Why is there something rather than nothing?

[littlebabyjesus]

What is the evidence for the assertion that everything than can happen happens?

Would there need to be a reason for there to be nothing? Is there a reason for there to be something?

Well it's the basis of modern physics.

Regarding your question about 'a reason', again, the problem lies in the question. Is it a meaningful question? What do you mean by 'a reason' in this instance? Can you define it?

I've changed my mind on this somewhat since 14 years ago. I'm not so sure it is beyond our ability to understand. But I think that the understanding that is possible is just going to be rather unsatisfactory to those seeking something that will change their lives. It's all a bit Hitchhiker's Guide, essentially. It's an ill-defined problem.

 

[PTK]

From what I have read, I do not think that you are correct in writing that it is the basis of modern physics. Brian Cox's popular book has a title to this effect, but he is not the last word on this. Furthermore, even if you are correct, the statement only applies to the existing observable cosmos, not to what may pertain in unobservable regions of the larger cosmos, or in eras before the Big Bang. (I am aware that some say that time began with the Big Bang, but other theorists disagree, e.g. Roger Penrose).

"Reason" is, I agree, perhaps not the correct word. I do not associate the original question with how we live our lives.

I don't think that we can say "why" the larger cosmos exists.

 

[emanymton]

kinell. That was 14 years ago!

Rereading the thread, laptop is about right.

Boring answer:

The problem lies in the question. Just as valid is the question 'Why would there be nothing rather than something?' Everything that can happen happens, and how could it not?

Never found that a good answer myself. But that might be because I think the real question is not where does all the stuff come from, but where do the physical laws that govern how the stuff works come from.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

the real question is where does this question come from?

once you can answer that, the question itself is answered.

Yes, theology, what type of theology though, and for whom.

 

[PTK]

the real question is where does this question come from?

once you can answer that, the question itself is answered.

Yes, theology, what type of theology though, and for whom.

In my opinion, your answer seems to be a bit of a cop-out. You seem to be suggesting that the question itself implies the existence of a deity, but that is certainly not what I mean when I ask this question.

Are you suggesting that all “why” questions about the cosmos are theological?

 

[NoXion]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I have read a fair bit about cosmology, and I can’t get my head around the fact that there is something rather than nothing.

Current cosmological models do not have an explanation for the existence of the universe, only explanations for how it expanded, if that makes sense. Relativity predicts an initial singularity, but relativity is an incomplete model because it does not take quantum mechanics into account, which it should do because the singularity is small enough for QM to apply. Singularities in physical mathematics are one of the key signs that a model has broken down at that point, and can no longer be relied upon for making predictions.

Theists will say that there is something rather than nothing because God made it all, but this is an argument that many of us rebut as children: if there is a God, what made God? The theists claim that God has always been there, and its essence is that it does not need to be created, but this is a cop-out. Furthermore, there is not actually any evidence for the existence of a God or Gods.

The observable cosmos arose from an event known as the Big Bang. Many cosmologists consider the Big Bang to have been a “local” event, in a “meta cosmos” much larger than the observable cosmos.

It looks like there has always been something; but if it was the case that the “meta cosmos” has not always existed, this too is difficult to comprehend.

Either the universe/multiverse is infinite in the time dimension, or it is not. What's so hard to understand about that? It's proving that it's one way or the other which is going to be the real challenge. Unless we can find or open up wormholes which lead outside the observable universe or to other parts of the multiverse, light's slow speed compared to the vastness of the cosmos places hard limits on the extent of our observations, both in space and time.

 

[lunar]

Current cosmological models do not have an explanation for the existence of the universe, only explanations for how it expanded, if that makes sense. Relativity predicts an initial singularity, but relativity is an incomplete model because it does not take quantum mechanics into account, which it should do because the singularity is small enough for QM to apply. Singularities in physical mathematics are one of the key signs that a model has broken down at that point, and can no longer be relied upon for making predictions.



Either the universe/multiverse is infinite in the time dimension, or it is not. What's so hard to understand about that? It's proving that it's one way or the other which is going to be the real challenge. Unless we can find or open up wormholes which lead outside the observable universe or to other parts of the multiverse, light's slow speed compared to the vastness of the cosmos places hard limits on the extent of our observations, both in space and time.

You are kidding, right?
Infinite Universe in unimaginable. For example, this would mean that there has to be someone in the Universe having my name, same face and writing thus comment.

 

[Humberto]

You are kidding, right?
Infinite Universe in unimaginable. For example, this would mean that there has to be someone in the Universe having my name, same face and writing thus comment.

Or an infinite number of you?

/gets coat and retreats from philosophy forum

 

[PTK]

By “difficult to comprehend” I do not mean that the concepts are difficult to understand, I mean that I find the contemplation of either alternative almost frightening at times.

 

[PTK]

You are kidding, right?
Infinite Universe in unimaginable. For example, this would mean that there has to be someone in the Universe having my name, same face and writing thus comment.

Firstly, the comment was referring to a cosmos infinite in time, not space. It is often said that a cosmos infinite in space would contain copies of each of us, but I don't see why it would.

 

[NoXion]

You are kidding, right?
Infinite Universe in unimaginable. For example, this would mean that there has to be someone in the Universe having my name, same face and writing thus comment.

I did say understand rather than imagine. It's easy to understand that in a finite, non-expanding universe, travelling far enough in a straight line will mean that you will eventually end up back where you started. Actually this isn't strictly true, it only applies if the universe in question is shaped like a 4-sphere (which if I remember correctly, is the simplest case). Other topologies will produce different paths, but in any case you cannot go "outside" of space and time any more than you can go "north" of the north pole on Earth.

This video gives a good demonstration of how such finite but unbounded spaces connect to themselves:

By “difficult to comprehend” I do not mean that the concepts are difficult to understand, I mean that I find the contemplation of either alternative almost frightening at times.

I find it fascinating.

Firstly, the comment was referring to a cosmos infinite in time, not space. It is often said that a cosmos infinite in space would contain copies of each of us, but I don't see why it would.

The argument seems straightforward enough to me. For a given volume of space, say, a Hubble volume, there are a finite number of physically valid configurations of mass and energy, according to the laws of physics as we understand them. If the universe is spatially infinite, then there are an infinite number of each and every single one of those physically valid configurations.

 

[PTK]

I did say understand rather than imagine. It's easy to understand that in a finite, non-expanding universe, travelling far enough in a straight line will mean that you will eventually end up back where you started. Actually this isn't strictly true, it only applies if the universe in question is shaped like a 4-sphere (which if I remember correctly, is the simplest case). Other topologies will produce different paths, but in any case you cannot go "outside" of space and time any more than you can go "north" of the north pole on Earth.

This video gives a good demonstration of how such finite but unbounded spaces connect to themselves:






I find it fascinating.



The argument seems straightforward enough to me. For a given volume of space, say, a Hubble volume, there are a finite number of physically valid configurations of mass and energy, according to the laws of physics as we understand them. If the universe is spatially infinite, then there are an infinite number of each and every single one of those physically valid configurations.

I think that this is wrong. I did once know why this was, but my mind is not as sharp as it was. The flaw in it is the same as the flaw in the idea that an ifninte number of monkeys with typewriters would produce the works of Shakespeare.

 

[NoXion]

I think that this is wrong. I did once know why this was, but my mind is not as sharp as it was. The flaw in it is the same as the flaw in the idea that an ifninte number of monkeys with typewriters would produce the works of Shakespeare.

No idea why you would think that would be wrong. There's an absolutely horrendous noise-to-signal ratio in that a larger infinity (yes, infinity comes in different types) of the monkeys' output would be incomprehensible gibberish, but that's a different problem.

 

[PTK]

No idea why you would think that would be wrong. There's an absolutely horrendous noise-to-signal ratio in that a larger infinity (yes, infinity comes in different types) of the monkeys' output would be incomprehensible gibberish, but that's a different problem.

So, the monkeys would acutally create the complete works of Shakespeare, as a continuous text, with no "noise" within the work?

 

[NoXion]

So, the monkeys would acutally create the complete works of Shakespeare, as a continuous text, with no "noise" within the work?

To my understanding, both. Although you're much more likely to come across the fragments rather than a whole work, assuming you did a random sampling. Smaller chains are more likely than larger ones.

 

[Steel Icarus]

So, the monkeys would acutally create the complete works of Shakespeare, as a continuous text, with no "noise" within the work?

It's one monkey for an infinite amount of time.

 

[Steel Icarus]

In 2003, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes crested macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon in England for a month, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website.[12]

Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages largely consisting of the letter 'S',[13] the lead male began bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys followed by soiling it. Mike Phillips, director of the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technology (i-DAT), said that the artist-funded project was primarily performance art, and they had learned "an awful lot" from it. He concluded that monkeys "are not random generators. They're more complex than that. ... They were quite interested in the screen, and they saw that when they typed a letter, something happened. There was a level of intention there."[12][14]

 

[JimW]

he lead male began bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys followed by soiling it.

So Will Self not Will Shakespeare.

 

[PTK]

The cosmos may be infinite, but the conditions that pertain in the observable cosmos may not pertain elsewhere. There could be regions with very different conditions. There could not be duplicates of us in such regions.