivated to lose weight because uncle Billy died of a heart attack. Flowers do not use thinking or reason, as they have not the neuralogical hardware to do so, thus, they cannot be "motivated" in this sense.

So pick a definition and stick with it.

 

[Taffer]

Without meaning, we have nothing to motivate us. Whereas plants are motivated by -- i.e., derive meaning from -- the light of sun.

Perhaps it's my caffine deficient brain talking, but let me respond to this with a definitive "Huh?".

First of all, there is this odd notion that plants get some kind of 'meaning' from sunlight. I'd have to disagree with you there, Iacchus. Plants get chemical energy from sunlight (indirectly, through the ETC and ATP production, but that's a different story). With this they can do all sorts of fun things. Like 'growing', for example. But I seriously doubt the plant is motivated to much of anything. Well, perhaps survive, but for the most part we can consider a plant without any free will, just a 'robot', if you will, that will behave the exact same way every time to the same stimulus.

And then there is this confusing comment about us having no motivation without meaning. How about the monivation to find meaning? And how do you define meaning? Something that is meaningful to you is just as likely to be meaningless to me. Do you have some scale by which to judge that which is meaningful and that which is meaningless? Now who's 'playing god'?

EDIT: Ya kinda beat me to the punch, there Tricky.

 

[jan]

Is it even possible to answer this question? As UserGoogol mentioned, if nothing existed, we wouldn't be around to ask the question.

As I already briefly mentioned, I don't see how the anthropic principle can help us here. It can explain why life evolved on earth, where the conditions are favorable, and not on Venus, where the conditions are unfavorable. If we believe that there are many worlds, this principle can explain why we are living in a world where the fundamental constants may be fine-tuned to allow the generation of stars. But in either case, the principle works because we have so many alternatives. With billions and billions of planets, one is bound to contain life. With infinite many worlds, it is not surprising that at least one of those worlds contains something as bizarre and interesting as us. But in both cases, all those alternative planets and worlds are actually present. This isn't the case if the alternatives are something and nothing. Obviously, if nothing would exist, then nobody would be around to wonder about that fact. But I don't see how this explains that we are here.

It seems similar to asking what is the probability of a particular event happening given that it has already happened

The probability for something is indeed 1, and the probability for nothing is 0. But that's not an explanation. The probability for life on earth is also 1, but a satisfying explanation is a bit more complicated than that.

Or to put it another way, can we, being 'inside' the system, or even 'a part of' the system ('system' in this sense is 'existance', i.e reality, i.e the universe), ever know what is 'outside' the system, if they are unable to 'leave' the system? How can we ask why our reality exists without being able to see what the alternative is.

Perhaps we can't. My very second sentence in this thread concedes this, just right after asking the question. Perhaps our inability to answer the question has something to do with us being too much "inside" the problem. But I don't see how this follows. How does the fact that we are part of those things that exist make us unable to answer why something exists?

So the only real answer to the question "why does existance exist" is "because it does".

You changed the question. The initial question was: "why does something exist?".

 

[jan]

I suppose I'm going to go with the "Don't Ask" belief, personally, but with a bit of a twist. Ask all the questions you want. It's fun and a great brain bender. Just don't get all dissapointed when you don't get any "real " or firm answers.

As I explained above, I am not expecting a definite answer. I am more interested in as many alternative answers as possible. The reason for this is partly intellectual curiosity, partly to be able to show that (0) and (1) are not the only possibilities.

 

[Taffer]

As I already briefly mentioned, I don't see how the anthropic principle can help us here. It can explain why life evolved on earth, where the conditions are favorable, and not on Venus, where the conditions are unfavorable. If we believe that there are many worlds, this principle can explain why we are living in a world where the fundamental constants may be fine-tuned to allow the generation of stars. But in either case, the principle works because we have so many alternatives. With billions and billions of planets, one is bound to contain life. With infinite many worlds, it is not surprising that at least one of those worlds contains something as bizarre and interesting as us. But in both cases, all those alternative planets and worlds are actually present. This isn't the case if the alternatives are something and nothing. Obviously, if nothing would exist, then nobody would be around to wonder about that fact. But I don't see how this explains that we are here.

But it does. Because we can only exist in our reality, we can never 'step outside it' and look at the 'big picture'. What I mean is, we can never know how many 'realities' there are. There could be only 1 universe, ours. There could be an infinite number. There could be i^2 numbers, for all it matters. We will never know. Perhaps I'm not getting your point. If your original question was not "why does our universe exist" but rather "why can things exist at all", I'd argue that by the very nature of the question, things have to exist to ask it. Since things exist, then *to us* existance must be a natural state. So again I answer with "because they do".

Perhaps we can't. My very second sentence in this thread concedes this, just right after asking the question. Perhaps our inability to answer the question has something to do with us being too much "inside" the problem. But I don't see how this follows. How does the fact that we are part of those things that exist make us unable to answer why something exists?

Lets think of an ant, who happens to be 2 dimensional for all intents and purposes, living on a flat piece of paper. By his very nature, he cannot lift off the paper to see that his 'universe' actually happens to be inside a 3d universe, because he is in a 2d universe. He is incapable of traveling outside it, much the same as we are incapable of traveling outside our own universe, as to do so would be a paradox (outside our universe is nothing from our point of view because we are only in our own universe. This doesn't mean there actually is nothing outside our universe, only that we would, so to speak, die the instant we left).

You changed the question. The initial question was: "why does something exist?".

My apologies. Something exists because, by the very nature of us asking the question, it has to. Therefore it exists because it does.

 

[jan]

If your original question was not "why does our universe exist" but rather "why can things exist at all", I'd argue that by the very nature of the question, things have to exist to ask it.

Things have to exist to be able to ask. But why do things have to exist?

 

[Taffer]

Because they have to exist.

By the very nature of asking any question, things have to exist. We cannot assume that things could not exist, because our very nature requires things to exist. If the universe were to stop existing, then there would be nothing. However, there would also nothing able of defining 'existance' and 'non-existance'. So non-existing to us cannot ever happen.

See?

EDIT: To put it another way, the very fact that things do exist means that things must exist, from our frame of reference (inside the system). If we could, for the sake of argument, leave the 'system', and look down into our universe, we could then analyze how our universe is different from other things (i.e. how our universe's existance differs from other universe's existance), and we could answer the question as to why ours exists like it does (or at all). But we can never leave the system, thus the question is unanswerable, or rather, its answer is "because it has to" or "because it does".