Ultimate question: Why anything at all?

Post Reply New Topic

“Why is there Something rather than Nothing” is “just the kind of question that we will be stuck with when we have a final theory [of physics]. … We will be left facing the irreducible mystery because whatever our theory is, no matter how mathematically consistent and logically consistent the theory is, there will always be the alternative that, well, perhaps there could have been nothing at all.” In modern physics, Weinberg explains, “the idea of empty space without anything at all, without fields, is inconsistent with the principles of quantum mechanics—[because] the [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle doesn’t allow a condition of empty space where fields are zero and unchanging.” But why, then, do we have quantum mechanics in the first place, with its fields and probabilities and ways of making things happen? “Exactly!” Weinberg says. “[Quantum mechanics] doesn’t answer the question, ‘Why do we live in a world governed by these laws?’… And we will never have an answer to that.” “Does that bother you?” I ask. “Yes,” Weinberg says wistfully. “I would like to have an answer to everything, but I’ve gotten used to the fact that I won’t.” Here’s how I see it: The primary questions people pose—Why the universe? Does God exist?—are important, sure, but they are not bedrock fundamental. “Why anything at all?” is the ultimate question.

Does the argument below sound convincing?

Why there is something rather than nothing?

Think of all the possible ways that the world might be, down to every detail. There are infinitely many such possible ways. All these ways seem to be equally probable—which means that the probability of any one of these infinite possibilities actually occurring seems to be zero, and yet one of them happened. “Now, there’s only one way for there to be Nothing, right?” There are no variants in Nothing; there being Nothing at all is a single state of affairs. And it’s a total state of affairs; that is, it settles everything—every possible proposition has its truth value settled, true or false, usually false, by there being Nothing. So if Nothing is one way for reality to be, and if the total number of ways for reality to be are infinite, and if all such infinite ways are equally probable so that the probability of any one of them is [essentially] zero, then the probability of ‘there being Nothing’ is also [essentially] zero.” Because there are an infinite number of potential worlds, each specific world would have a zero probability of existing, and because Nothing is only one of these potential worlds—there can be only one kind of Nothing—the probabilily of Nothing existing is zero.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/ ... n-nothing/

There are those might answer that there isn't.

It is a very true that there is not and will not be an answer inside the box of the universe - because there is is all you can do.

One likes to think that God and the with him know. Not much help here and now.

Any answer is formulated in terms of something. So that question does not have a coherent answer. If there is an uncreated Something, there it is without reason. And if Something requires Something else to bring it into being then the question is just pushed back one step. This either leads to an unanswerable question or to an infinite regress. The reason why there is something is Turtles All The Way Down.

ruveyn

I think nothingness is impossible. If we assume God exists, even if God chose not to create anything at all it remains that He still exists.

I don't really buy to heavily into CI or MWI. QM deals with nature, not those things which exist above or outside nature. Supposedly particles can just pop in and out of this dimension. If this is true, and it very well could be, that doesn't account for the fact that the furniture in my living room never mysteriously seems to randomly get sucked out of THIS universe. So, yeah, it's interesting that quanta exhibit those behaviors on a fundamental level, but it doesn't seem to really affect us all that much, at least not aside from the obvious. A computer writing all of the contents of its hard drive to a hard drive halfway around the world might be an example, but the way in which this happens is not mysterious. The sudden vanishing of a recliner in my living room, however, would be.

Which leads me to believe that in all practicality "Many Worlds" or "multiverses" don't exist. You have the physical universe, or nature, and you have a supernatural realm within which the natural realm resides. I don't know if it's parallel, concentric, or layered. But we can all think of things that have no direct physical manifestation. It's obvious that the universe is not merely physical. What exactly lies "beyond" is a whole other matter.

Now, if there is, as I believe, a Creator beyond the physical world who created the physical world, then that creator can make whatever he wants for whatever purpose he wants. Physics isn't concerned at all about "why." That's more the area of philosophy and religion. I think God could have chosen to never create and rather exist for His own sake. Apparently it is the desire of God to have a companion who has the choice of willingly knowing Him or not.

Assuming God to exist: Nothing is impossible. Also, such a God by His own nature won't create something inherently corrupt. If free will is part of the system, then the creation is corruptible, but not corrupt from the outset. And thus if God gets it right the first time, why think there ought to be "many worlds" in which every possibility has already happened? If God is perfect in ANY world, it leaves no room for God to be imperfect in any (other) world, otherwise there cannot be such a thing as a perfect God. Therefore a world in which God is imperfect cannot exist.

If it is impossible to have a world in which God is imperfect, it is also impossible to have a world in which God chooses not to create. Why? Because we know God has completed at least one creative act: THIS world. Therefore, an uncreative God is an imperfect God. And we've already established that it is impossible for God to be imperfect. That doesn't mean God HAD to create anything necessarily. But God DID choose to create THIS world. And the implications that has for God's nature cannot be ignored. The decision to create THIS world proves God's creative nature as well as His perfect nature. Hence there is no world without a creative God, and thus no world without a physical universe. God being perfect would not have altered anything in this or any other world.

And because no other world would be different from our own nor any reason to create any other world, THIS is the only world that can exist.

That all changes above the natural universe. The natural universe as I see it is a bridge between accepting God and rejecting God. The soul once stripped of the physical body may exist in one of two states: In the presence of God or entirely separated from God. I think whatever spiritual condition a person is left in upon physical death is the spiritual condition that person is stuck with. Even if you COULD change your mind after death, I don't think you'd really want to. Take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man showed no sign of repentance beyond death, merely a desire for relief from his suffering.

If the question is why the universe exists at all, it's simply because God didn't feel like being alone, wanted to make a physical creation that could choose to love and desire Him, and prepared a dynamic support system to sustain a God-like being. Angels don't count because they don't really have a choice--they exist in the presence of God, therefore they are COMPELLED to believe in God whether they accept God's authority or not. Humans seem to have much more power in that regard than the angels.

If you don't believe in God or cannot accept the reality of His existence, then there really isn't much of any purpose to the universe.

^^^ Exactly. Given the problem exists, something must exist.

The Ultimate Question: Why is there anything?

The Ultimate Answer: <shrug> Why not?

i still swear by 42

I don't like the argument used in the OP because the assumption about arbitrary selection of universes seems.... odd. There are too many assumptions that we have no grounds to know for the argument to seem that powerful. (I mean, what? You're willing to assume an arbitrary choice mechanism that weights everything the same to make the argument? Really???) That being said, metaphysics on this level is not going to be productive, and instead feeds every questionable philosophical intuition we have rather than re-orienting the human pursuit of knowledge towards where we have feedback and where there is value.

So let me see if I have this right.

you're saying that (a) There is infinite kind of something.
And (b) that there is only one kind of nothing

The probability of any kind of universe is about the same.
That probability is the reciprocal of infinity. The first digital number after zero. Whatever that is. A microscopically small number. But its above zero.

So the probabllity that the universe would be nothing is this microscopic number a notch above zero.

The probabalitity of it being the way it is ( one of an infinite number of possible somethings) is also this same infinitesimal number.


Being exactly the way it is just as unlikely as it being a void.

But the odds of the universe being SOMEKIND of something is much greater than it being nothing because you get more throws at the dice with somekind of something because there are more possible kinds of something than there are kinds of nothing.

So thats why there is ONE knd of something in the universe rather than nothing. Somekind of something is more likely than any kind of nothing, because there is only one kind of nothing and there are many kinds of something.

If that is your logic than it doesnt follow. The fact that a human can imagine more kinds of a phenomenon doesnt make that phenomenon more common nor more likely to happen.

The question is badly-formed. Coming up with a question does not mean it makes sense to ask the question or that the question has an answer. We look for further explanations where none are possible and create questions in that search which posit all sorts of doubtful entities. Some people ask the question "Why are we here" and never doubt that the question makes sense. Then they are naturally led to posit things such as cosmic fate, a god, moral truth, etc. You have to look at your questions as much as what is supposed to answer them.