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.
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.)
Because if there was nothing then you would not be here to ask the question, “Why is there nothing?”
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.
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.)
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.
Oh, yes and donkeys are spherical.
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
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.”
There has to be something, or there would be nothing and no one to experience it.
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.
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.)
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.
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 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.)
If there was nothing to experience nothing, nothing wouldn’t care.
(As an aside - I love it when sentences like this come together. :D)
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.
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 .
How do you know? Have you ever examined a “nothing” to see what it’s capable of?
I’m quite disappointed that no one has cued up the obligatory sound track yet.
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.