# Why is there anything?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 14, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095 "2010-06-14T03:58:28Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/41 "2010-06-15T00:31:09Z")
This subject came up before. The answer seemed to me to lie in the foundations of mathematics. This answer seems to conflict with **begbert** ’s infinite regression problem, but if you think about it, it does not. Feel free to blow it up!
For the universe to proceed nothing-\> something creates a contradiction because of conservation of energy. You get a situation where 0 = either [a whole lot] or [infinite substance], depending on which is the case.
IOW, 0 !=0. The only way to retain consistency is to revoke mathematical Identity.
Doing so collapses your mathematical system to a single proposition: A. Interpretation: it just is.
So there is your answer, and sorry in advance it doesn’t make sense.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/42 "2010-06-15T01:16:05Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#):
>
> For the universe to proceed nothing-\> something creates a contradiction because of conservation of energy. You get a situation where 0 = either [a whole lot] or [infinite substance], depending on which is the case.
>
> IOW, 0 !=0. The only way to retain consistency is to revoke mathematical Identity.
No; another way is to postulate that the universe sums out to nothing. The idea is that when you sum up all the forces in the universe, the result is zero. In other words, you can get something from nothing because half of that something is a negative value.
---
### Author:  [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/43 "2010-06-15T04:58:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> The first two are possible. The third is astronomically less likely than the first two, and on top of that doesn’t provide an explanation; again, saying “goddidit” just pushes the explanation back a step.
If one observes that everything in the universe has a cause, then it is natural to ask what is the cause of the universe itself. Of course, one could decide the universe has no cause, but this is difficult to reconcile with the presumed observation of objects in the universe–at least as difficult as presuming goddidit.
So if we agree (1) and (2) are “astronomically” more likely, we should have similar examples within the universe. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to define objects which support (1)–e.g. virtual particles–but I am unaware of any real objects that are the result of an infinite causal chain as in (2) (mathematical abstractions like the natural numbers are the only example I can think of).
It’s discussions like this that make me an agnostic–nobiody really has a good answer for the problem:-)
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/44 "2010-06-15T09:44:17Z")
I think first cause is a bit of a red herring in these matters.
After all, even if the universe were eternal, removing a need for a start link in the chain, would we then understand how it could exist, and why _this_ universe / multiverse?
And saying it “just is”…why does another universe not form in front of me right now? If spontaneous universe formation is ridiculous, why is “just is” not suspect?
The answer of course is that we don’t have an answer, yet, to how anything can exist. And I doubt we will find the answer while looking at time like the number line or reasoning about first causes in the abstract.
That rant was at no-one in particular.
> [@CJJ](#):
>
> It’s discussions like this that make me an agnostic–nobiody really has a good answer for the problem:-)
It makes me an atheist because scientists and philosophers generally admit they can’t answer this problem, yet. (once the problem is specified adequately)
But theists claim to have an answer that in fact answers nothing and adds additional problems.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/45 "2010-06-15T10:56:56Z")
> [@CJJ](#):
>
> If one observes that everything in the universe has a cause, then it is natural to ask what is the cause of the universe itself. Of course, one could decide the universe has no cause, but this is difficult to reconcile with the presumed observation of objects in the universe–at least as difficult as presuming goddidit.
>
> So if we agree (1) and (2) are “astronomically” more likely, we should have similar examples within the universe. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to define objects which support (1)–e.g. virtual particles–but I am unaware of any real objects that are the result of an infinite causal chain as in (2) (mathematical abstractions like the natural numbers are the only example I can think of).
It’s “astronomically” more likely because God is such a wacky, implausible idea. How likely would you think it to be that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why should a claim that “God did it” be taken any more seriously than claiming that the FSM did it? God is a ridiculous and utterly baseless idea, and the only reason believing in him isn’t treated the same way that someone who really believed in the FSM would be treated is because so many people are trained from childhood to turn off their minds the moment the word “god” is uttered.
Quantum mechanics of the other hand does allow for uncaused things; in fact they appear to be extremely common in the form of those virtual particles. And an infinite chain of past causes doesn’t violate logic or physical law. Neither is as outright silly as claiming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe; and the FSM is if anything more plausible than God, since at least spaghetti is known to exist.
---
### Author:  [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/46 "2010-06-15T14:51:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> I’ve yet to convince a single person with it, but it’s enough to make me eliminate the possibility, making objects appearing from nowhere the _only_ possibility.
I don’t understand how that gets trotted out again and again – ‘something has always existed’ vs. ‘something came into existence out of nothing’ is a false dichotomy. For instance, analogously, you could say that something either extended into one direction infinitely far, or has a ‘starting point’; however, the open interval (0,1] shows that that need not be so. Indeed, to say that there was first nothing, and then there was something, seems contradictory to me, as one would need some notion of time for the sentence to make sense, and I wouldn’t consider time – as a part of _space_time – to be nothing; so, at the time when there was nothing, there was at least time, and hence, not nothing.
As for the OP, the answer would be to find an entity whose possibility entails its necessity – i.e. something that, if it _can_ exist, _must_ exist. One can try and come up with things that fit this criterion, for instance, something that has the property of, at some point during its existence, reaching back in time to some point before it existed and creates itself plus whatever backgound may be necessary (like time, for instance), or indeed encompasses that background. If such a thing were possible, then nothing would never exist, as this thing would just pop into existence by virtue of being able to, supplying sufficient cause for its existence perhaps sometime next Tuesday. Whether or not such a thing is possible, of course, I don’t know, but the fact that I was able to dream it up without trying too hard gives me confidence that one day, some bright mind might similarly dream up something that actually works – and thus, the mere fact of existence does not seem to be an indicator of any sort of creator at all.
---
### Author:  [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/47 "2010-06-15T14:56:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> No; another way is to postulate that the universe sums out to nothing. The idea is that when you sum up all the forces in the universe, the result is zero. In other words, you can get something from nothing because half of that something is a negative value.
I don’t think that is a _bad_ answer, but I haven’t been able to get on board with that one either.
If you’re talking about 1 and (-1), yeah sure they sum out to nothing. But if you’re talking matter and anti-matter, well, anti-matter merely has its charges reversed, no? It still has the same mass- it really isn’t ‘negative’ matter.
And further, if the universe starts out as a big Zero, wouldn’t some kind of catalyst be required to split that Zero into the positive and negative halves? What would that catalyst be?
Further defense of ‘just is’: the universe exists now. + conservation of energy = it necessarily always was. That is really all there is to it.
To address first causes- If you buy the Big Bang, to cross over into the ‘source’, the Time=0 primeval egg thingy, is to cross over the event horizon of something like a mega black hole. It ‘makes sense’ that mathematical axioms would not apply in that circumstance. It sort of makes sense that there would be no phenomena in that case either, as there is neither time nor space. My little math question suggests there aren’t any distinctions of any kind in the pre-universe (at least none that follow the usual rules), and so cause-effect doesn’t apply. How could it anyway, in the absence of time (or infinitely regressing timelines for that matter)?
Of course as others have pointed out, certainty is hard to come by in this field.
---
### Author:  [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/48 "2010-06-15T15:13:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> No; another way is to postulate that the universe sums out to nothing. The idea is that when you sum up all the forces in the universe, the result is zero. In other words, you can get something from nothing because half of that something is a negative value.
If the total net energy of the universe is zero, how does it follow that the universe came from nothing?
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/49 "2010-06-15T15:51:25Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#):
>
> If you’re talking about 1 and (-1), yeah sure they sum out to nothing. But if you’re talking matter and anti-matter, well, anti-matter merely has its charges reversed, no? It still has the same mass- it really isn’t ‘negative’ matter.
The idea is that the net energy in the universe seems to be very very close to zero. The energy contained in the matter and its velocity is offset by the (negative) gravitational potential energy. Lawrence Krauss gave a nice talk on the idea here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)
KellyCriterion, it doesn’t necessarily follow that, since the universe has zero net energy, that it therefore came from nothing. However, it does answer some objections to the idea - the universe itself could be just a big quantum fluctuation.
---
### Author:  [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/50 "2010-06-15T16:02:24Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#):
>
> … One look at this picture:
> [http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2010-13-a-xlarge\_web.jpg](http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2010-13-a-xlarge_web.jpg)
> has to humble any one of us. Given this sort of thing, we must conclude there was some creator. …
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#):
>
> … To look at that picture to me there is no doubt in my mind there is a God. …
Ya both do understand what that picture is of, right? It’s just a [nebula](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula), an interstellar cloud of dust, hydrogen, helium and other ionised gases. They’re (basically) no different than the clouds in the sky.
(… _I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee, clouds in my coffee, and you’re so vain you probably think this universe was created with some purpose in mind that involves you_…)
'Course science explained why those patterns appear a [looonnng](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion) time ago.
Listen, [del]strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords[/del] cool lookin’ things in the sky is no basis for a system of [del]government[/del] belief. Might as well belief that those clouds in your coffee (or [[del]tea[/del]](http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/tea.shtml) dried leaves in water) are proof for (G)god(s) too.
CMC fnord!
---
### Author:  [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/51 "2010-06-15T16:18:15Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#):
>
> As a lifetime non-believer in religion, I have to admit I am forced into at least Deism by the mere existence of the universe. One look at this picture:
>
> [http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2010-13-a-xlarge\_web.jpg](http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2010-13-a-xlarge_web.jpg)
>
> has to humble any one of us. Given this sort of thing, we must conclude there was some creator. The creation stories of terrestrial religions look stupid in comparison to this. Yet why is this here at all? Why does anything exist?
>
> Astronomy is some scary shit.
>
> And yeah, some might say this belongs in IMHO, but I want ANSWERS, dammit!
>
> /maybe I should change my wallpaper
When I look at the picture you linked, the only emotion I feel is awesome.
I believe there are answers to your questions, but you won’t find them in the opinions of others. While most people are busy discovering the universe and all the things in it, others are discovering themselves. Religion or science have no real answers, just a lot of doctrine or theories. Why don’t you look for the answers you seek within yourself. Find out why you believe in a creator or not believe in an creator. Question everything and every authority. Try to remove all the contradictions from your beliefs, and hold onto things only that you feel are real, truth, and eternal. Examine the power of love by loving the unloveable. By going against limiting opinions and ideas you will find new answers to old mysteries. You will discover yourself, then you will have your answers.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/52 "2010-06-15T16:39:44Z")
> [@lekatt](#):
>
> You will discover yourself, then you will have your answers.
You will also find that, since you made up the answers without regard to outside reality, they will be your answers only and will have no bearing whatsoever _to_ reality. IOW, you _could_ make up your own answers with almost no effort, but those answers will be worth the effort you put into them.
---
### Author:  [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/53 "2010-06-15T16:57:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> You will also find that, since you made up the answers without regard to outside reality, they will be your answers only and will have no bearing whatsoever _to_ reality. IOW, you _could_ make up your own answers with almost no effort, but those answers will be worth the effort you put into them.
I think you misunderstood what my post was about, perhaps if you read it again, you will understand.
Then, maybe you are only attacking me again. Hard to tell.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/54 "2010-06-15T17:03:18Z")
> [@lekatt](#):
>
> I think you misunderstood what my post was about, perhaps if you read it again, you will understand.
>
> Then, maybe you are only attacking me again. Hard to tell.
If you wish to accuse me, do so in The BBQ Pit, please.
---
### Author:  [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/55 "2010-06-15T17:04:21Z")
Actually, I was not supporting the idea that some observation on the grand nature of reality was proof of the existence of a creator.
I simply find it interesting that the absence of a creator is taken by many as proven by some set of observations on the mechanics of operation which we, humans, have assembled from inferences drawn from many observations of elements of that grand nature of reality. The fact that we rewrite our implications based on many examples of errors in observation, inferences, and the consequences of our assumptions seems to imply that proof is a tenuous matter, in science as well a in faith. However it seems that many on both sides of these arguments are quite a bit more passionate about how wrong the opposite view is, than whether their own view is consistent with their own choice of rules.
Tris
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/56 "2010-06-15T17:14:51Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#):
>
> I simply find it interesting that the absence of a creator is taken by many as proven by some set of observations on the mechanics of operation…
I think it might be more accurate to say that the _presence_ of a creator is taken by many to be _unnecessary_ by some set of observations on the mechanics of operation…
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/57 "2010-06-15T17:17:18Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#):
>
> I simply find it interesting that the absence of a creator is taken by many as proven by some set of observations on the mechanics of operation which we, humans, have assembled from inferences drawn from many observations of elements of that grand nature of reality.
It’s not that our understanding of the universe proves there is no god.
It’s that assuming that entities for which there is no empirical evidence don’t exist, is a reasonable starting point.
The reason people confuse the two, is that many phenomena in our universe, just like the picture of the nebula, were once taken to be “proof” of god. But the fact that theists have had to retreat from this position on many fronts, as science has advanced, is really inconsequential.
A groundless hypothesis has consistently failed to turn up proof. The state of the hypothesis remains the same.
> [@](#):
>
> The fact that we rewrite our implications based on many examples of errors in observation, inferences, and the consequences of our assumptions seems to imply that proof is a tenuous matter, in science as well a in faith. However it seems that many on both sides of these arguments are quite a bit more passionate about how wrong the opposite view is, than whether their own view is consistent with their own choice of rules.
I’m not actually arguing that the other side is wrong, and nor are most of the people on this thread.
I personally am arguing that the other side’s _reasoning_ is wrong. There is no sound reason to conclude the existence of a god.
To the list of [hundreds of proofs of god’s existence](http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm) maybe they should add one that just has a photo of a nebula and just _Therefore, God exists_
---
### Author:  [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/58 "2010-06-15T17:21:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> I think it might be more accurate to say that the _presence_ of a creator is taken by many to be _unnecessary_ by some set of observations on the mechanics of operation…
Well, it would only be _more_ accurate to state the \*\* presence, or absence\*\* of a creator is _unnecessary_. That I find to be a consistent argument from both perspectives.
Tris
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/59 "2010-06-15T17:34:37Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#):
>
> Well, it would only be _more_ accurate to state the \*\* presence, or absence\*\* of a creator is _unnecessary_. That I find to be a consistent argument from both perspectives.
Acceptable.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095/60 "2010-06-15T17:47:12Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#):
>
> Well, it would only be _more_ accurate to state the \*\* presence, or absence\*\* of a creator is _unnecessary_. That I find to be a consistent argument from both perspectives.
Instead of “creator”, then, can we substitute “any non-corporal entity for which there is no evidence to date”?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-anything/543095.md?page=4)