Why Anything At All II? | ENCORE Episode 1907 | Closer To Truth
Why is there anything at all? It’s the ultimate puzzle. It’s the haunting question. Why is there “something” rather than “nothing”? It seems impenetrable, uncrackable, unfathomable. But are there ways? Featuring interviews with Tim Maudlin, Mario Livio, George F. R. Ellis, and David Bentley Hart.
An encore screening of Season 19, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Existence #Reality
WOW! This is the best episode, of the best series, ever! I want to thank you Robert for your work and your rigorous thinking and persistence, and thanks to the participants in this episode for their brilliant input!
I think about this all too much, and I have come to the conclusion that there must have always been "something". True "nothing" would have no driving forces capable of bringing the something into existence. Even if something was placed into a nothing, that still is a something - taking an action. I mean, lets face it - which ever the answer is, and it has to be one of them, its mind blowing. If something always was, then we now have the real manifestation of actual infinity... and does it apply to size as well? If not, does actual nothing exist at the boundary?
Just to add one extra bit to this - the idea of something from nothing is just as uncomfortable and bizarre to me as a something that always was - an existence without creation. Maybe "why anything" is the wrong question. Maybe it should be "how".
I literally think about this all the time
same :)
That Question Has Been Resolved Eons Ago If You Study Specific Areas of Intellectual History
@@kentheengineer592 what works would you recommend?
What a great episode! Thank you!
This was such a great episode! It’s funny, I had come up with nearly the exact same hypothesis of Mario’s last night, before I watched this! Flawed, obviously, but wow - each guest was super interesting to listen to. Your interview/debate-style is what makes this program so informative and valuable. I’ve learned so much - thank you!
Amazing episode! Keep at it Robo!
If the universe had a beginning, wouldn't there have been a time, before the beginning,when there was nothing. What existed before the beginning. That was another episode
Thank you as always!
That was so splendid, thank you the privilege.
Thanks for the video, very interesting and in a nice place
The best KZhead Channel... My favourite channel 👍🍀✨
Love his answers
I love you Robert
Congratulations 500k subscribers.
That’s the question that kept me up as a kid at night.
The best answer here is: "I do not know the answer of it." But let us propose a dimension beyond human mind where reality does not require an answer within the limited logic of human mind. It means being "out of the box" rather than just thinking "out of the box".
When I think of the nature of time and how I think about it, I can easily imagine time infinitely moving forward from my present moment and never ending. But I find it peculiar and odd that when I attempt to imagine time as never beginning ... my mind just can't comprehend no beginning to time. Not only that, my mind cannot grasp that time might have had a beginning - because there must have been some time before that. I think our ability to rationalize may hinder us from understanding certain truths - for example, that time itself may not even exist in the way we rationalize it does.
@@jamenta2 What's more incomprehensible is that of all the infinite time before me, and all the infinite space around me, I could not manage to avoid bumping into my ex. Granted, there are some mass and density characteristics that increase the odds of that, but still...
That Ontological argument for God ... very powerful and rational by David Hart. Now what kind of God - that's a different bowl of beans in itself. It's interesting David mentions the nature of consciousness - which does seem to be a critical question to ask regarding the nature of who we are, and if there is any "spirituality" at all.
Absolute Kindness and patience or nothing at all. Simple.
Get over yourself, your non sequiturs are meaningless in this context.
Yes but Cruel to be kind won't work for IF it does not Come in naturally ? then it is being Faked as normalcy it is today. all will notice its Flaws for Human all way's used to except it but by coming Naturally no other way. Faking it does not cary its full package unless we are all machines.
I love the question as well
11:50 i love this answer from George
The problem with this question is that it asks for just one single cause. In reality there is infinity of reasons for the universe to exist and it is only our limited understanding that stands on the way of enlightenment. When your ego dies, everything becomes clear. That's how I see it.
Great episode, I have given this much thought over time. And the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that true 'nothingness' simply cannot exist, because reality is simply reliant upon it, a string of contigencies have to end at some point at which you come to the true absolute of everything. The question in itself does not make sense, true nothingness is simply a human construct that cannot exist (in physical reality). Simply by imaging 'true nothingess' you are invoking the fact that something has to exist to percive this 'true nothingness'. As to the physicists that exclaim that something that is the absolute of everything cannot exist, or claim that the absolute of everything is quantum mechanics or whatever theory they propose would that not also claim that this set of rules and its mathmatical reality, in fact is the true nature of God the creator of everything?
The only thing that makes any sense to me is… non existence is just not possible, it’s not a thing, never has been and never will be. If there is existence, which there is, because we are here, ‘non existence’ doesn’t mean anything. Existence doesn’t have an opposite. That’s why the question is so baffling, existence in itself requires non existence to be completely non sensical.
Well that depends on how you define nonexistence. At face value I agree, but I have theories that break things into two "universes". One is our kinetic reality which is infinite and linear and the other is an infinitely expanding pool of data. That data set is paradoxically at equilibrium despite expanding. Meaning it has no transference within it. It expands because our kinetic world arranges the data in various ways thus creating new data and thus the pool expands as we move thru linear time. Basically we use that data in our kinetic reality, but being the infinite expanding pool of data is at equilibrium it can be seen as non existent in a practical way.
Doesn't really answer anything though as non existence would require existence to be equally impossible, it works both ways, so I still wonder why it turned out to be existence rather than the other way around. Brute fact is probably the unsatisfying answer.
@@jayrob5270 the satisfying answer for me is this: there are two possible extremes: either nothing exists, or everything exists. Being conscious... We can skip ahead to the answer: everything exists. But why? Imagine this: a universe with exactly nothing in it. Non-existence proper. In this nothingness... Is there anything that is "true"? I would argue that even in this "empty universe" there exists a kind of "cosmic mathematics".. ie 2+2=4, a^2+b^2=c^2. Even though there are no physical objects in this universe, this "cosmic mathematics", (which does not rely on any conscious observer to exist) still exists IN THEORY. When I talk about "cosmic mathematics" I am referring to the part of mathematics that is discovered rather than invented. If you accept the existence of this "cosmic mathematics", everything else in our physical universe can be "explained" by it. By "explain" I mean: whenever we try to explain something, we try to describe its structure in more and more basic building blocks. But, this "cosmic mathematics", this "potential for true statements to exist", is the one "thing" that does not require further explanation. The implications of this worldview is: our physical universe is simple one universe on an infinite "numberline" of universes that exist inside this purely theoretical "cosmic mathematics". Therefore, our universe needs no further explanation than the number 231. Does the number 231 exist? If so, then our universe can exist with the same justification, albeit, our universe is a mathematical structure infinitely more complex than a simple integer.
@@jayrob5270 exactly, non existence requires, existence, But existence doesn’t and cannot include non existence.
Yeah, well said! It's kind of a side effect of how humans categorize things with language in everyday life i think. It makes sense to our problem solving and practical minds to think that a snake is not a worm because it aids our chances of survival, but when we try to apply this kind of reasoning onto the universe or existence at large we kind of run into conceptual issues which we think are philosophical problems. It's a problem our messy language created but we project this problem onto the universe.
Defining nonexistence is what matters. I have theories that break things into two "universes". One is our kinetic reality which is infinite and linear and the other is an infinitely expanding pool of data. That data set is paradoxically at equilibrium despite expanding. Meaning it has no transference within it. It expands because our kinetic world arranges the data in various ways thus creating new data and thus the pool expands as we move thru linear time. Basically we use that data in our kinetic reality, but being the infinite expanding pool of data is at equilibrium it can be seen as non existent in a practical way.
He has been asking this question since l have been watching this show for 4 years.
He's been doing this show since the late 1990s. Twenty years, not four. And he hasn't gotten an answer. So I would hope he keeps asking it!
@@em.1633 how long has he been on KZhead? I've been here 4 years
@@redhammer1917this channel was created in 2013 according to the yt indicator on their profile
There IS an answer to the question, whether or not we can get to it is another question entirely...
Existence: "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam."
I think the answer can be found in Tim Maudlin's words on how he said, that the total energy of the universe is zero. Zero is another way of saying nothing, having zero "something's" is the same as having "no-thing's" but there are still so many questions left unanswered for me, but I feel that this realization is one step closer to understanding "nothingness" I'm still wondering what is this manifold that matter moves through? why does it act as a harmonic oscillator.. why does it have the properties it does, is it so that it is able to reach zero energy again? why wasn't it just at zero energy in the first place? why didn't spacetime just not fluctuate at all? maybe because it is illogical to ask, why did "something" do "nothing"? perhaps it is erroneous, irrational, a sort of philosophical paradox made manifest in our reality..
I agree ... the closer to finding the answer to the question 'why is there anything at all' has to have, as its first major premise, the total energy of the universe is zero. If as is suggested that the ultimate contingency need terminate in something that is ultimately a Necessity ~ a creator, a boson, a kind of seed that that juxtaposed gravity against expansion.
As the first person interviewed suggested, the answer to the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing? is to be found in understanding language. Specifically, the universe is not just another thing in the universe. So if you talk about it and ask questions about it as if it were, you will find yourself in a muddled state of confusion.
As far as science is concerned the question is how not why.
And this is the argument that something beyond physics must exist.
We need a young "Albert Einstein", but perhaps even he or she could never answer this question. Nothing in our current physics can give us an answer. Any direction we look, the questions are still "Where did it all start? Why, when, and how?", and any possible answer creates more questions...and always will. I suspect that from our limited perspective we have no way of knowing...that there is a reality far beyond our knowledge and abilities that we may never know. Like another universe that will never interact with ours, (were another to exist), we will never be able to see or detect this other reality even though it surrounds us and brings about everything we do see. I also suspect that if we could detect and understand this unseeable reality, everything would come into focus and make perfect sense. We are like an amoeba in the ocean. We give ourselves far too much credit for "knowing".
To god
Donald Hoffman suggests we can only see the universe through our space time headset, so the questions we ask can only come from that point of view. So it is true these are probably not the correct questions to ask. But everything we see appears to evolve so the pre-universe was probably something we cannot comprehend evolving to something we cannot comprehend now. Just as our questions evolve until we can ask the question in the correct framework, so keep asking!
I got a copy of Lawrence Kuhn's book on this subject. I started to read it a couple of weeks ago. I had it lying on my bed, but then it just disappeared. I've been looking for it for days now, and I can't find it anywhere. It's the weirdest thing.
His book was answering the question why there was something rather than nothing
Sam H / Yes, but you forget that Lawrence's book is written in digital format, and he wrote the program containing the digital book specifically to degrade itself into the micro direction at the maximum speed the software program and the present hardware can allow. At some point the digital book got so infinitesimally small that its influence, at that infinitesimally size and under it, doesn't affect at all anymore the size of the realm in which you're living now. Exactly at that point Lawrence's digital book disappeared completely for you; therefore, under that real infinitesimally point Laurence's material "digital book" never ever matters causally at all for your current living realm. That's exactly the real CAUSAL limit for which it DOESN'T "EXIST" for "YOUR SIZE" anymore. That's the limit at which and under which "NOTHING" exists for you.😏🤔
Such a great, hilarious comment!
@ Sam D O P ......Disappearing Object Phenomenon. It's real ! !
Something like that happened to Steven Wright one time. He lost one of his socks. So he called _Information_ and asked where it was. The operator told him it was behind the sofa and according to Steven she was right.
Your anxiety reveals one of the negative effects of trying to know absolute truth: you lose enjoying life’s joys. Santayana may help you here: causes are not as important as the good things that come from those causes. If the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" or "What is Being" as Heidegger (like you) was obsessed to ask, should be answered, my choice would be: In the realm of infinite possibilities, being this universe with these physical laws is just one possibility. As Santayana said in Realms of Being (1942): ‘In a contingent world necessity is a conspiracy of accidents.’ Which means: even if you say that these laws of our universe are necessary, this necessity would be an accident, a contingent fact, a contingent possibility among other infinite ones the realm of infinite possibilities contains. Santayana mentioned Leibniz for the idea of the realm of essence. Santayana writes (Soliloquies in England, 1922): “This realm is no discovery of mine; it has been described, for instance, by Leibniz in two different ways; once as the collection of all possible worlds, and again as the abyss of non-existence: ‘The non-existent . . . is infinite, it is eternal, it has a great many of the attributes of God; it contains an infinity of things, since all those things which do not exist at all are included in the non-existent, and those which no longer exist have returned to the nonexistent.’”
as soon as you even think about nothing it becomes something!
I've found something that satisfied my own hunger for an answer to this. For now :-) - There are only one way there could be nothing, but infinite ways to be something - Something can't come from nothing, so there has never been nothing - If time is infinite and necesseary, then anything that can happen will eventually happen
Also, If time is infinite but the configurations of matter are FINITE - i.e constrained by physical laws - then anything that can happen will eventually happen and repeat for eternity.
@@HebiNoMe exactly, so if that is the case, we get a do-over at some point in the future 😀 Actually we are then already in a do-over 🤔😏
Rambling gibberish
I disagree with your last point. You will never escape taxes or Famer's Insurance commercials.
@@HebiNoMe I agree with the premise that anything that can happen will eventually happen, but I don't know that it implies repetition of such actions. In order for repetition to occur, we would have to be able to return to the original state that set it in motion in the first place. At least from our current understanding of the universe, entropy makes this seemingly impossible.
Life only makes sense when your distracted. The moment you looking into it you get that Eddie bravo face...
It just is!
Believe me, I know. I am a figment of my own imagination. You have absolutely no idea how interesting this is.
I remember as a kid considering nothing. And I thought if nothing exists, if I can say there IS nothing than it has to be something. And if that were the case, then something could be nothing, because it is the non existence of nothing which is something. Therefore nothing is something, and something is nothing.
I'm waiting for a pile of gold to appear out of nothing in my living room.
Conscious choice. Surrendering your body to your mind while you walk in kind and patient presence.
"Nothing" makes no sense without there being something.
Nothing cannot be detected.
I'm convinced the guy with the beard is a wizard! He needs to sit at the table of the wise :) Just kidding - his logic had me intrigued. More from him :)
Which requires more contingency and necessity, existence of something (anything) or nothing?
Wow this gentleman is the one!😁👨🏫
Is nothing really nothing as it's thought of? Interesting to look at some Eastern thought. Everything contains its exact opposite also. Can't have something without nothing, and can't have nothing without some aspect of something. Is the something in nothing potentiality, that can give rise to something further along the chain of causality?
The purpose of language is to discriminate, so to identify something as 'x' you have to do so in contradiction to 'non-x'.
There is always something or something else. Nothing is not opposite of something. Just something else.
This doesn’t make sense sir.
Asking this question again and again and again...will lead to what ? Shouldn't the nature of " the truth " be tht it cannot be questioned ? If it the brute fact / Truth is tht there is always something...and tht "something" is unlike anything...i.e it can NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED🙏🏼
Love David Hart’s analysis. One thing bothers me that is not talked about is the underlying assumption of logic as the path to the truth. David comes the closest to even stripping that away from the non-contingent foundational cause, but the assumption of a logical explanation for a pre-existing or eternally existing cause agent is still present even if not verbalized. Can logic ever explain why something has always existed, that is non-contingent by looking for the attribute of necessity?
The philosopher crushed the interviewer…and he had no idea
"nothing" has a context, that is a frame or tableau in which there is nothing in contradistinction to something or things you can't have nothing without something, you might better ask, why can't you have "meaning' without antithesis so you start to end up with asking "what is meaning" and i think its some sort of coherence arising from an associative flux, without a certain level of coherence being reached it falls away into nothing, with more coherence it becomes something you can play circular word games forever and i feel that the circular word game is the foundation of everything, there's no base, just various fluxes that necessarily occur in absence
gravity inverse cubed works analogously in a 4 dimensional space. But even in a 3 or 5 dimensional space it's fine as long as you don't expect the flux to be constant. The underlying existence of a 3 dimensional space seems inherently assumed in this conversation (laws of nature would be the same, etc) but it isn't even clear that dimensions exist or have clear meaning outside of our minds. The same goes for mathematics being a "universal truth". Mathematics is just a description of how our minds/brains work, and so we interpret the "physical" or "real" world accordingly, and that's the reason why the physical world seems mathematical.
Feelings. Why feelings.
Why are there laws - because they could be - "could be" - " can be " - "freedom " ( that's the foundation) Existence , freedom this is the nature of most fundamental truths
I think I know some answer and this answer is a straight forward logical thinking.. with some deep pondering ..we just have to flip over somehow our way of thinking to consider which is opposite to our long settled concepts. We think that before the universe and everything there was nothingness .. which is a very big mistake that misled our thinking . Absolute Nothingness has never existed and can never ever exist. Because it is merely a hypothesis like absolute zero So, logically there is existence before each existence and beside and around each existence..with no gaps at all .. Existence is non stop non ending non starting .. massive inclusive .. no others with him at all.. no excluding.. .. otherwise there would exist a nothingness which is totally impossiple . Absolute nothingness is the opposite of existence it is an imaginary absolute zero . You can not ask absolute true existence who gave you existence. ! . Absolute true Existence is one...is complete oneness And is belongs to Allah ..Almighty God. All matter and the whole universe are drawings materialized in our conceptions With very precise marvelous astonishing beyond our mind continuous developing creative expansion with highly precise synchronization.. Even matter sensing is an effect of waves and energies . I think..the secret of the universe is non stop creativity even our mistakes are paths leading to new creativities. So, we have to flip our minds over to accept that absolute true existence is the origin non stop .. before, with and after everything .. no start no end..
"We think that before the universe and everything there was nothingness" Who is this all encompassing we you have the temerity to speak for? Speak for your simple-minded self! And prove this absolute conclusion, "Absolute Nothingness has never existed and can never ever exists". You can't. Take your mythical fantasy Allah (god) & stick tit where the sun don't shine, inside your empty skull.
Surely, the question should be "how is there anything at all?".
Man can't bear the pain of surrendering to kindness and patience cause they think they will perish. You can't evade the promise of life of kind and patient conscious love.
Sometimes I think the language we use is not appropriate for the concepts under discussion. The word 'something' is easy enough to understand. I would argue that nothing is a type of something. If I say nothing is devoid of everything even this is something. Maybe nothing has no meaning when discussing these concepts.
I was thinking about it a lot. I guess we ask a wrong question. My mind understand there must be something or nothing. It is possible that there exists something between. Something that contradicts our logic. Similar situation as in case people from 2D world can't imagine 3D dimension.
Existence is a state of being as one in a way of being a superposition. Reality is a state of being as two in a way that is physical and non physical, in a way that the real and the unreal cross over in a way of being alive. Therefore, nothing is within and everything is without in a way that something straddles the in-between in a way of being experiencing. Humanity are with a sense of being nothing (insignificant) without realising that they are a part of everything, in a way that their experience is without light. This then lends itself to evil (that which moves backwards against the flow of creation (truth) in a way that is with death (lies).
the answer seems very self evident the reason why there is something as oppose to nothing is because nothing isn't always infinite. existence proves at the very least that absolute nothing if there was such a thing isn't always infinite therefore something is at the very least possible being that you are able to debate your existence although nothing can be infinite it is possible for it to not be.
We will never know, perhaps there will only be new theoretical possibilities for an answer.
David Rutherford gets it.
Well not sleeping tonight but I think in this instance philosophy is the path closer to truth
FROM DUST to EARTH spinning and spinning we think when will we ever get there. What is the rush, the Sun is coming to us.....
How do you get this job?
By not making dumb comments on KZhead.
Why is there something rather than nothing? To make bad little boys ask questions.😁
"Nothing" is impossible because if you have an answer to "why anything at all?" then this "answer" would be a "something".
I think they're (mostly) all right. Most of them seem to agree that logical consistency as represented by mathematics is necessarily true, in other words it is not contingent on anything else. OK, so we all agree we have something that is necessarily true. The theologian makes a good argument that for a universe of contingent objects to exist there must be a non-contingent cause, something that necessarily exists. so hang on, aren't we answering our own question? The guiding principle of physics is to find the underlying principles of reality, which must be logically consistent. It seems plausible that the extant laws of physics, or some subset of them, may well be the only laws that are logically consistent, if so then they would also be logically necessary true. Since these laws of physics include quantum mechanics, which allows for spontaneous quantum events as described by the physicist in these interviews, then there's our answer. There's work to be done to demonstrate this, but it seems that should be possible.
The question is inherently problematic because of the "why" - as illustrated by Richard Feynman. kzhead.info/sun/hJWlfJGgj4Foaok/bejne.html The issue rests on objective reality. They acknowledge the answer at the 17:17 point but immediately reject it based on perceived values that conflict with an equal weight of all probabilities. Who would decide the "weighting" of all probable states? What would the criteria be for any such weighting?
I think the key piece here is that existence proves that nonexistence is not possible. That doesnt mean there is a god. But it does mean you simply have to accept the infinite causal/contigent route. Which some will call god.
Thank you for taking me along. I feel Descartes statement all the time. There has GOT to be something other than us. Bigger than us. Please pardon my poor grammar (Descartes’s ?).
Rambling
Take away spacetime, fine, but it’s impossible to eliminate possibilities. There’s no such thing as nothing.
A lot of the laws of physics (all of them?) are logically necessary and couldn't have been another way as they are fully self-consistent. The physical constants appear to be able to differ however.
Life is Eternal, have No beginning, (No meaning) have No origin, (No Name) it has always been. No one have seen the Living behind Life. Life can't be seen, Only Known. The Stuff-side of Life is a Motion-Ocean, pure Motion, it have always been a Motion-Ocean, pure Motion. So the question is Not 'why', but, HOW does the Eternal Life re-new It Self, how does the Eternal Life Picture looks ?
Your making stuff up
Asking Why Is There Anything At All is Basically Asking How Does Each Variety of Creation Work That Is Usually Based on Description or Limits, now the creation without limits is a bit concerning
7:31 "... such an aggressively materialistically answer ironically validates the nonmaterialistic force of the original question." Livio provides no answer to why there are laws of physics, Ellis and Hart talk about symmetry, mathematics, etc. Something's been bothering me, lurking in the back of my mind, and it is semiotic. It's a hunch that I can't substantiate (I'm not a physicist), and so I'm just going to put it out there. In previous posts to CTT, I mentioned Charles Sanders Peirce within the context of motivation, association and habituation as fundamental principles (firstness, secondness, thirdness), and that this Peircean interpretation is relevant to every kind of mind-body (holon), including cells and neurons (Eric Kandel). Could semiotics also be relevant to matter, subatomic and virtual particles and the void? Whenever I see the Feynman diagrams, I am reminded of the *triadic scheme* (semiotics) that connects Representamen with Object with Interpretant. There's something about the Feynman diagrams that invites semiotics and association to play some kind of fundamental role. A particle as the product of associations between preceding events; the void as a hubbub of associations playing out, to submit to the symmetries that yield matter. Could it be that some manner of primal mind does indeed precede matter? Just a hunch. A sample of the Feynman diagrams, from Capra's book (Tao of Physics): www.oocities.org/therapeuter/capra.html
Fascinating video! Thank you! Think its a tautological question with no yes or no answer. If in a multiverse maybe some of them are what the human mind means by "nothing", In our universe at least nothing seems to be impossible ..or should say "nothing" seems to be impossible :)
Lack honest phich standard.
The thing is, that all Physicists and Mathematicians are Philosophers first, the deductions of the Physicists and Mathematicians were all thoughts before the measurements are compounded giving a right or a wrong answer. That the "late event" of a thought of the Physicist or the Mathematician cannot be compounded or comprehended by him should not be the reason for it's dismissal as unreal. Such an approach , with due respect, is a denial by the Physicist and the Mathematician that his own thoughts are real. In other words no thought can come about unless it already exists in the universe.
I have the abilty to look at someone and make them turn into gold
If it were possible for non-existence to be at all, we wouldn’t know it, as it wouldn’t exist. If non-existence was impossible, we would find ourselves in such a situation as this - one in which we exist to ask it. Existence, like Eternity, is necessitate, proven by its infinite regression.
The answer to: Why is there anything? is wrap up in a simple phrase and some deep thought, Here it is: Nothing exists!
Then you're just stuck with "Why does it seem like something exists?"
@ 8:33 doesn't dark energy violate conservation implying total energy of universe not fixed at zero
The necessity of platonic truths were mentioned. Why do you not dig deeper here? The obvious fact of our existence already proofs that our existence is possible. Eventually physics will (or will not) find the right object in the platonic world, namely some everything explaining unified laws, that corresponds to this possibility of our existence. Lawrence, PLEASE ask the question where is the difference between such a platonic existence and our reality.
Why not rob a bank? Because a law exists saying, in essence, “That shall not be!” Why not jaywalk? It’s because a law exists to say, “That shall not be.” And yet people do rob banks and jaywalk. This is because, representing only “want” and not any absolute, the laws of humans are not “existentially sovereign.” They are fallible. The laws that govern existence are not fallible. They are existentially sovereign. They are *infallible.* They *are* absolute. (What goes uo *must*-somewhere-come down.) Thus, the very question itself, of “why would there be anything at all?” is revealed as the wrong way of approaching the issue, when the right question is, “Why would there *not be* anything at all?” For there not to be anything at all, there would have to (“already”) exist a law dictating that there should not be anything at all; but were there such a law that would be a contradiction-because the law itself would be something . So, Einstein was right when he said that the Universe “had no choice” but to exist”-because, by definitin, no law could have existed to say otherwise.
Another good question: why are you driven to ask the question?
Asking why anything at all is the same as asking you are alive? Why is your existence? If you can think, you can be limitless.
There is something because it could. If it couldn't, it wouldn't!
That is, before the existence of this thing, there was already a law which allowed for its existence. So this thing was not number one.
"Nothing"is only the concept that is limited by our 5 senses.
If Nothing limited sense it evidente logic sense not exist. Ramblíng.
@@maxwellsimoes238 You don't get the obvious, but you do exhibit "rambling" impeccably with your pitiful misspelling and pathetic syntax, lmao.
my personal theory is that existence has ALWAYS existed, so to speak. i.e infinity.
How definite some infinity?
23:22... and there he lost me
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing (0) "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" (0) IS "Something" (1); because, it comes from "Something" (1). Moreover, since Nothing (0 perceived) is not Nothing (0 actual), then it is possible for Something (1) to come from Nothing (0 actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (0 actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).
Jinx! I just upped a video on exactly this. Why is there something rather than nothing? I've hypothesized that there is nothing - that we don't actually exist; which, of course, sounds crazy ... but when you take into account consciousness, qualia, quantum probabilities, quantum randomness and Bell's Theorem; there is actually some sense that can be made from it all.
It's a great question why isthe law of physics the way they are . Like how many versions of it have played out. Or is this the first . No one knows The only reality we can judge is the one we live in.
To me it seems equally impossible for everything to exist without any cause setting it into motion (this is probably just our limited evolutionary thinking of cause and effect) the idea of something always existing seems equally impossible as nothing always existing. Clearly, something does exist because we are aware of it. We can’t observe non existence in nature so therefore it must not exist. Pure nothing has never existed and never will it would seem. There is ALWAYS something, but why or how? That is the question. To think of this in a way that doesn’t involve cause and effect. What came before does not make sense when describing the cosmos. I hope we find the answer one day
I've already seen these interviews. Is CTT re-uploading everything?
It seems to me that true nothingness has only one way to be. Whereas something has an infinite ways to be.
E vai continuar perguntando para o resto de sua vida , a não ser que pergunte aonde , como , quando e porque?!
To answer the question why anything at all is obvious, it's unavoidable and to ponder other possibilities will not change the facts, accept it and move on. The laws of nature appear to exist, determinism appear to exist, evolution appear to exist but consciousness exists. Consciousness has produced the concept of God and Atheism which are both unavoidable, we cannot undo the concept of God, history cannot be undone, destiny cannot be changed. More people believe in God than not, the idea of a creator is winning at the moment, fact. Who knows if that will ever change, I highly doubt it for some things are just unavoidable.