Why is There "Something" Rather than "Nothing"? | Episode 306 | Closer To Truth
Forget science. Forget God. This is the ultimate question: What if Everything had Forever been Nothing? Not just emptiness, not just blankness, but not even the existence of emptiness, not even the meaning of blankness, and no Forever. If you don't get dizzy, you really don't get it. Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Peter van Inwagen, Bede Rundle, Quentin Smith, Richard Swinburne, and Steven Weinberg.
Season 3, Episode 6 - #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 #Philosophy
Why isn't this channel at least 10x more popular? You would think most philosophy and theology students would be watching it. Many, many kids ask themselves these questions and they think they are alone. They should be watching this channel too.
In a test of life not everyone want to write all the Q or do the side quests in Game.
TL;DR People are incurious and prefer the comfort of pat answers to the uncertainty of existential, ineffable, or perhaps unanswerable questions. You would think people would be interested in this question, but as I look at recent events in the US, I’m realizing how utterly incurious people are. Look at how religious we are. People who have been raised in a religious tradition think there is no need for further explanation. Understandable. What I don’t understand are people who as adults decide to embrace some nutty belief system. On the atheist side, I looked into Ayn Rand when I was younger and found comfort in her basic premise “Existence Exists”. Now I’m shocked at how utterly incurious she was about this basic conundrum. Even sadder is the case of people who are indeed curious about what underlies appearances, but are seduced by the Internet to settle in dead ends like conspiracy theories or strange diet and health regimenes. Personally, I prefer a life of questioning to a life of paranoia or of exhausting pursuit of physical immortality at a gym followed by the “reward” of a kale salad. But that’s me. As I’ve said, people aren’t all that curious.
@@NameRequiredSoHere You are seeing third person perspective of persons thats why you are dissatisfied of them if you have first person on most of them they might be just be like you and better at hiding it.
Because most of the people in this world are selfish, clueless, brain dead morons.
Because people are Atheist or religious. This channel is for Agnostics.
Wow! I now know I'm not alone. I remember thinking about this as a child. Had to put those thoughts to rest for a while, but now in my mid 40's have found the need to re-connect with myself, and here I am. Really appreciate this, hope we can some day know the answer to this question.
Same here. I studied philosophy now I’m 45 and running back to it
@@Jermy777 Thank you for your feedback. Excuse my late reply. What are your thoughts?
@@jesusvillasenor3322there is only 'existence' appearing as things, field, partical, wave, strings, possibility, etc. Like gold appearing as golden ornaments, but ornaments are not reality, reality is gold only because gold is the only thing appear as ornaments similarly Existence is appearing as this universe. Existence is not a thing like space, time, partical,mind, strings, etc. So only nothing exist. Nothing= No thing ≠ non Existence
tru but where does everything come from @@rishabhthakur8773
You couldn't imagine pure nothingness, it's impossible... Until i show you the insides of my wallet
there its the wallet ,
there is something like dust!
Gym time for the brain.... Absolutely love this program. So glad it's on here now.
I absolutely agree. the question is why isn't there more people watching.
@@Nicklasm98 because they're not "really" here
I watch this after my workouts lol
Interesting, but a good example of humans spinning their wheels in an attempt to understand something the brain is not equipped for.
This show deserves millions of views!
Robert, you are the only other person I have ever heard ask this question. Though I must say, I have not actively sought out any others or been as dogged as you have in pursuit of an answer. I had exactly the same experience at the age of 8 or 9, standing in a field on a beautiful day. The thought "What would nothing be like?" was followed immediately by a tingling awareness that there would then be no place from which to ask this question. Then I had a mental flip that almost made me pass out. Thanks for sharing your experience and for seeking clarity on this question. Good to know you are out there.
Life and conciousness is so mysterious that if I think about it too long I freak out.
I love this question.
Me also
Samely
Me to.😔
👍
The universe doesn't love this question
You are this Universe and this Universe is you.
This is the most fascinating question that mankind can ask. But I'm not really confident if or not we've that ability to answer that question ever. Let's try and see!
We will definitely be able to in the future. However we are at least a thousand years from there right now.
@@Junior-zf7yy I believe this will be the last thing we would find out. Because at this point we probably know every single thing. Maybe we would even be able to create a new universe or reality or whatever this something is.
@@FabianReschke we will never know everything.
@@BamBam-me8sf Not every single fact in the universe, but probably every physical law.
@@FabianReschke The 1st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) forbids the creation or destruction of energy only a state of change. Therefore there must have always been something. It is simply that we are unable to define what that something is or was. Depending on the nature of it we may never actually know what"That" was. As mentioned in the video and Bertrand Russell The existance of the universe just is. Its a brute fact!
We've all been haunted by this question
I've always freaked out when thinking of this. Good to know i'm not alone on it.
It's clearly an unanswerable question but interesting to hear people's views on it.
Exactly
Here at age 60, this is the first time I've seriously considered this question, and it occurred to you at 12? That scares me even more than the question! Anyway, you framed it perfectly in the beginning, and I'm in agreement with you; none of the answers are satisfying. To a true subjectivist, without consciousness there IS nothing. So maybe you could make some headway in asking why there is consciousness --which I'm afraid is just as exquisitely unfathomable. And while you wrestle with why there is consciousness, the AI researchers will wrestle with HOW there is consciousness --a question I predict they will never answer.
better now than never :)
At 12, my primary conundrum was how one might secure a steady supply of SweeTarts.
it occurred to me at 7-8 years old. I cant seem to believe a god. i always questioned who made god and so on. why do we even exist in the first place. it haunts me every night. i have a fear of the unknown. i even fear looking at the stars at night cause i imagine and go deep and it just so big that it scares me.
I believe that consciousness can build up over time like the skins of an onion, as we grow into adulthood, and we can also lose outer (higher) skins as we go into old age or if we suffer brain damage. Profound life experiences can bless someone with more outer layers than someone who just watched crap TV all their life. Sudden death is the simultaneous destruction of all layers. For you, it's just like the 13.8 billion years before you existed.
Love this question. RLK must accumulate a LOT of air miles doing his research!
I thought this same thing. Pretty sure Wikipedia said he was a banker or some kind of financial advisor or something....Makes sense cuz he has to be rich to be able to visit all these “Harvard heavy hitters” around the world.He doesn’t even have 500,000 subscribers yet,so he must be extremely wealthy to support his “search”....lol.
I had a similar moment as a child when I realized I couldn’t prove the existence of anything or anyone outside myself. The only way I was able to resolve this quandary was by taking a leap of faith. In the decades since I have refined the nature of that leap countless times, from the Evangelical Christianity of my youth to a form of interfaith pantheism somewhat akin to that of your friend John Leslie. But throughout the years it has remained a leap of faith, and I doubt that will ever change.
It is a profound realization that i've had as an adult. As a kid my obsession was with infinity/ whether the universe is truly boundless. I think the leap of faith is a natural default resolution for all of us. It gets normalised and feels empirical when you notice others mirror that same state/ resolution.
One approach is: the nothing and something arise together. We can't have one without the other. They arise together in our 'knowingness' or what we call 'our consciousness'. The question is: What will allow the transformation of that which gives us our level of knowing. If we maintain that the mode of subject-object knowing is the only and best way of knowing, we will remain stuck within those limits. Consider this from Rumi: "Darkness (not knowing, complete wonder) is your candle (reveals). Your boundaries are your quest." In other words the radical unknown reveals to us not by just moving away from the known but by re-cognizing the known without active rejection of anything known and allowing our 'mind' to rest in a state of wonder. In this way we can be said to be turning our attention in wonder onto the boundaries of that which we ordinarily call our 'mind'. The boundaries of the mind that ordinarily gives us what we know (aka contents of consciousness) and gives us our present and limited sense of reality. The question is what is the way that leads to a transformation of that which gives us our present and limited sense of reality. Then like shampooing, we continue the alchemical process as necessary. What allowed Pascal to say: "The heart (of consciousness) has reasons that reason knows not." It is not clear to us that we ordinarily assume a mode of perception that 'sees and says' to us "The world is a world of separate objects (bodies) and you are a separate body (object) in this world of separate objects." Unless we recognize this mode of perception, we are trapped inside its assumptions which is a limiting framework around and a limiting pattern of all of our knowing or experiencing. Yet we can learn to free ourselves of these limitations.
I don't really understand the concept of nothing and something existing simultaneously. It seems that as soon as there is something, nothing disappears (as strange as that sentence sounds). If you have a room with nothing in it, and put a chair in the corner, the room no longer contains nothing. My favorite phrasing of this concept is "can there be nothing, somewhere else?" I don't think there can, without treating nothing as an entity that can exist, which would immediately transform it into something.
We explain and define nothing as the absence of something. If nothing is defined as the absence of something, something must exist or have existed in order to "be absent." It really is a logical impossibility for true nothingness to "be". Nothing is the absence of "being." So being MUST exist. "Nothing existing" is an oxymoron.
Excellent question for those of us who are always searching for the ultimate answer.
I had this realization and this gut feeling afterwards (I still have this every time I hear something new about the subject) 5 years ago when i was 23. It does not let me go since then. This is, as mentioned many times in the video, the ultimate question. I can't accept the answer that there can't be nothing and there is no reason for it. Maybe I will die with the question but the question also makes me go through life curious.
Why is There "Something" Rather than "Nothing"? I agree. Thats the only worthful question - in life. Thanks you.
I am so grateful for this series. I had the same exact experience lying in bed one night about 10 years ago. I realized that there didn’t HAVE to be a universe. There could’ve been a complete lack of any and all things, space, and time. I was hit with this weird feeling like I’d been punched in the gut. It was a sensation unlike any I’ve felt in terms of wonder. Why was there a universe at all? What caused it? The laws of physics can’t have been the bounds for creation if it was truly nothing because then there would be nothing for the laws of physics to exist within. God couldn’t have created it because there would’ve been nothing for God to exist within. This question has haunted me but it’s also made me have an even greater appreciation/wonder/fascination with the universe.
Excellent written.
Thank you very much for these videos. For 20 minutes, I can let someone else ask why.
This was one of the best segments ever.
Steven Weinberg nailed it.
I've been satisfied for a long time that zero is just conceptual. There is no such thing as nothing.
Maybe there's no difference between nothing and something
@@tashriquekarriem8865 you nailed it!!
@@tashriquekarriem8865 yeah I have been wondering if that's not the case. something and nothing may be two properties of some deeper underlying entity.
Remember that "nothing" can limit you from answering this question. Nothingness is a change that makes no change.
Excellent video.👌👏. I am with the interpretation that puts humanity at the center of a TRAGIC situation ( echoing the famous 'To be or not to Ben question). We are condemned to ask a question that has no verifiable answer and therefore, the essence of the answer has to have some spiritual element to it. Because the question has no true answer, we are condemned to search, hope and pray for an answer to the mystery of existence. We call all of this ' God' for lack of a better word. Tragic indeed.
If you think the question "why is there something rather than nothing ?" is bad try answering this one "why is there something that can ask the question why is there something rather than nothing?"
The universe is a great mind whose nature is to manifest the infinite possibilities of life.
love it.
A lot of people, including some here, have tried to explain this, and they’ve all failed. It’s just unexplainable. Sure, we can pretend to come up with an answer, but really, none of them work. It’s all tortured logic, and often, not even logic. This is a question that can never be answered.
yeah, i mean.... For nothing to exist, something couldn't happen.
Im sitting in my room. In my something, as a something, thinking something. I am beyond grateful for existence.
L
I can't believe it, I had the same experience when I was a young teenager!!
I think Quentin Smith at the end seemed to think the question was "why does the universe exist?" and replied "it is like it is as a consequence of how it was before", which I think is his default answer to explain his atheism (which in itself, is alright). But ultimately the question was why was there even something that ultimately caused "this" rather than nothing to cause anything? And I feel Kuhn didn't find Smith's answer satisfying because it really failed to address the real question.
Correct, he was allowed to not answer the question.
When I was about 10, I asked myself where did all these atoms come from. I imagined one atom existing, which travelled back in time, met itself and then there were 2, then these travelled back, met themselves, and then there were 4 and so on. I never bothered myself with the question of where this original atom/sub atomic particle/string came from, or whether there was space around them, but it might be that the universe started off small (as in inflation theory) or small in quantity. Either way, something had to cause the single thing to exist before it multiplied/expanded. Seems I peaked at 10 because I too have no idea why there is something rather than nothing
Can always consider other possibilities and become a philosopher instead of being a one trick pony. Lol
Loving every word of this
So glad to hear I’m not the only one who feels nauseous when pondering this question.
To deal with this topic, it may be convenient to begin by explaining what time is, and what is the present. Do not forget that matter only exists in the present.
Robert’s Apple Watch can’t keep up with how many steps he be walking 🚶
easily one of my favorite channels.
Fantastic programme!!
Instead ask yourself “what is possible?” What defines possibility? You might offer up the laws of nature, logic or reasoning, but then ask yourself, “would those things even exist if there was nothing?” The answer is clearly no. Then, in that case, what would stop “something” from happening in that “nothing”? There isn’t anything that could; pure Nothingness has no way to constrain possibility. And this is why we have something rather than nothing-because nothingness can’t maintain itself. It is literally impossible.
We can just do such an asking because we exist. If nothing have existed at the first place then there'd be no one asking the question of our existence or perhaps being aware of its own existence. The only thing that we are certain of this time is our existence, so then we end up asking why ? And this why is just how most of the physicist cannot explain why such constants of the laws of physics is there is, why not something else ? Why this value ? And in attempt to understand and answer the question of purpose we have the anthropic principle to do so. Which is paraphrased as " We see the universe the way it is because we exist." So even if we don't exist the universe will still be the way it is or at some other matters of nothingness it prevails.
Word salad
Yes, but what you're describing isn't the pure nothingness that he frames so beautifully in the beginning of the video. Your nothingness contains something: possibility.
@@thzzzt possibility isn’t something, it’s the chance of something. Possibility itself has no defined quality or value, except what constrains it. If there is nothing, then there are no constraints or boundaries to possibility. Another way to think about it is to say, “In pure Nothingness, there’s a zero percent chance that nothing will happen.” To achieve the opposite, a 100% chance that nothing happens, you’d need absolute and infinite constraints. Conversely, as constraints approach zero, possibility approaches infinity. On a related note, I think that’s the most interesting property of Quantum Mechanics: it’s completely probabilistic. If something can happen, it will given enough time. This is why particles can teleport/tunnel thorough barriers. This is why, even in completely empty space, virtual particles pop in and out existence. And, most importantly, this is why you can’t fully and completely measure anything. Another way to state Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle is to say you can never remove possibility from a particle or system. It will always have random possibility to it. I think QM points to the fundamental quality of existence: possibility.
@@hckytwn3192 So nothingness enables infinite possibility. I like it. So in the Big Bang, just before the tiny spec of ultra dense hot material exploded, there was a "non-spec" of absolute nothingness.
I would say an equally large and difficult question is Why there would need to be a Universe if Determinism were to be taken to mean 'everything has already been determined' whether by God or Physics - What would be the point?
Steven Weinberg's answer is excellent. Based on current evidence (physics, cosmology, evolution, laws of nature, etc.), whatever the answer is, there is no reference to human beings. The universe, and whatever is prior to this, is not meant to satisfy us. He sees this as a tragedy, albeit one we can live with. (Though some people who take psychedelics, see otherwise. And it doesn't have to be overtly theistic.)
Interesting question. No answer is still an answer.
I enjoy this show a lot and in particular this kind of zero-question that he returns to often. It would have served the argument well, though, if some Eastern philosophies had been included in this series as the idea of 'nothingness' and illusion is really central to so many Eastern religious beliefs.
Exactly! I was about to post a question on why not including Easter philosophers?
What do you have when you have nothing? When you have nothing, you have nothing to prevent nothing from spawning into everything.
I think about this question constantly
I’m closer and closer of thinking that we are the creator of the universe and not the other way round.
Another way of putting it, we are not part of the universe, we are the universe, that’s include everything that is existing.
Stop smoking
consciousness is the key to existence. it is fundamental. it created life, not the other way round.
@@user-ts7vw8ey4u come up with a real argument
@@Dion_Mustard As I read this a simple question came to mind that more than likely everyone has been asked or pondered once. If a Tree falls in the woods with no one around does it make a sound?
This question addresses me that life is not worth living 🙏
it is not, and it is, at the same time
Wow! This video was amazing!!
Voyager? Is that you?
Absolutely love your channel
There isn't 'something'. There is 'nothing' (consciousness) dreaming / pretending to be 'something'. Consciousness is so good at this, that it frequently gets lost in the dream and forgets what it really is. Don't worry though - you'll remember eventually - that's the game of hide-and-seek going on.
Even if possibilities exist in some sense, they are a full description of the thing they're describing. I think that the possibility of something existing is actually that thing, because it tells how this thing - could be a universe - behaves and how its elements relate to each other. To an observer in a possible world, it will seem like their world is physically real, their subjective perception of that world is contained within a possibility. It doesn't really matter what a universe is made of fundamentally. It can just be a possibility or a set of logical truths, but as long as they exist in some sense, observers in such worlds will perceive them as being real.
I agree with you partially. It is not that observers perceive the possibility as real, but that the possibility of existence cannot exist only as a possibility. If there was a possible world in which the ONLY THING that existed was the possibility of something existing, then time doesn't exist in that possible world. So it isn't like the possibility of something existing is sitting around for some amount of time before it decides to become actualized. In the absence of time, the possibility and the actuality of existence become simultaneous. Since the possibility of existence is simultaneous with the actuality of existence, there is no time in which the possibility exists alone without the actuality.
@szymskiPL, yes, that is the right answer. It amazes me that these doctors of whatever it is that Robert is interviewing are so stupid and can say so many wrong things and never give the right answer. How can they be so stupid and doctors at the same time is beyond me. And they have this delusion of saying that our universe is actual and the others are only possible, without noticing that that doesn't mean anything. Yet it seems so simple to us that we can explain it easily like you did. If we are wrong, someone please correct us. Now I'd like to hear your take on the interpretation of probability.
Mr Kuhn I believe you are one of the most intelligent person on the planet I been on the the same question long time two more questions for you what is eternity and what is endless
When I get tired contemplating infinity, I will give this a try. Head just exploded 😬😬
"Be" and "nothing" are contradictory.
Only semantically.
Yes materialistically. When there’s no space and time, the infinite and the nothing are the same.
@@penmets2891 Materialistically “no space” and “no time” are incoherent concepts. Look at the way you introduced them. You said “when” there is no time. That would seem like a contradiction right there. It would be like saying where there is no space.
I am possible; therefore I am.
This exact question struck me around my junior high age as well. I think a great many people can't quite grasp the question for what it's asking. "Why is there something as opposed to nothing" is to questions as stereograms are to images. You can spend time looking at a stereogram and not see the 'hidden', or embedded image. So is the case with this question. When you really finally grasp what's being asked it's a mind blower that will be accompanied by a deep desire to know… but an answer won't be available. And just like in the now ancient ad campaign for Anheuser-Busch's 'Bud Dry', where it was presumed beer drinkers would wonder why the brewer created Bud Dry in the first place, the ad answers with "Why Ask Why?" … and so it is with our something vs nothing question… let it go and have a beer (or some other relaxing beverage).
"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die."
@@williamesselman3102 - yeah that thinking never worked on me. If you died not having had all the fun or did the things on your 'bucket list'… so what?… no reason to think there will be any you to have awareness of whether you did or didn't live your life to its fullest.
@@Robert44444444 I don't think the goal is to have a checked-off list when you die, a bucket list is just a euphemism for saying the purpose of life is to live life. If you, when you are dead, have no awareness of the experiences you had when you were alive... that doesn't mean you didn't actually experience them.
Love love love this channel
Nothing needs something to define it as nothing. In nothing, there has to be at least the potential for something. Potential then creates something.
Robert Nozick argued that in his book
@@Garghamellal what is that books name? I'd love to read it?
@@sebastiancandor8680 its name is “Philosophical explanations “ It has an entire chapter devoted to this thesis. Maybe you will find the book on archive.org
@@Garghamellalthanks! 😊
the laws evolve from nothing. if i blank was allowed then we'd still have a blank. these laws evolve because a blank has no laws.
From the ethereal comes the material. Our reality likely stems from something that is not observable to us in any way. Things in this reality are the only things we can observe. The ethereal likely even remains beyond the grasp of the human imagination since our imagination is only based on things that exist in the real world. Notice I used that word "based" which means that don't actually need to exist at any point in time. The human imagination only stretches so far. There are likely some things that even lie beyond the human imagination. We can only see the surface of reality but not what lies underneath it.
Citations needed on that which is beyond your imagination, assuming you are human.
@@MagnumInnominandum Imagination is an aid to man's focused, reasoning mind. Imagination takes the mind's knowledge of reality and rearranges it. Reason puts knowledge into an empty imagination. There is nothing innate to the imagination. Knowledge starts w/perceptions of concretes. Without reality and knowledge and reason human beings would simply not be able to have any imagination of their own. Because imagination requires reality to exist then our imagination is strictly limited and restricted by the amount of reality we can access and comprehend at any given time.
There are greater things in heaven and earth Horatio that are dreamed of in your philosophy.
This is what I've been searching... Great 👍👍👍
That makes sense, we are in a universe, a dimension of STUFF so stuff we have & stuff we are, so let's operate on that assumption & move forward!
Something can't come from nothing, and since there is something, there was never nothing.
why can't something come from nothing?
@@cosmikrelic4815 If there truly is nothing there is not even the potential for something.
@@egericoolast How did you come to that conclusion?
The something didn't came from nothing. But the nothing should be there instead of something.
Even nothing is something, nothing is nothing itself. To derive nothing from something is plausible as something becoming nothing.
Great video quality and content. Indeed, one might ask if; "can something come out from nothing"? This question is also used to direct our assumptions that there must be a creator whose eternal and necessary existence preceded everything in the universe. But I got intrigue with the notion that "nothing is an impossible state". I might ask, what are we before we were born and what do we become after we die? If we were existing (billions of unique human beings) in the creator's mind before were born and then existed in the real world as we are now and then exist eternally in either heaven or hell then obviously it is impossible for "non-existence" as it is impossible for "nothingness". This would also make our existence necessary. Just an assumption though, with no intentions of making us divine.
i know this is from a year ago but I wanted to chime in. I believe a sentient observer is essential to the existence of anything, including ourselves, hence sapience. If we were not aware of our awareness, we wouldn't be aware. From my perspective, I am such an observer, and from your perspective, you are. Thus mine and yours' existence is as much a brute fact as the universe itself (if the universe is indeed a brute fact). So somehow you have always existed, and always will. I believe questioning our own existence and that of the universe's coincide, and so if we can find worth in ourselves, and prove that we are inherently good beyond a reasonable doubt, we incidentally answer the biggest question ever.
@@mizl1zzie700 somehow its all about energy and we are too what if evrything IS god.. its all atoms and thus in that sense evrything IS the same in diferent configurations...WE create reality as much as the other way around....i think if we see that we are not separate beings we will find we are inherenly good beings of light/energy...the problem is the ego which tells us storys that are not true...( eckhart tolle f.i.)
Great talk this 1 mr Kuhn tough 1 to answer ! But here we are ! Sorry I carnt answer this 1 I carnt sleep now ! I will rest and think!
Peter's argument for why there is "Something" is pretty intense.
Thought so, it's in the too-hard basket along with consciousness.
Now my head hurts.
The fact that you were a kid when you got freaked out by "nothing" says it all....especially given a narrow theistic up bringing...What were you doing before you got born?? There ya go...
As I said in another post, this reflects a mindset I really don't share to the extent he does. I (think I) understand the question, but the so obvious answer to why is there something rather than nothing is, 'there just is.' And there can be no other answer. And that even applies to a god....eg 'why would there be a god rather than no god? ' There is no answer. Not even a god can explain why he exists other than he just does. Humans evolved to understand chains of events. That is how we (and other animals) can survive by using our reasoning to figure out that if this then that. It's how we plan ahead. And often we can extrapolate back quite a ways following the cause and effect chain. But eventually...looking back long past where the series of events can help us to make any decisions, we just say, 'that's the way it is.' IOW the tendency of him to ask that question reflects one aspect of human's and other animal's tendency to look for causes of things that happen. It is a survival adaptation. But some seem to be able to carry that far further back than what really matters to our day to day or even long term survival. The instinct to be curious about the past is a survival mechanism and depends on the regularity of the world around us. The sun will come up because it came up today and all the days past. Things are where we left them because in the past things tended to be where we (or others) left them. We plan on others doing certain things because we remember they tended to do those things before. Etc.
Thanks so much
Probably the greatest mystery that humans face.it would be far easier for the universe not to have assembled us that ask the question but here we are.i doubt that Lebnitz's question will ever be answered?
Maybe because both concepts of something and nothing are being created in our minds. Maybe we really don't know what we are talking about! All (literally) of our thoughts are imperfect results of processing the input signals from the external physical world.
One of the best videos I've seen for a long long time :)
You just burn my brain with your answer.
There should be nothing rather than something!
Becaue "nothing" can't exist therefore "something" always has to!
What is beyond the boundary of our expanding universe, may I ask.
Nothing is something.
yeah, I believe this is right
Just because we conceive it, "nothing" has to be there. It is actually the opposite of "something". Yet, "something" is better than "nothing", because variety is the mother of enjoyment.
This is so much more interesting and honest than the pointless imaginings of religion. Let existence be a mystery. Don't be tempted to grab onto illogical "god" explanations. It is much more elegant to remain unknowing than to be devoted to theological and illogical solutions.
My head just exploded. Damn. Now I need to find a mop...
Which head?
Our species abhors a mystery. Rather than accept a “we don’t know “ many will insert the supernatural or mystical. So sad. Science remains a beacon for the skeptics to keep seeking understanding. Long live the skeptical.
even because saying "we dont know" would be the death of science and logical thinking. We always try to give an answer with the tools we have , you cant pretend that people stop thinking because you dont have a "materialistic" answer that probably you will never get .
According to Webster’s dictionary, a skeptic is “One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.” I’ve never trusted skeptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility. What skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term ‘skeptic’ meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well. Perhaps you are a pseudoskeptic. Pseudoskeptics have hijacked terms such as rational, reason, logic, critical thinking to mean the ‘proper’ thinking and behavior that supports materialism and orthodoxy, and rejects against anything that challenges it. Rather than inquiring, or asking questions to try to understand something, they seek to debunk, discredit and ridicule anything that doesn’t fit into their belief system. They treat Science as if it were some kind of authoritarian ‘entity’ that takes positions and views on issues (their own of course), when it is in fact merely a tool and method of inquiry based on logical principles. In reality, science does not take positions or hold dogmatic beliefs on paranormal or conspiratorial subjects. People take positions, not Science, which holds no more views than my computer does. All pseudoskeptics will claim to be true skeptics, just like all high pressured salesmen claim to not be high pressure, all liars and con artists claim to be sincere, and all politicians claim to be honest. But as you know, actions speak louder than words. There is a tendency in pseudoskeptics to forget that scientific principles thought to be infallible in the past have proven completely wrong. Only when a majority of reputable scientists state that something is true, will a pseudoskeptic say it is true. When a few reputable scientists stand behind a controversial claim, pseudoskeptics will dismiss them instead of reconsidering the claim. If other reputable people change sides and accept the unorthodox view, this is seen as evidence of their gullibility or insanity, not as evidence that perhaps the unconventional view is correct. Admitting an unconventional theory is or may be true can threaten a person’s sense of security. Having to admit that what seems to be known, solid, and established, may be false can open up an uncertainty people find it hard to cope with. They have a fear of having personal errors revealed, and a habit of silently covering up past mistakes. All contradictions to their beliefs are probably perceived as a direct threat to them professionally and psychologically. It is easier to gain esteem or seem rational and clever through debunking efforts than to risk credibility by seriously investigating a controversial finding. They elevate skepticism to a lofty position, yet … open the way to pathological thinking by refusing to ever cast a critical, skeptical eye upon the irrational behavior of their scoffing. Pseudoskeptics will likely present scientists as inherently objective, unswayed by personal belief or motives; they will excuse the instances in which scientists have been shown to be subjective as being isolated instances. And finally, the practice of shifting requirements for the acceptance of a theory or “moving the goalposts.” A pseudoskeptic will say something like “‘I’ll believe it when X happens’ (but when it does, this immediately is changed to, ‘I’ll believe it when Y happens.’” What if the only experimental results for what causes Quantum wave function collapse is consciousness? Is that mystical? Are you skeptical of that? Or are you a pseudoskeptic?
@@williamesselman3102 good post, william. i would like to add a tidbit or two. you posted the denotation of the word. but i think the connotation of the word, for most people, represents some sort of degree of doubt. let's say we are discussing topic abc, and there are 5 basic conclusions that have been put forth. and let's say that i think 3 of those conclusions make lots of sense, and they could all be true. whereas 2 of them sound ridiculous to me. i think most of us would talk about being skeptical of only the 2 that seem obviously incorrect. even though we have not come to a definite conclusion about topic abc. this is why (if it is a serious discussion), that i will often make the effort to ask someone to define what their meaning of a particular word is. if you and i are discussing something, and we attach different meanings to the same word or idea, then we are gonna have a communication mishap - LOL
The problem of understanding the question is semantic misunderstanding, the way we use language and the built in faulty intuition which often bleeds into philosophy. "Nothing" is actually a relative term that is useful to describe a lack of something in relative terms. For instance, "There is nothing in the box" normally just means there is a lack of visible items in the box, but of course there is usually air and dust (on Earth), or even in space vacuum with cosmic radiation or even just space-time. But as a concept of "absolutely nothing" it becomes a meaningless concept as we cannot imagine total nothingness - it amounts to a non-thought, or not even thinking at all. We might imagine nothingness with the universe lurking on the exterior of it or even merely the possible future, but then that reverts back to relative nothingness which is how it is used in the every day sense. IOW "nothing" has to be defines by it's relatedness to something which means it is dependent on "something" for its own existence as a concept. So absolute nothingness is nonsensical as a pure philosophical concept.
An even more interesting question could be : "Is there actually anything/something?" With physicists speaking of 3D space potentially only being a hologram of a lowe-dimensional 2D space while others suggest we need to say good-bye to space-time, the question seems to be: Is any of what we experience actually real?
Let's not confuse "nothingness" with "emptiness" -- they are completely different. Nothingness can't exist, so there can never be a state of nothingness. We know for a fact there there is currently something. So, the probability of somethingness is non zero. Given infinite time, any event with a non zero probability of occurring, will occur. So, there will always be something. That somethingness may not include sentient beings but it would still be something.
Maybe one day I can ask whoever made the universe this question.
Even then I am afraid we wouldn't be satisfied with the answer.
The ultimate question of all
thank you
I wonder if this concept can be applied to life after death, when die we our conciousness becomes nothing or non existent. But, the concept of nothing or non existende does not really exist,,we will always be something even after death, even if we think our conciousness disappears after we died, it will always be part of existence. because, the past, the present and the future all happens at the same time. It appears as if we will always exist
When we die we exist only in the memories of those who knew us, but when they die too we cease to exist. Unless you count our names on paper (eg birth certificate) as existing.
consciousness doesn't "disappear" or become "nothing"..that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard anyone say.
@@petermetcalfe6722 time is not linear as we think, according to the theory of time, the past, the present and the future happens at the same time. this means that our past and our future is happening right now along with the present, so even when one dies, our past will be happening even when we are dead
@@Dion_Mustard I agree, my gut tells that Conciousness is fundamental and primary. it may even operate independent of spacetime
@@AtheistCook good point. evidence is growing in favour of consciousness being non-local. it doesn't "disappear" as Danny said. that is just the typical closed minded materialist view. There is certainly NO evidence brain produces consciousness. I love this kind of debate because I always win against the dumb materialists who say Consciousness is Brain and nothing more. They ask me to give evidence for this but they can supply ZERO evidence them selves. There is compelling evidence from various studies into Near Death and Out of Body states which strongly suggests consciousness is independent of brain. Start with a good book called Consciousness Beyond Life by Pim Van Lommel. It's a scientific book not spiritual.
Are "nothing" and "something" actually distinct, or are they just manifestations of a broader definition of possibilities?
For a curious mind, this question is a nightmare. Human logic must have limitations and fallacies. I am saying this by applying human logic, which is again enough to make a curious mind mad and vomit, but I try to satisfy myself that if we are in existence, then there is a truth inherently associated with it that is coherent with all other truths. I am saying this as per my human logic, of which I am sceptical of its credibility.
And the converse: When I can't Think about anything, I am not. Even if I WAS, I am not now. Simple.
Robert should do psychedelic, specially 5-meo-dmt!
Why?
@@howardrobinson4938 you can physically enter a state of nothing which feels like pure love and bliss. Or you can meet beings made of light and energy. Followed by complex geometric patterns that seem familiar for some reason as if we've been there before.
The tragic thing is, that you can get some deeply profound answers about existence but somehow you can't take that knowledge back to the real world. It's weird, and probably only a nonsense trip, but it feels so real and important.
Some questions are impossible to answer because they're not valid questions.
Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, surely knows, then again, perhaps he knows not. --Rig Veda
Thats just denial...and unscientific...
This is one of them, since asking the question doesn't allow for any possible answer because every answer is included in the question itself.
@@sunset2.00 What's the difference between a duck?
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 think about the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can ponder (create) the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". And yet, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Are we Closer to Truth yet?
Your voice reminds me of the late Anthony Bourdain's, which I find strangely comforting
As George Berkeley has already proposed, the Universe derives from the Creator's thinking. Assuming (even if provisionally) this premise, we can assume that reality, time and space, would be the idea of flow and allocation of all beings in relations with each other. In other words, the being is the flow of a monad (in the sense given by Leibniz) within the Creator's thought. And this flow is perceived by approaching and moving away from the other monads who think (and are thought) together in the reality that derives from the Creator's mind. This is what makes up the idea of time and space. Based on this, we can propose a notion of the essence of pain and pleasure, which is the realization of the intended movement (being at the next point in the next moment in relation to the other allocation references, the other monads) and that being, the pain, the frustration of this intended movement, within an idea of reality that includes some chaotic element, that is, that includes the possibility of two monads pretending the impossible, of both being in the same place at the same time, colliding, and therefore not carrying out the movement intended by each one. This thesis has good applicability to explain the beautiful in music, for example, which is systematically based on rhythms, either in bars, or in greater harmony the greater the coincidence of valleys and peaks in the note waves. Music, therefore, induces the listener to think of movements that, due to their rhythmic predictability, they perform themselves. In other words, the beautiful musical is in the realization of movement ideas that she invites to think and ends up doing. Still in the musical field, the contrasts, the dissonances, would be temporary frustrations that would induce a greater desire for the realization of harmony that the musical sequence ends up offering. Still on the beautiful, but as for images, the beauty of symmetry also follows the same path. Symmetry induces to think something that will actually be found where it induced to think. The development of this thesis above still has the possibility of explaining unusual phenomena, but somehow statistically perceptible as valid, such as the synchronicity defended by Jung or the effective use of the homeopathic medicine (absurdly diluted) in plants and animals. For those who want to discuss more deeply about it, my email is: miguelmnapoli@yahoo.com.br
This thought is where metaphysicians love to play 🥰
Why is there Something indeed.
What means «there is” ?
My feeling is that there is really no such thing as 'nothing'. Since we see 'something' now, I believe we have to conclude that nothingness is not a possibility. Also 'something' cannot come from 'nothing', and if it does then that is really not 'nothing' in the true sense. I think the only way to resolve this question is to come up with a description of reality where 'something' has always existed. What that looks like I am not sure. Maybe some kind of closed-loop feedback structure or self-generating reality. I'm sure it is an elegant and beautiful structure. Clearly something beyond our ability to grasp now. This is so fascinating.
I have all ways been thinking about this
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 "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (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).