Why is there something rather than nothing?

Question

Why is there something rather than nothing? Or is nothing is something? Would like to hear your opinions Anyone?
OR do you agree that nothing is something.

Answer 1

I cannot possibly answer what you are asking for, for the idea of nothingness is the creation of your own mind, how could I refute it? It is like you trying to look into the deeper meanings of existence, have fallen into the abyss of the matter, into the nothingness of your own thought – where there is really nothing to see, nothing to find, and therefore nothing for an answer. The best I could do is try to take you up a bit and place you somewhere close to the edge once more so you are once more able to see things in their realistic perspective, with reference to one another.



The only reason therefore for nothing to be would be if you believe there is; if you believed there is then there is. Nothing is also something, as of your mind, that I cannot possibly argue against to say that it is nothing - paradox. the mind there could be other things too, the existence of which neither proved or disproved. If you believe, or even if you just think, there is a pink elephant, there is one. You cannot then turn around asking someone else for confirmation, or refutation.



Is there really nothing? No, there is no such thing as nothing in reality; the absence of everything is impossible. Nothingness in reality exists only arbitrarily or relatively, as for instance, when I say, ‘there is nothing in the box’, as the box if nothing else still contains air, and if the box is taken to space, then it contains the expanse of the space that contains the box - there is nothing of what I was looking for in the box.



Anything is possible, is a fallacy. If anything were possible then there would be nothing instead of anything. So, anything possible = nothing. Let us say you role a dice and believe it possible that the dice will rest on any one of its six sides. But in reality this never happens, as in the consequence of a roll the dice each time rests on only one of its sides. The actual consequence reveals what was really possible – a dice with absolutely equal chances of falling on any one of its six sides cannot be not exist, the very situation of such rolling cannot real.



Why is there something rather than nothing? This is because that something is you. You in are there in your capacity to ask if there could be nothing, while imagining nothing to be something. So, as there is you, there could be nothing, as in your imagination, that if you were not, there would be nothing, neither as something or as anything. You see the ‘abyss’, the quandary of reasoning here - you are therefore you are not, but if you were not nothing would be nothing. Now, I am in there with you where you were. The only thing reliable in the world, as in here, is the fact that we are, as you are as I am.

Answer 2

I have answered this many times as well, and "Cacothes" is correct....The Higgs field gave mass to subatomic particles. That's it. That's why there is matter.

If there had been no Higgs boson or field at the start of the universe, it would have dissipated as nothing but cooling energy by now.

Answer 3

For most all of eternity I live unconcerned. Then something comes along that concerns me for awhile and then I slip back into eternal unconcern again. Something else made me. I am just get to be the concerned activity for awhile.

Answer 4

There is some thing b/c Creator God spoke it into Energy being.



Related: "The Answer You're Looking for Is inside You;" "Light Is a Living Spirit."

Answer 5

Because there has to be; you can't have an existent called 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. 'Nothingness' is not an existent because existents have positive properties, identities such as hot, big, 2 feet square, boiling, tall, old, etc.



In other words, 'nothingness' is 'non-existent'.

Answer 6

Existence cannot not-exist. There can either be existence in which physical objects exist, or existence that is devoid of physical objects, but either way existence itself has to exist. Therefore there has to be something as opposed to nothing.

Answer 7

As a philosopher, you should know how to outsmart your enemy. Apply '"Jugaad", if it is absolutely necessary. Put your main emphasis on where, how, when and who instigates you to investigate about "something". If you know "everything" about "nothing", it is sufficient to defend your original stand on this issue. Please reconsider. Is it necessary to get confused like this. when you can easily, firmly, efficiently and effectively handle this issue to your own advantages.

Answer 8

The word nothing is something. the concept nothing is something But nothing itself is nothing.

Answer 9

Yer we can only see as far as ourselves and we are far from nothing

Answer 10

Because of the Higgs Boson... Any other answer is a vapid brain-fart.

Answer 11

I have "nothing" to add to the last time I answered exactly the same question.

Answer 12

Because there is a Creator.

Answer 13

Because God put something here.

Answer 14

something is better than nothing.

Answer 15

I think you're right on when you say "nothing" is "something". My rationale is below. Thanks.





Others, like science writer Amanda Gefter (1) have suggested that the seeming insolubility of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is based not on the question itself being insoluble but instead on a flawed assumption. I agree and propose the following. Traditionally, when we imagine getting rid of all existent entities including matter, energy, fields, forces, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, we think what is left is the lack of all existent entities, or "nothing". This is the "nothing" we often think of in the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". But, I suggest that this situation, the supposed lack of all existent entities, is itself an existent entity. That is, it is a "something". This means that the original question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", is based on a false distinction between "something" and "nothing". It also means that because even "nothing" is a "something", then "something" is necessary or non-contingent. But, I think it's also possible to explain how a "something" can be necessary.



Two arguments for how the supposed lack of all is itself a necessary existent entity, or a "something", are as follows.



1. Consider the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. Two choices for addressing this question are:



A. "Something” has always been here.



B. "Something” has not always been here.



Choice A is possible but does not explain anything. Therefore, choice B is the only choice with any explanatory power. So, let's explore this choice to see where it leads. With choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. By “nothing”, I mean the same supposed "absolute lack-of-all” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc., and no minds to consider this complete "lack-of-all") described above. In this "absolute nothing”, there would be no mechanism present to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice then is that “nothing” and “something” are one and the same thing. This is logically required if we go with choice B.





2. I think that a thing exists if it's a grouping defining what is contained within (e.g., the surface of a book, the definition of what elements are contained in a set, the mental/neural construct called the concept of love defines what other mental constructs are contained in it, etc.). The grouping is equivalent to an edge or boundary that gives substance and existence to the thing. Try to imagine a book, or anything, without a surface defining what is contained within. It's not easy. You can say that I can remove the cover and then visualize what's left, but then remove the surface of that, and try to visualize it. To avoid infinite regresses and for anything to actually exist, there must eventually be some most fundamental entity that is a surface (e.g., a grouping defining what is contained within) with no smaller components inside.



Now, applying this definition of why a thing exists to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", if we consider what we've traditionally thought of as “the absolute lack-of-all” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this “absolute lack-of-all”), and not our mind's conception of “the absolute lack-of-all”, this "absolute lack-of-all" would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. That's it; that's everything; there's nothing else; it would be everything that is present. It is the all. An entirety, whole amount or an "all" is a grouping defining what is contained within and is therefore a surface, an edge and an existent entity. In other words, because the absolute lack-of-all is the entirety of all that is present, it functions as both what is contained within and the grouping defining what is contained within. It defines itself and is, therefore, the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. The grouping/edge of the absolute lack-of-all is not some separate thing; it is just the "entirety", "the all" relationship, inherent in this absolute lack-of-all, that defines what is contained within.



Three notes on visualizing and talking about "non-existence" are 1.) It's very easy to confuse the mind's conception of "non-existence" with "non-existence" itself, in which neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind's conception of "non-existence" is dependent on existence; that is, we must define "non-existence" as the lack of existence (this is why, to the mind, non-existence just looks like nothing at all). But, "non-existence" itself, and not our mind's conception of "non-existence", does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. "Non-existence" is on its own and, on its own, completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus an existent entity; 2.) It's very difficult to visualize "non-existence" because it entails visualizing, with our mind, what it would look like if everything, including the mind, were gone. But, only once everything is gone, including the mind, does "non-existence" become the all, the entirety of all that is present, and thus an existent entity.; and 3.) Some might say that in the above, just by using the word "nothing", I'm reifying, or giving existence to, something that's not there at all. But, this ignores the point about our mind's conception of "nothing" (and therefore the use of the word "nothing") being different than "nothing" itself in which no minds are present. It also ignores the fact that in order to even discuss the topic, we have have to talk about "nothing" as if it's a thing. It's okay to do this; our talking about it won't affect whether or not "nothing" itself, and not our mind's conception of "nothing", exists. That is, we're not reifying "nothing" itself by talking about it because our talking wouldn't even be there in the case of "nothing" itself.





References:

1. Gefter, A., Nautulus, 2014, 16; http://nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/the-bridge-from-nowhere



Previous Next