# 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:** 18\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/81 "2018-05-18T21:38:57Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > Well, according to the Big Bang Theory, our universe did not exist until a virtually infinite amount of energy exploded and spread out which, by definition, would mean that the universe was measurable early on and suggests that, somewhere WAY out there, the universe is growing as it is spreading. The only argument I can see to that is to declare that the universe existed as the singularity from which everything emerged. > > So, if our universe ever starts to contract, it will cease to exist anywhere outside of the matter and energy that define what it is. Our universe, theoretically, will grow smaller and smaller until, finally, it collapses into a singularity the way a Black Hole collapses. Not one of the better episodes in terms of resolution. Nice dilemma, though. My point was around the anthropic principle, and was similar to asking inhabitants of lifeless planets about why their planet does not support life. That the universe began as a singularity is not at question. Why the singularity is. There are two options. First, the singularity could come from something like a black hole in a containing universe. Maybe we’re the result of a lab project by a grad student in a very advanced civilization. Second, we came from nothing, possible if the net energy in our universe is zero. In the first case you can maybe find out why (to get an A) in the second the question is not meaningful. But we don’t and can’t know what’s on the other side of the singularity, so the question is moot. ---
**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 18, 2018, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/82 "2018-05-18T21:51:05Z")
> [@epolo](#): > > Next, I contend that if there is a universe then it’s either empty or non-empty. In the absence of any evidence that it’s biased one way or the other, it sounds like it should then be a coin flip - 50/50 - which one we get. But since there are infinitely many more ways to be non-empty than there are to be empty, it starts to seem more plausible and in fact likely that we should have something. This is very, very, very much _not_ how probability works. Given X number of options, you cannot assume that all options are equally likely. Cases where they are equally likely tend to be specifically engineered to make them so: sides of an equally balanced disc, sides of an evenly balanced cube, evenly-sized red-and-black (and green) arcs on a spinning wheel… So we can’t assume that all theoretically possible universes are equally likely - actually we can’t even assume that they’re, well, _possible_. It might be the case that there’s something about the meta-universe that abhors a vacuum. Or it might be the case that there really are two equally likely possibilities: big bang vs no big bang, and all variant possible universes have to share the ‘big bang’ probability because they’re all just different ways a big bang can play out. Or perhaps determinism is hardcore and there’s only _one_ possible way a big bang came out. Perhaps there’s something about metaexistence that dictates that the current universe is the _only_ possible outcome, 100% certain. Really, the only thing we know for sure is that our universe exists, which means that there’s a greater-than-zero chance that a universe like ours could exist. Assumptions about the likelihood of any other outcome, including nothingness, are pure speculation. (Absent additional data, which I’m pretty sure we don’t have.) ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/83 "2018-05-18T22:03:16Z")
Because if there was nothing then you would not be here to ask the question, “Why is there nothing?” ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/84 "2018-05-18T22:03:23Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > All that’s saying is that we know the prevailing state of affairs is that there is something rather than nothing. That has never been in dispute. The question is why that state of affairs has arisen, when it seems that “nothing” is also a logical possibility (a feature of which hypothetical state of affairs would indeed be that nobody would be asking any questions). Yes, I’m quite aware of the question. I’m saying “because that’s impossible, and here’s why.” The easy temptation is to say that “something” was a fluke which occurred for reasons that can only be described in terms of the divine. Or else, that it was a 50/50 toss up and “something” won. But it’s not a probability problem; it’s the ultimate non-starter. In order for “nothing” to be, there has to be a universe within which it can be defined, otherwise there is no nothing. The closest you can get is a chaotic mass of unformed energy, which will inevitably begin to organize itself. Energy attracts or repels other energy, and mass amounts of attraction inevitably lead to compaction which forms energy into matter. So the question “Why is there matter?” is addressable. But “Why isn’t there nothing?” is right up there with “What’s one divided by zero?” in the simply unanswerable category. ---
**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 18, 2018, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/85 "2018-05-18T22:08:25Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > Yes, I’m quite aware of the question. I’m saying “because that’s impossible, and here’s why.” > > The easy temptation is to say that “something” was a fluke which occurred for reasons that can only be described in terms of the divine. Or else, that it was a 50/50 toss up and “something” won. But it’s not a probability problem; it’s the ultimate non-starter. In order for “nothing” to be, there has to be a universe within which it can be defined, otherwise there is no nothing. > > The closest you can get is a chaotic mass of unformed energy, which will inevitably begin to organize itself. Energy attracts or repels other energy, and mass amounts of attraction inevitably lead to compaction which forms energy into matter. > > So the question is “Why is there matter?” is addressable. But “Why isn’t there nothing?” is right up there with “What’s one divided by zero?” in the simply unanswerable category. It’s possible for there to be more or less energy, right? Different amounts of energy are possible? Same thing goes for matter, right? Then no energy is possible. And no matter. No energy + no matter = nothing. Well, probably - unless we actually see a region of no energy/matter, then we can’t be absolutely certain it’s possible. But there’s no particular reason to assume it isn’t possible, either, just because of…whatever your argument was. (Note: I’m aware we can be sure there actually is something, because we’re it. I’m talking theoretically.) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/86 "2018-05-18T22:17:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s possible for there to be more or less energy, right? Different amounts of energy are possible? Same thing goes for matter, right? Not really, as the net energy of the universe is 0. ---
**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 18, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/87 "2018-05-18T22:27:03Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not really, as the net energy of the universe is 0. Ain’t that still just a hypothesis? Either way, if the net matter/energy of the universe _is_ zero, I’m not sure how that would contraindicate empty universes being possible. All it would require would be for everything to cancel out. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/88 "2018-05-18T22:32:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not really, as the net energy of the universe is 0. Oh, yes and donkeys are spherical. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/89 "2018-05-19T00:05:07Z")
A small note: NULL is a weird construct in databases, or at least it is on SQL Server. You can’t do a straight compare of something to NULL, as in “IF X = NULL”. You have to instead say “IF X IS NULL”. NULL = NULL is always false, which leads to big nerd fights: [Why does NULL = NULL evaluate to false in SQL server - Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1843451/why-does-null-null-evaluate-to-false-in-sql-server) ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/90 "2018-05-19T00:41:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s possible for there to be more or less energy, right? Different amounts of energy are possible? Same thing goes for matter, right? > > Then no energy is possible. And no matter. No energy + no matter = nothing. > > Well, probably - unless we actually see a region of no energy/matter, then we can’t be absolutely certain it’s possible. But there’s no particular reason to assume it isn’t possible, either, just because of…whatever your argument was. > (Note: I’m aware we can be sure there actually is something, because we’re it. I’m talking theoretically.) No. Because in order for there to _be_ even the most infinitesimal of energetic sparks, there must be a _where_ for it to be. The same constraint does not fall on “none.” ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/91 "2018-05-19T01:19:54Z")
There has to be something, or there would be nothing and no one to experience it. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/92 "2018-05-19T07:54:24Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > It appears I’m the only Tegmark fan here. Let me try to expound. This is my argument, not Tegmark’s. > > 1. Imagine a real Universe like ours, in which there are creatures who appear to be conscious. **Then they really are conscious**. Cogito ergo sum, if you will. Or “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…” Many philosophers would not be willing to grant this; however, I’m happy to go along with it—I believe that zombies are logically possible, since phenomenal facts are not robustly entailed by physical facts, but that they are metaphysically impossible. > [@](#): > > 1. Imagine the “paper design” of a universe like ours. Within the paper design there are creatures just like us. Within that paper design, those creatures “think they are conscious.” So they are! Cogito ergo sum. This, however, seems clearly wrong to me: marks on paper aren’t the things they can be interpreted as being. For one, different ‘readers’ may interpret the same marks differently: where you write ‘dog’ to mean dog, another might take it to mean cat—with exactly the same justification, since meanings are conventional. (In fact, this is an instance of Newman’s problem: the structure—i.e. the set of relations—of a domain only suffices to fix the domain’s cardinality, i.e. the question of how many objects there are. Ultimately, this is a major problem for every structural realist proposal, such as Tegmark’s.) > [@](#): > > 1. Now suppose that that paper design doesn’t exist on any paper. It still “exists” though, if only in the mind of a hypothetical Being capable of comprehending all of mathematics. But no such Being or God need be postulated — mathematics is sufficient unto itself. (The Monster Group “exists” whether or not one finds it in nature.) This requires a commitment to mathematical platonism; but to me, mathematics is the science of abstract structure, and it is only as realized in concrete objects that structures exist (otherwise, one runs into the problem what it means for a relation to exist, without things being thus related). So the monster group exists as a particular configuration within our minds, or as something a particular set of signs can be interpreted as, but it has no further existence beyond that—indeed, postulating its independent existence simply is unnecessary, adding ontological baggage and introducing new problems, such as how our minds make contact with the abstractly existing monster group. > [@](#): > > 1. Consider a hypothetical universe similar to ours, but with a fine structure constant of 137.036000 instead of 137.035999. If its axioms are consistent, it is as real as any paper design. Creatures who think they are conscious in that paper universe _are_ conscious. > Cogito ergo sum. > Quod erat demonstrandum. Never mind that ‘thinking to be conscious’ is ultimately a circular proposition: after all, what could think without being conscious? Or, if consciousness is an illusion, then who’s being fooled? Furthermore, one can easily write down inconsistent axioms, and nevertheless do [mathematics](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/) with them, appealing to a paraconsistent logical framework. Why should they be treated any differently? In any case, the general idea, which is something in the realm of what philosophers call ‘ontic structural realism’, I think has got some things going for it—most notably, an easy answer to the question of how one can be a realist about scientific theories, in particular when we must expect that most of these theories are, strictly speaking, simply false. I don’t think particularly highly of Tegmark’s version, but there are more fully developed ones out there, such as the Ladyman and French’s (which is best expounded in their book ‘_Every Thing must go_’). Ultimately, however, I think all versions fail due to the radical underdetermination due to Newman’s problem—if structural realism were true, then the only facts we could truly know are about how many things their are. I think that’s not at all in accord with what we really experience… (Of course, there are counterarguments. But I haven’t yet found any really convincing.) ---
**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 19, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/93 "2018-05-19T16:54:32Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > There has to be something, or there would be nothing and no one to experience it. If there was nothing to experience nothing, nothing wouldn’t care. (As an aside - I love it when sentences like this come together. :D) ---
**Author:** ![Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/regallag_the_axe/32/445_2.png) [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regallag_The_Axe)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/94 "2018-05-24T03:57:29Z")
In my opinion the **most useful** answer is also the **least satisfying** , at least to the type of people who are inclined to debate the question: There is no reason, it just is. Get out there and enjoy it. Unless you enjoy debating it, in which case, carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Marcus\_Flavius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@Marcus\_Flavius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus_Flavius)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/95 "2018-05-24T04:22:54Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > 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. It is true that “something” cannot come from “nothing,” in the absolute sense of those terms. So to my mind, the universe has always been here, in some form . ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/96 "2018-05-24T16:18:30Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > It is true that “something” cannot come from “nothing,” in the absolute sense of those terms. How do you know? Have you ever examined a “nothing” to see what it’s capable of? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/97 "2018-05-24T17:29:58Z")
I’m quite disappointed that no one has cued up the [obligatory sound track](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqyEHqEYho) yet. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351/98 "2018-05-24T19:21:33Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > It is true that “something” cannot come from “nothing,” in the absolute sense of those terms. So to my mind, the universe has always been here, in some form . Which doesn’t address the question. We’re not asking for a cause, necessarily, so much as a reason: even for an infinitely existing universe, the question ‘Why this?’ can be asked. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing/814351.md?page=4)