# Why is there something rather than nothing? Dumb question? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104 "2017-04-23T23:16:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/81 "2017-04-25T08:56:30Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You’d have no choice but to _believe what it is saying is true_, but that’s not quite the same thing. > . True I suppose, “have no choice” is too strong. However, I do feel a compulsion to at least attempt to be comfortable with things which I know to be true. Even if the book said “you are an insufferable moron Mike. Everybody hates you, you have a face like a Picasso, you smell like drain, everything you believe is stupid, offensive bollocks and you have four minutes to live.” I would at least make some effort to come to terms with this reality. It’s true that the opening lines you suggested would be rather more vague than I would like. If I ask a fortune teller what will happen to me in the future and they reply “something”, I will not necessarily be satisfied. I will however concede that they are probably correct. > [@Mijin](#): > > Ah but here’s the thing: ISTM equally bold to say it sprang from there being only one logical possibility. That there “just had to be” something, and reality somehow knew what something to be. To describe “something” as “one logical possibility” is IMO, to downplay the inclusiveness of the category “something.” I don’t claim that reality simply knew which something to be somehow. The question “why is there this something rather than another something?” is, I think, rather better than the one we are discussing. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/82 "2017-04-25T09:50:48Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > I don’t claim that reality simply knew which something to be somehow. The question “why is there this something rather than another something?” is, I think, rather better than the one we are discussing. That is a commonly voiced question in physics (popular physics at least), but it’s nothing like “why is there something at all?” Stop focussing on the “nothing” aspect of the question. We can’t conceive of nothing so it is not helpful to focus on it. Rephrase the question as “why is there existence?” Same question, but it doesn’t get bogged down in the alternative and our inability to conceive it. ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/83 "2017-04-25T10:17:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > Stop focussing on the “nothing” aspect of the question. I will not. That’s what this thread is about. If you don’t like the subject, feel free to raise tangential questions, or to start a new thread, but don’t tell me I’m not allowed to address the subject of my own thread. > [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > **We can’t conceive of nothing** so it is not helpful to focus on it. Rephrase the question as “why is there existence?” Same question, but it doesn’t get bogged down in the alternative and our inability to conceive it. “why is there existence?” is no better in my view. As I’ve said repeatedly, I think it’s circular. “There is something” is true always and everywhere. By your own admission, no scenario can be conceived of where it isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/84 "2017-04-25T13:54:42Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > I will not. That’s what this thread is about. If you don’t like the subject, feel free to raise tangential questions, or to start a new thread, but don’t tell me I’m not allowed to address the subject of my own thread. I really don’t think this snippiness is warranted. I tend to think RP’s comment was meant in a rhetorical sense, as in “perhaps there’s a better way to get at the issues here”. > [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > “why is there existence?” is no better in my view. As I’ve said repeatedly, I think it’s circular. “There is something” is true always and everywhere. By your own admission, no scenario can be conceived of where it isn’t true. You seem to feel that you have uncovered some kind of _logical_ flaw in the question itself, and I don’t think you are convincing anyone. It’s certainly not circular. What you have said here seems to amount to no more than a refusal to accept that hypotheticals are valid questions. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/85 "2017-04-25T14:11:46Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > So again, there are no laws, apart from the law of “something never comes from nothing?” > > How did we determine this law to be so much more fundamental than all other physical laws? > [@Riemann](#): > > …That does not follow from what I said at all. > [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > …The question of how any laws arose in a particular region is perfectly coherent to me. The question of how they arose never and nowhere is not. Ok, I think I understand the confusion here. My point was that Krauss’s “nothing” is clearly something where a set of physical laws exist; it is by following these laws that what he defines as “something” can arise. If Krauss is correct, it’s certainly extremely important physics, showing how the physical laws that we observe can arise from a much deeper more fundamental state. But, in principle, I don’t think it’s metaphysically any different from explaining how disease arises from unseen germs. Krauss’s deeper more fundamental state already _exists_, governed by physical laws, and therefore simply does not correspond to what the word “nothing” means in the question “why is there something rather than nothing”. > [@](#): > > In the New York Times, philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his misuse of the term nothing. Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, “Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called ‘the laws of physics,’ and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don’t see how they could.” > **[A Universe from Nothing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing)** > > A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012, by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is the claim that "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return t... ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/86 "2017-04-25T14:28:00Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > If the hypothetical book of perfect knowledge opened by saying “There was always something”, not only would I be comfortable with it, I would think it was tautological. Seems like I’m at least somewhat willing to accept hypothetical questions. The claim that I’m not convincing anyone (how do you know? I think maybe you’re projecting.) doesn’t trouble me much. Many times in my life I have been unable to convince people of demonstrably true things. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/87 "2017-04-25T14:30:17Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > _In the beginning, there were logical constraints. > And so there **just was** a universe. Because, think about it, we can’t really conceive of a nothing existing, right? So, there had to be something, by force of logic. And that something happened to be space-time mass-energy_ > > Not only are you comfortable with these lines, you think any discussion trying to go beyond that is inherently silly? I think it would then be a valid discussion to try to figure out WHY it HAD to be space-time mass-energy. But I’m OK with all but the last sentence from your book. There has to be something. What we don’t know is why we have this something as opposed to a different something, and that’s the main goal of fundamental physics to figure out. Let’s remember, we’re talking about the creationist types making an assertion that “something can’t come from nothing.” I think that dead horse is not coming back to life, right? Is there anyone who can try to support that assertion? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/88 "2017-04-25T14:32:19Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > …The claim that I’m not convincing anyone (how do you know? I think maybe you’re projecting.) doesn’t trouble me much. Many times in my life I have been unable to convince people of demonstrably true things. Perhaps, in a debate, you should take thinks less literally and personally, and more rhetorically? My point was that _I_ don’t think you have made your case that there’s a _logical_ contradiction in the question; and an invitation to try to convince me that there is. ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/89 "2017-04-25T14:34:18Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If Krauss is correct, it’s certainly extremely important physics, showing how the physical laws that we observe can arise from a much deeper more fundamental state. But, in principle, I don’t think it’s metaphysically any different from explaining how disease arises from unseen germs. Krauss’s deeper more fundamental state already _exists_, governed by physical laws, and therefore simply does not correspond to what the word “nothing” means in the question “why is there something rather than nothing”. > [A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing) I think we are still talking past one another here. I am not claiming that Krauss’s nothing really is absolute nothing. Again, I don’t think absolute nothing is a meaningful concept. If you look back towards the start of the thread, you’ll see a few people posted links to articles by physicists and philosophers explaining why they think this as well. That’s not an appeal to authority, I just think they probably explain it far better than I can. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/90 "2017-04-25T14:38:43Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > Seems like I’m at least somewhat willing to accept hypothetical questions… Then your argument that “why is there existence?” is invalid \*because it involves a hypothetical \*does not hold water, does it? ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/91 "2017-04-25T14:47:38Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Perhaps, in a debate, you should take thinks less literally and personally, and more rhetorically? My point was that _I_ don’t think you have made your case that there’s a _logical_ contradiction in the question; and an invitation to try to convince me that there is. I’m not sure how I was supposed to know that “you aren’t convincing anyone” meant “you aren’t convincing me.” but thanks for the clarification as to your meaning. To be honest, I’m not sure what angle to approach convincing you from. I’ve made a few attempts at analogies, rephrasing the questions/statements to highlight the problem etc. Perhaps if you go into more detail about where you think I’m mistaken we could make more progress. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/92 "2017-04-25T14:54:47Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > “why is there existence?” is no better in my view. As I’ve said repeatedly, I think it’s circular. “There is something” is true always and everywhere. By your own admission, no scenario can be conceived of where it isn’t true. Why is “there is something” have to be true always and everywhere? We know there is something because we experience it, but why _must_ there be something? My point about what is conceivable and what is not is that this is a failure of our brains, not a reflection on what is true. We can not conceive of the nothingness of death, yet it happens, or at least we have no reason to think it doesn’t. Just because we can’t comprehend the idea of no existence does not make it an invalid concept. ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/93 "2017-04-25T14:55:03Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Then your argument that “why is there existence?” is invalid \*because it involves a hypothetical \*does not hold water, does it? I don’t think I ever made that argument. The question “what if there was no cheese” is a hypothetical one, and makes perfect sense because cheese is a thing which can be present or absent. “Something” is not. “Something” is too large a category to be meaningful in this context. Whatever is, is something. ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/94 "2017-04-25T15:02:42Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > Why is “there is something” have to be true always and everywhere? We know there is something because we experience it, but why _must_ there be something? My point about what is conceivable and what is not is that this is a failure of our brains, not a reflection on what is true. We can not conceive of the nothingness of death, yet it happens, or at least we have no reason to think it doesn’t. Just because we can’t comprehend the idea of no existence does not make it an invalid concept. I never claimed that non-existence was an invalid concept. Just that it has to be applied to something which might otherwise exist. When I die, it will be me who does not exist. If you say that all things do not exist, including space and time etc, then the concept of existing/not existing vanishes. Again, how does this state of complete non-existence differ from the current situation in Narnia, or Mordor? How could we usefully distinguish the two types of non-existence? Edit: To clarify (optimistic, I know.) is the nothing before the universe physically separate from the nothing in Narnia? Are they occurring simultaneously? In the same location? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/95 "2017-04-25T15:02:43Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Let’s remember, we’re talking about the creationist types making an assertion that “something can’t come from nothing.” I think that dead horse is not coming back to life, right? Is there anyone who can try to support that assertion? I’m no Creationist; I think I already mentioned I’m an atheist. But I’m not prepared to handwave problems just because some people feel they might give theists an “in”. You get the same problem with consciousness; where some people feel that any acknowledgement of significant aspects of consciousness that we don’t understand must be saying “Proof of souls!!1!” For the problem of “something” and “nothing”, my opinion is that there is an explanatory gap there. And nothing humans have said so far has bridged that gap, certainly not “god dunnit!”, which just adds a turtle, and raises many more questions. But taking a step back, there’s no need to belabor this point, since everyone, including the OP, seems to agree “Why does _this_ something exist, and not something else?” is a meaningful and unsolved metaphysical question. While the OP is determined to make a distinction between these two questions, I frankly don’t care about that distinction, because in my opinion you solve one of those questions, you solve them both. So an acknowledgement that at least one of the two questions “Why does anything exist?” and “Why does _this_ something exist?” is a worthy question to ask, is absolutely sufficient for me. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/96 "2017-04-25T15:18:47Z")
> [@Mikeisskeptical](#): > > I never claimed that non-existence was an invalid concept. Just that it has to be applied to something which might otherwise exist. When I die, it will be me who does not exist. If you say that all things do not exist, including space and time etc, then the concept of existing/not existing vanishes. When you die, from your perspective, the entire universe will cease to exist. For you, it will be the exact same nothingness that you seem to have a problem with. My concept of non-existence includes space and time etc and yes the concept of existing/not existing would also not exist. Why is this a problem? > [@](#): > > Again, how does this state of complete non-existence differ from the current situation in Narnia, or Mordor? How could we usefully distinguish the two types of non-existence? Narnia and Mordor exist on paper, on film, and in the imaginations and memories of people. The type of non-existence postulated as an alternative to this universe would be true nothingness. No space, no time, no laws of physics, nothing. Going back to your OP, it seems to hinge on language. How can there _be_ nothing when to _be_ implies that nothing is a thing. That is just a failure of language to adequately cope with the concept of nothingness. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/97 "2017-04-25T15:32:21Z")
What is your basis for distinguishing between counterfactual hypotheticals that are valid/invalid. “What if no cheese” is something that we _have_ experienced at least temporarily, so that’s not really counterfactual in quite the same way. But “what if no Hitler” is counterfactual. There _was_ a Hitler. Do you think a hypothetical that imagines “no Hitler” is more valid than a hypothetical that imagines nothing at all? Does it hinge on any criterion that is more objective than whether somebody feels that they are capable of imagining it? ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/98 "2017-04-25T15:34:21Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > But taking a step back, there’s no need to belabor this point, since everyone, including the OP, seems to agree “Why does _this_ something exist, and not something else?” is a meaningful and unsolved metaphysical question. > While the OP is determined to make a distinction between these two questions, I frankly don’t care about that distinction, because in my opinion you solve one of those questions, you solve them both. So an acknowledgement that at least one of the two questions “Why does anything exist?” and “Why does _this_ something exist?” is a worthy question to ask, is absolutely sufficient for me. I understand that the issue is now settled for you. I’d just like to have one more attempt at explaining why I differentiate those to questions. The second one is (I hope) not something that can be “answered”, it encapsulates the entire endeavour of science and philosophy. To continually explore and understand more deeply and also more broadly, in finer detail and with clearer perspective. With no end goal in sight. The first is (for the reasons I have apparently failed to sufficiently elucidate) a dead end. A convenient, man-made gap to hide a God in. There is no way to approach it and so he need never be disturbed there. ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/99 "2017-04-25T15:46:31Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > When you die, from your perspective, the entire universe will cease to exist. For you, it will be the exact same nothingness that you seem to have a problem with. You say “from my perspective” and “for me”. There will be no me so what can you possibly mean by this? Did I have a perspective before I was born? > [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > Narnia and Mordor exist on paper, on film, and in the imaginations and memories of people. The type of non-existence postulated as an alternative to this universe would be true nothingness. No space, no time, no laws of physics, nothing. The concepts of those places exist in peoples minds. Depictions of them exist on paper and on film. I’m not talking about the concept, or depictions, I’m talking about the places themselves. The ones that don’t exist. What boundary, physical or conceptual, separates them from any other hypothetical state of non-existence? Or are they one and the same? ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104/100 "2017-04-25T16:01:43Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > What is your basis for distinguishing between counterfactual hypotheticals that are valid/invalid. > > “What if no cheese” is something that we _have_ experienced at least temporarily, so that’s not really counterfactual in quite the same way. > > But “what if no Hitler” is counterfactual. There _was_ a Hitler. Do you think a hypothetical that imagines “no Hitler” is more valid than a hypothetical that imagines nothing at all? Does it hinge on any criterion that is more objective than whether somebody feels that they are capable of imagining it? I wasn’t clear. When I said “what if there was no cheese?” I was imagining no cheese anywhere at all, ever, so I don’t make a relevant distinction between that and the “what if no Hitler?” counterfactual. This is why I keep going back to the concept of “nothing” in spite of protestations that I should not. It really is the only concept about which the sentiment “there is X” can not be meaningfully said. It’s not a feature of the English language, it’s a feature of the concept. The concept “Hitler” refers to a thing, the concept “cheese” refers to a thing, the concept “ambiguity” refers to a thing, even if that thing is entirely abstract. The concept “nothing”, no matter how you phrase it, no matter what language you use, cannot refer to it’s conceptual opposite. Postulating superior minds with superior imaginations doesn’t help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-dumb-question/785104.md?page=6)