# Why is there something instead of nothing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351 "2018-05-17T15:17:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/1 "2018-05-17T15:17:46Z")
The greatest metaphysical question. I have yet to hear any satisfactory answer. It makes sense to me anyway that a state of “Nothing” is a state with the fewest contingencies and thus most expected. For ‘Nothing’ to ‘exist’, there is no pre-existing requirement to be met. For ‘something’ to exist, not to be trite, but something must exist. It requires at some point (I’m not sure we can call it a point in time since time may be specific to this universe, but in some way) either an act of creation (whether intelligent or random) or an infinite existence. And I’m not just talking about our particular universe, but rather that which precedes it and perhaps exists outside of it. The pre-quantum soup or however you envision it. Doesn’t it make more sense that rather than an eternal ‘soup’ or a created ‘soup’ there should just be nothing? Anyway, it’s just an opening to a discussion, so discuss. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/2 "2018-05-17T15:21:16Z")
Nobody really knows. I’m sorry if that’s not very satisfying. But we’ve got our top people on it. Top. People. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/3 "2018-05-17T15:23:17Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > I have yet to hear any satisfactory answer. Not to be a Debbie Downer, but you will never hear a satisfactory answer to this question. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/4 "2018-05-17T15:27:52Z")
Heh, I don’t really expect to, although maybe somewhere on the forums, there’s some guy or gal who is the ‘Fount of all Knowledge.’ I’m more interested in hearing people’s thoughts on the matter or whether they even bother pondering it at all. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/5 "2018-05-17T15:48:49Z")
There may be no such thing as nothing. I realize that that is just kinda restating your question. But maybe the concept of nothing is just an invalid concept. Think about it this way. There are two possible states; something or nothing. If you start with nothing then that is what you will always have - nothing. Something cannot be created from nothing. If you have nothing you can never have something. If you have something then you must have always had something - you can never have nothing. Now here we are in this universe, and it is filled with something; lots and lots of something. Since there is something now there must always have been something; there was never nothing. Therefore nothing has never existed - there is no such state as nothing. Just because we think we can conceive of nothing, doesn’t mean it’s actually something. Was that Font of all Knowledge enough for you? If you really wanna bend your mind read the comments [here!](https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html) ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/6 "2018-05-17T15:58:34Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Something cannot be created from nothing. We don’t know that. I’ve never examined a nothing to see what its properties are. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/7 "2018-05-17T15:58:35Z")
I’ve heard the argument, but it seems weak to me. I think that nothing is something (if you’ll excuse the humor) that we can conceive of fairly easily. All that it is is the absence of something. I don’t see anything that is illogical or invalid about the concept of nothingness. It might be a bit hard to truly grasp, but no harder to grasp than most metaphysical concepts. All that the argument is really saying is that ‘something existed infinitely,’ but it’s trying to couch it in language that tries to muddle the claim. Again, back to my original post, doesn’t this seem to be less likely than ‘nothing?’ It seems to be a ‘That’s just how it is’ argument and again, seems unsatisfactory. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/8 "2018-05-17T15:58:36Z")
[Because if there were nothing we wouldn’t be around to notice it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/9 "2018-05-17T16:08:34Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > It makes sense to me anyway that a state of “Nothing” is a state with the fewest contingencies and thus most expected. “Something” and “nothing” are like “hot” and “cold”. There is no such thing as “cold”. It is a word that describes an absence of heat. There is no such thing as “nothing”. It is a word that describes an absence of matter and energy. According to the Big Bang Theory,when the universe had no matter or energy, it did not exist. So, by definition, a universe cannot exist in that negative state. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/10 "2018-05-17T16:20:08Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > “Something” and “nothing” are like “hot” and “cold”. There is no such thing as “cold”. It is a word that describes an absence of heat. There is no such thing as “nothing”. It is a word that describes an absence of matter and energy. > > According to the Big Bang Theory,when the universe had no matter or energy, it did not exist. So, by definition, a universe cannot exist in that negative state. I think that we have to expand nothing to be more than just the absence of matter and energy, but rather the absence of anything whether measurable or not measurable. Also, simply saying that the universe can’t exist if there is nothing is the point of the question. Why does the universe (and not just this universe, but rather all universes and anything that may exist outside of those universes) exist as opposed to not exist? Maybe a simpler way to phrase it is ‘Why isn’t there the absence of everything?’ The answer seems to almost invariably be something along the lines of “Because…just because” I’m wondering if someone has anything else to offer. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/11 "2018-05-17T16:36:09Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > There may be no such thing as nothing. I realize that that is just kinda restating your question. But maybe the concept of nothing is just an invalid concept. > Think about it this way. There are two possible states; something or nothing. If you start with nothing then that is what you will always have - nothing. Something cannot be created from nothing. If you have nothing you can never have something. If you have something then you must have always had something - you can never have nothing. Now here we are in this universe, and it is filled with something; lots and lots of something. Since there is something now there must always have been something; there was never nothing. Therefore nothing has never existed - there is no such state as nothing. Just because we think we can conceive of nothing, doesn’t mean it’s actually something. > > Was that Font of all Knowledge enough for you? > > If you really wanna bend your mind read the comments [here!](https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html) So the laws of physics don’t allow a nothing state? That’s an interesting idea. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/12 "2018-05-17T16:55:37Z")
Is there any particular reason to believe that something can’t come from nothing? I was under the impression that at the subatomic level something came from nothing all the time - that paired positive and negative particles spring into existence and then (usually) promptly annihilate each other and disappear again. (Though I admit I could be completely wrong about this; I’m far from well-read on the subject.) If that is in fact happening, then perhaps this universe is just the same thing writ large. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Krupe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@Leo\_Krupe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Krupe)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/13 "2018-05-17T17:04:36Z")
Sean Carroll has some interesting thoughts on it [here](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2018/02/08/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-2/) [here](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/08/30/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/) and [here.](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/) A couple of choice quotes: > [@](#): > > The correct answer to this question is stated right off the bat in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Well, why not?” > > Very roughly, there are two different kinds of questions lurking around the issue of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” One question is, within some framework of physical laws that is flexible enough to allow for the possible existence of either “stuff” or “no stuff” (where “stuff” might include space and time itself), why does the actual manifestation of reality seem to feature all this stuff? The other is, why do we have this particular framework of physical law, or even something called “physical law” at all? Admittedly, it’s a not a beach read, but interesting nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/14 "2018-05-17T17:09:19Z")
**Because if there were Nothing Instead of Something, you wouldn’t be able to ask the Question** Same Anthropic Principle response as **Buck Godot** ’s, but I like the phrasing better. Reminds me of this Gahan Wilson cartoon [http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/is-nothing-sacred.jpg](http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/is-nothing-sacred.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/15 "2018-05-17T17:46:59Z")
The Big Bang is _how_ we got something rather than nothing. I remember once asking the question here which basically amounted to, “if there was nothing before the Big Bang, and nowhere for that nothing to be, and no ‘when’ during which that nothing existed (since the space-time continuum created by the Big Bang is all the ‘where’ and ‘when’ there is, was, or will be, from our POV), then what caused the Big Bang? How could it have happened?” What’s irritating me right now is that I can’t find that thread, because I recall that some posters provided an explanation that satisfied me at the time. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/16 "2018-05-17T17:48:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The Big Bang is _how_ we got something rather than nothing. > > I remember once asking the question here which basically amounted to, “if there was nothing before the Big Bang, and nowhere for that nothing to be, and no ‘when’ during which that nothing existed (since the space-time continuum created by the Big Bang is all the ‘where’ and ‘when’ there is, was, or will be, from our POV), then what caused the Big Bang? How could it have happened?” > > What’s irritating me right now is that I can’t find that thread, because I recall that some posters provided an explanation that satisfied me at the time. Maybe that thread is so old it happened before the big bang. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/17 "2018-05-17T17:49:46Z")
I’m going with something like [Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe](https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646) — _It can be described with axioms, therefore it exists._ (From the link you can click again and get a 31-page pdf. I think I’ll make a hardcopy, and see if I can make any sense of it.) ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/18 "2018-05-17T18:00:09Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Maybe a simpler way to phrase it is ‘Why isn’t there the absence of everything?’ The answer seems to almost invariably be something along the lines of “Because…just because” You illustrate an important point that was stressed in Michio Kaku’s book, “Hyperspace”, and that is theoretical physics has reached the point where it has evolved beyond our ability to conclusively test many of the theories needed to explain it. We just can’t create the energy level necessary to do so. Instead, we try to prove a theory mathematically, or we try to prove a theory by identifying quantum “side effects” predicted to occur if the original premise is correct. That’s pretty much the best we can do right now. ---
**Author:** ![Corner\_Case](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/corner_case/32/234_2.png) [@Corner\_Case](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corner_Case)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/19 "2018-05-17T18:06:30Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > [Because if there were nothing we wouldn’t be around to notice it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) Similarly, if there was nothing, there wouldn’t be anything around to say there’s nothing. So there has to be something to ask why! You can’t have nothing, because that would be something that you had, so you have to be there to have it! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/20 "2018-05-17T18:12:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe that thread is so old it happened before the big bang. 😉 The Firebug thinks I’m so old, _I_ must predate the Big Bang. 🙂 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351.md?page=2)