Why Anything at All? | Episode 1213 | Closer To Truth
Why are we here? Why is there a world, a cosmos, something-instead of absolutely nothing at all? Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why? What can we learn from "nothing"? Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Bede Rundle, Max Tegmark, Simon Blackburn, Quentin Smith, Victor Stenger, Peter van Inwagen, John Polkinghorne, Richard Swinburne, and Paul Davies.
Season 12, Episode 13 - #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
I always count the seconds before Robert inevitably takes a slow walk down steps or along a picturesque pathway whilst looking around meaningfully🤣 love it!
This sums up the whole genre. Why do we exist? We don't know now let's walk.
Robert your series are amazing and highly educational, and what amazes me is that less than a million follow these and more than a million follow garbage. Thank you.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about Closer To Truth. A of people seem to think it's just a dude with a KZhead channel. It's not. These are posts to KZhead of episodes of a long running PBS television series (US, obviously). Most of the 'new' videos are actually many years old. The series started in 2000, and has been running off and on (mostly on) ever since. In addition to this, even some of the more recent episodes appear to have interviews recycled from earlier episodes. This is apparent because in some episodes, the original broadcast date is long after the death of a participant, and if you know what some of the people he interviews look like today, it's obvious the interview had to have taken place well over ten years ago.
@@b.g.5869 I would of never knew that. Just looked him up there! Impressive guy
I just did a Google search and was surprised to find out that Robert lawrence kuhn is an international big shot and has done a lot of work with the Chinese government and also is in investment banking big time and regularly appears on US and Chinese media.. He's not just a philosopher with a youtube channel..
Here's the heart of the problem with most of Robert's chosen themes... _ignoramus et ignorabimus_ So while his topics are interesting, the answers are ultimately unattainable, and at best make agnostics of us all. These sorts of unsolved mysteries of reality are the pablum of a lazy and uncommitted generation. And even worse, we don't bother to do more than scratch the surface of these complex questions.
@@b.g.5869 okay
I love these inquiries and the way Robert goes about exploring them.
Definitely my favourite channel. Brilliant content!
Amazing, right!
Closer to Truth has just GOT to be among the top five KZhead channels for the value its content offers our lives. And I couldn't name with any certainty the other four… Thank you RLK for all that you do bringing the public this monumental resource.
Most of our generation rarely,if ever, ponder these deep questions, I suspect
Such an excellent series! Outstanding questions and cosmically interesting answers...
and what have you tajen away from it
Its also my favourite question and as Robert I am fascinated by it again and again. Its just mind- blowing! This channel is definitely the best Ive ever seen and I feel sad that not more people are interested in the big questions. It should be number one channel for its profundity!
Why does garbage not exist?
Watched this episode several times.. it remains so impressing. My absolute favourite topic
@Andrea S. As a tip of my poor old hat to a wonderful Andrea I knew more than 50 years ago, I suggest you ask yourself this: What rules does 'nothing' have to follow?? That is, what laws of physics must nothin exhibit? If you consider this for a while, I believe you might conclude that there are no rules whatsoever that nothing must obey (or exhibit, or follow, if you like). This is the begging of a long, and perhaps terrible road. If nothing has no physical laws which it must obey, then a universe simply coming into being 'from nothing' is in no way prohibited, or even improbable. You must go on from here... Cheers.
Man!! Robert knows how to end things!! Amazing!! And the theme music 🎶!!
My comfort comes from the notion that the universe is, or was created, to know more about itself. This is not under my authorship , but found in the Upanishads. For me, I find comfort with this . It also suggests that I too am an agent of this discovery , and provide some assistance to this notion. I would hope that Closer to Truth would spend some time with those people of the East that have pondered much of the subject matter that is brought to this channel. It would be an excellent addition to compare and contrast the knowledge. Many would first ask " Who is asking this question ? ". They take great interest in the person/apparatus that is pondering these 'Closer to Truth" Ideas, as the perceiver/subject cannot be disconnected from the reality of the answer.... ( I found this to be true )
Alan Watts pretty much covered most these Eastern ideas very comprehensively. Any attempt to reboot it will mostly create redundancy bc of course the upanishards didn't really evolve much since the 70s...
Couldn't agree more ,
@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 Alan would say /\/\/\/\/\/\/
I have read Upanishads, but didn't find it saying universe created itself to know itself. Can you give any referential quote?
@@irfanmehmud63 Hello, Yes. Let me look it up ( again); and, also consider the verse in the Bhagavad Gita where Krsna ( Self) says curving back onto myself I create again and again. So, let me go look up the Upaisad or the agama that refers to this creating itself to learn about itself. regards,
You make excellent documentary's, I love them so interesting and well made
Thank you for these shows.
Best. Closer To Truth. Ever. 🌴😎💯 Thanks.!!
Great series. Very much enjoyed.
What a great series of videos. Great conversations. Enlightening even.
Observation and the ability to observe pops up again and again. Observation requires conciousness... Wonderfully puzzling!!!
Been watching this since 2004 just awesome finally we had uploads, uploads that will last into the future
This channel is the best ever!! Period!
This was a great episode with the abstraction comment especially and the value comment
The greatest Question ever.
I think so.
I think consciousness is almost as big of a mystery.. but you’re right.. this is the big one.
@@BrockNelson well maybe it’s even greater, without it we would not even be able to ask no question, to think about the universe at all, it’s like the universe created something to understand itself and that for me is really crazy to think about it.
@@patrickgomes2261 One of the ways we can seek to understand consciousness is to explore ways in which we can turn it off (i.e. shooting someone in the head or giving them anesthetics). These examples point towards consciousness happening through mechanisms in the brain. On the other hand, if something did have the ability to be conscious without a brain (or any other physical matter), how would it communicate this information to us? It seems it would be impossible. Spiritual, religious or materialistic… it matters not. In any case, no matter the root cause (if there even is one), we ARE the universe experiencing itself…. And that alone is incredibly profound.
@@BrockNelson very true my friend, this keeps me up at night wondering why. Why are we here? We are nothing or we are actually something in this universe? Before we were born we were nothing and maybe when we die we’ll become nothing again, so nothing it’s possible at least for something small like us. But does that applies to the reality itself? There are so many questions that we may never know the truth and it drives me crazy if I stop to think about it
I came here sane, the longer I watch the more I'm questioning my sanity
In truth, you actually accepted the experience of 'insanity' by projecting Consciousness from infinite formlessness into an experience of limited form that it may perceive the illusion of imperfection and objectivity to the point where you place more belief in the reality of the illusion than you do in what the mind can no longer perceive.
Judd Otto It's good to ask questions but don't let them take over your life. Most people have these questions. They have challenged minds over the ages. Our technology has developed exponentially over the last 100 years. But totally satisfactory answers for the age old questions could well be beyond us even if human civilisation lasts millions or billions of years in the future. Just bear in mind you are not alone in feeling insane.
I love this channel. The questions I have been asking since ever are almost the same.
I believe that if it existed and we had a direct line to the all knowing ultimate consciousness, god or the universe itself "it" wouldn't be able to tell us why there's anything at all. "It" wouldn't know. Some of these answers seem to not align yet there's truth in every single one of them. However it will always be up to speculation and we will never be able to find a definitive answer to the question. Thank you for devoting your life to the ultimate question and as much as I believe we'll never get to the truth, thanks to you, John Leslie and the other brilliant minds you've invited in your show we're closer to it. I look forward to reading your book and indulging in this wild goose chase further.
It would know. The answer is that nothing negatives itself so something has to exist
Loop
My favorite question. " why should there Be anything at all?". And yet, there is all this, magnificence, beauty,awesomeness, glory, expansion and celebration. Or are we so dumb, not to recognize it.
So true
Hey Haim.... I agree. I wonder if the Cosmos itself asks the "question?"
lol. Not to mention all the ugliness, disease, excruciating suffering and death. Not to mention that our planet and our universe will one day be destroyed. Of course, our species will have gone extinct long before that happens. What's not to celebrate?
@@publiusovidius7386 most of your above mentioned ill effects are our own doing.
@@haimbenavraham1502 lol. Yes. The end of our universe and extinction of our species is due to our own doing. You don't know much about physics and cosmology, evidently. You're delusional.
23:25 Again, the end is always a good bookmark!
6:06-6:10 love the interaction between the two here
Acceptance and enjoy the journey.
Well done discussion of the ultimate questions. But why did it have to be this well done? Yet another mystery, sprouted from the other.
I think Max Tegmark’s idea is the best here.
I found the answer to Why Anything At All in the comment section of a KZhead video. What a time to be alive.
Watched about a dozen of your videos. Not sure about you yet, but your production quality is great on this platform. Getting a flavor of your thirst. I am highly confident you will dive into Clee from QGR, Quantum Gravity Research group on the beach south of LA. I've been following them for years. Think spiritual physics with receipts (I before e except after c), they are on YT. Have a GROOVY Day, tommyj
It's almost impossible to tackle this question without involving any subjective bias!
could you elaborate a bit?
We often define "nothing" as an absence of something, it may work well for literature but not in this case. There are probably countless things to take in account for before deriving anything close to nothingness.
@@rubiks6 What about nothingness being that which negates its own existence, hence why there is something rather than nothing?
Interesting
@@rubiks6 I think it's very difficult to often recognize our own bias. However I prefer the words "perspective" or "worldview."
I'm going to by ALL of your books
I ask myself this everyday
S Gloobal it surely won’t lead you to nothingness. It will lead you to a first cause, unmoved mover, uncreated creator, timeless and spaceless inmaterial being.
Here's your answer. Nothingness is the negation that which negates itself out of existence.
@@Ndo01 No that doesn't make sense because 0 - 0 = 0!!
@@MonDieuMaCauseMonEpee Exactly. It negates its own existence.
@@Darksaga28 titituiiitiiguigigiguiigiiuuigigttsgdf in r
This is the big one, I agree. I don't think a day goes by that I don't think about it. And I am still shocked that there is something, rather than nothing.
Nothing doesn’t exist.. right? So there’s the answer. That which can be, is. Nothing can’t be. By definition. So that’s that. Namaste 🖖
Max Tegmark explanation at 5:15 mathematics is the most credible to me. But even perhaps "Information" could be even a more encompassing potential candidate for the absolute, without depency, self-existing, limitless.
Math is only the shadow; life is the light.
I'm starting to beleive Robert created the universe and forgot. He is slowly pondering and one day will remember.
the most profound question, for sure!!
Ok, I've been binge watching these videos and I'd like to make a very small observation. I had recently been reading a sci-fi story, and not high sci-fi either, some pretty, well let's say grimdark kind of stuff. And I was reading a story where in the far future, humanity fights its wars with weapons so powerful they have the ability to literally delete space-time. So one of our characters comes to the edge of a continent that has been deleted. Just absolutely removed and all that remains is a chasm of nothingness. After having thought about it for some time, I think I've realized that it's impossible for me and perhaps for others to actually perceive the concept of nothingness. It's like seeing other dimensions in string theory. So far distant from our realms of perception, even the act of trying explain causes the whole thing to fall apart. And what that means to me at least, I don't know.
Ok then
It's just a word that has always represented a missing thing, area, or concept. It's only meaning in in the world of things. In a way, "nothing" is fully intact because everything that never existed still doesn't.
Yeah I went really hard trying to answer this and all you normally get is fluctuations in nothing, this is why I wondered where you got to with categories of nothing and that was good. It’s showed how the levels can build on one another like infinity’s, like tools from wood to steel to titanium
It's fluctuations within the perception of nothing, not nothing itself
This channel tries to tackle such mighty conundrums that instead of being more clear on the explanation, Ironically, I get more confused than I begin with.
Perhaps it's because that's how it should be: we should limit ourselves to the things we can understand. Anything beyond we're just kidding ourselves. An infant shouldn't mess with economics.
I see most philosophers claim that why there is anything at all assumes that there is a state of before the start of the existence of time is not valid because it refers to a time before time, therefore is not a valid thought. Well there is a problem here as I see it. We are beings bound by space and time and our language is also bound by these two realities of space and time. So what if the question while being valid is bound by the problem of space and time? What if we are asking the question of infinity in a language of space and time? That would mean we are asking a valid question in the wrong language. What I mean is that this question is not invalid!!
Mfers will literally make a philosophy docuseries instead of going to therapy smh But really, this is a great series and I love to see it
Dear closer to truth friends, I hope to help: The question could be no so difficult indeed: The existence is an absolute logical necessity because the nothingness is an absolute logical impossibilty. Nothingness is just a concept of the absence and, itself, can not exist, by definition. Nothingness has not ever existed, does not exist and can not ever exist. Same with the concept of infinite (never-end regression). Thus, we can realize that the question "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" is a non-sense question and perfectly equivalent to "Why is there anything rather than unicorns?". In fact, there is only one singular possibility: the existence of something. So there is not a causal explanation, a "why?", for the existence. And this must be because In the deepest level the existence there should be THE simplest way of existence. So far, it can not "not to be" and can not be other way. We should say it autoexist. We can deduce that the only thing that technically "exists" is a singular and present entity that it is itself, or generates inside itself, all the space, time (relative speed between particles) and all the physical matter and energy (wich are properly events, not beings). The physical laws are due to the properties of this singular, zero-energy, permanent, but dinamic and potential entity.
I think the question is posed because we know that everything is something but where everything came from is doxing. I think the better question is what is the original something?
"The existence is an absolute logical necessity because the nothingness is an absolute logical impossibilty." --- Based on? Are you to decide what is logical or illogical?
This. is. circular.
that's scapegoating the question. then why this appearance? why is nothing an impossibility? how can something come form nothing if nothing is an impossibility? there is a need to answer it because it had a supposed beginning.
you can't have an accident if you have nothing to work with. you need some tools to begin with.
Its sort of a redundant question in view of the fact that "there is" but thinking about it makes a great way to meditate or fall asleep at night
The answer is "stranger than we can think".
If nothing was the initial state of reality reality couldn't have come into existence so well it's better to conclude there was always something
Human curiosity is so "limitless" that even the ultimate reality seems to be limited. However, I'm happy to be mocked an agnostic one.
Bruce Lee eh?
Let's define a mathematical quantity, the ratio of the number of nothing that may have existed to the number of something that may have existed. The only make sense value is either zero or infinity. The value of zero means there is no such thing as nothing, and the value of infinity means that the big bangs have occurred infinity times. Either way, any finite number of big bang models, including a single big bang model can not make sense.
Robert, here is what me let sleep at night. Nothingness maybe precondition to everything: If you ask, why is the state of the universe as it is right now, you will find a whole possibility space of earlier universes from which it could have been arisen. (Maybe only one, if it’s deterministic) However, this is still a STRONG and complex precondition of the current state. This is the same to say: The more facts or “Robert layers” you subtract from any reality, the richer is the possibility space of succeeding states. If you start with true nothingness, you are not determined by anything. So: Nothingness is a necessary precondition to a causal EVERYTHING. And we are part of it. Let me add: thanks a lot for all the beautiful episodes.
True nothingness wouldn't be able to give rise to anything though. The possibility space is reduced as we remove things from reality but at the point of nothingness, the possibility space itself is removed
Nando N, I agree, if you start with a possibility space, you already have something - and you are determined to continue with a possibility space. Nothingness does not even constrains you to have a possibility space.
... you can imagine the existing set of all mathematical proofs that are false. Some kind of an impossibility space.
After pondering this question for a while I came to the conclusion that there is something instead of nothing because nothing is not a possible state of affairs. Having said that the next difficult question that follows is "why there is THIS specific something instead something else?" To that either chance "selected" one specific state of affairs or all possible states of affairs exist in some way and were are just aware of the state of affairs we live in.
Reading the'Tao te ching': '...The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery.' What works for me: silence the thirst of questioning, and let yourself be drenched into this mystery. Only then your thirst will be quenched. You'll find that the question itself won't be there anymore, because you'll be staring at the answer right in front of you. Cheers.
I love your reply. I would add, very simply, that “non existence.. doesn’t exist”lol 🤷♂️ Namaste 🖖
❤
I read this book over 45 years ago
Why is emptyness?
Sometimes a question is difficult to answer and the answers you get don't satisfy you, because there is something wrong with the question. For example, ancient people asked why does the Sun and the Moon rotate around the Earth? And they've made up all kinds of myths and explanations, all of which turned out to be wrong. And the reason why all of their answers were wrong was because their question contained a false assumption. This question assumed that the Sun rotated around the Earth, rather than the other way around. This was literally a false question, and that's why there was no right answer for it. It might be the same thing with this question, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" This question assumes that it's possible for there to be nothing. Which might or might not be true. And if this assumption is false, then this means that there is no right answer for this question, no matter how much people think and no matter how many ingenious answers they come up with. Because they would be trying to explain something that's not true. A question, that contains a false assumption, doesn't have a right answer.
Yup.
@@rubiks6 My point is that questions contain assumptions. And these assumptions need to be true. Or else, the question doesn't have a right answer. Because all of its possible answers are false. So, before you even try to answer a question, you need to make sure that the assumptions in your question are true. And whether something is true or not often requires scientific investigation and experimentation. Philosophizing about assumptions can get you only so far. This much you can see from history, where ancient Greeks have devised an elaborate scheme and even a working mechanical model that showed how the Sun rotated around the Earth. This model worked alright. But it didn't represent reality. It took Galileo looking through a telescope and gathering scientific evidence to disprove this theory and show how the orbits actually worked with the Earth rotating around the Sun. www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/ancient-greek-astronomy-and-cosmology
The most basic state is not "nothing" but "everything", the white noise of totality. Absolute nothing is absolutely unstable since it would require an infinite number of reasons why there is nothing rather than something. So in a very real sense, nothing causes existence.
Why does Nothing needs infinitely many reasons?
Nothingness wouldn't even have the property to be unstable.
@@Ndo01 But also not the property of being stable. There would be no reason for stuff not to appear spontaneously, so "eventually" totality of existence would appear spontaneously out of nothing
@@Neomadra because Absolute Nothing has no law, logic or property whatsoever. Hence why would spontaneous creation ex nihilo not happen?
@@maxcoletti It would be neither stable or unstable. It doesn't have properties. Things don't have to have spontaneously appear from nothing, that would give nothing a function. Things could have just always existed.
I just can’t imagine or visualise nothing before everything. Seems to me there has to have always been something even if it was different than everything we know.
I think another question is, “Can there only be a logical explanation?” Logic starts with axioms and guides us forward from an accepted point of departure. Robert should be digging into why we accept axioms without further explanation. The acceptance of axioms is like the acceptance of the existence of underlying math and laws of nature as pre-existent and unchanging. And logic should not be confused with intuition as there are plenty of counterintuitive laws that we accept as logical. Can illogical concepts exist?
I love this segment, but no one should have to endure the amount of commercials interrupting it. I'd rather watch...nothing.
Just use an Ad Blocker.
Go premium. You get 2 months free and no ads. Once you try it you'll never go back!
Oh man, I was just sitting here thinking the same thing, it's torture by commercial, i've never watched a single commercial on youtube, do the people who make these instruments of torture actually believe that anyone watches them?
1.Stop watching you tube end the torture. 2. go and make your favourite hot drink. 3. go to internet and take time to find an adblocker that is compatible with your 0S and your browser.4. I have windows 10 ( big mistake but there you go) and use Ghostery i have no ads.
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 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 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". 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, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist.
I have been bothered by this question for past 26 years and only answer I could think of after a lot of reading is that human mind is not yet evolved enough to answer this question. If we go by science, even our consciousness is some form of materialistic interactions, and we don't even know what our consciousness is yet. If our consciousness is matter, how can something that exists can visualise nothing, or rather, something appearing from nothing? Our consciousness has not got that ability yet. Humanity will have to wait till it finds the answer.
the best youtube channel
I'm not religious in any way but the more we dig into the nature of the universe the more perfectly designed it seems. Either there's an infinite multiverse where the constants of nature vary and we just happen to live in a habitable universe much like we happen to live on a habitable planet. Or something has set the universe up in this way but then of course who made their universe. Either possibility involves infinites which are hard to wrap out human minds around. I wonder if we'll ever be able to answer this question.
I still say it. There will never be an answer to this question.
Im starting to think that we should not think about a start date of the universe in years. We created the concept time, which describes for us a a start and end of a period. But maybe time does not work as we think it does. There for it does not exist. and infinity in our terms of concept is actually a very plausible thing. But something we can not comprehend at this moment.
The one big question that comes to mind watching this series is - Who does their landscaping? I want my lawn & schrubs to look like that. As far as Why Something RATHER than Nothing? It pre-supposes they are both opposites and mutually exclusive. Maybe we have Somethng and Nothing. Just like zero times anyting equals zero, Nothing plus anything equals something.
Appealing to a deity is another way of saying "I don't know" without admitting that you don't know.
Maybe the even bigger question is why we live in such a universe where answers to such questions are impossible.
In order to understand nothing we have to become nothing and only through emptiness, the Answer, do we understand that there's no need of questions. The Answer is within!
The host visited the brightest minds on earth. They all showed bravery in attempting to answer the question. They didn't shun or shy away.
I'd say the closest we can come to truth is the concept of non-duality. That ultimately, everything is simply undivided in nature - and therefore happens naturally, spontaneously and inevitably. This can't be fully understood or explained within the (natural) limitations of human thought [which tends to make it unsatisfying and meaningless to most people] but it's possible we can have an occasional glimpse of it in our own personal experience. Some people have more of these glimpses than others.
For that question to even make sense, one would first need to prove nothing is even a possibility. Nothing, like infinity is a concept not an actual thing you can have.
We were thinking in the wrong direction. Instead of some thing from nothing; start with the something we have and get to nothing. Universal heat death? It’s certainly a possibility moving in this direction, so why not in reverse, theoretically? Tomorrow’s nothing becomes the day after’s something. Also, Robert M. Pirsig is one of the earlier “value” theorists. Except he called it quality.
we don't have enough knowledge to answer that question
Another thing I was thinking about is that they say that time itself started existing when the universe came into being. So does that mean that time only exists in what they call the universe, and still doesn't exist outside of it ? If the answer is yes, then that has to mean that time is a property exclusively belonging to this universe since it was created by this universe. This also implies that time cannot escape this universe. How could the universe create itself and after that create time in order for it to exist ? That doesn't make any sense. That sure sounds like a dead end paradox
That's the deepest question
Nothing is like infinity. Both cannot be fully comprehended by the human mind.
Maybe all there is are just logical possibilities/concepts, for which it is impossible to not exist, all of them at once. And what we experience is just one of them, because we happen to be part of that possibility and so we think we are somehow real. So in a sense there is nothing, but the possibilities...
To answer the creeky guy, the logical master, we are simulating
the truth is always closer to truth, no answer is the answer for giving you a chance to answer, you can ask for the answer but you can't take the answer, life is on the way to life it's the open state for a life yo live, truth is on the way to truth, nothing is the generating power of creating something, nothing is not nothing, but beyond something.
To try too make sense of what dose not make sense is not nonsense. Why is there anything at all; maybe is the result of nothing existing that then began the chaos of everything to come to existing like for us humans to seek this existing to experience it all. What if GOD knew if he created the material that there would be suffering from that existence do to cycle of form changing from form to creat a new form from that was once non-existing to existing??? Well this is why I watch Closer to Truth. Great channel of great minds
I like the second option, if asked you would say well we came from another universe perhaps through quantum tunneling and then if they ask well where did that universe come from you repeat the answer and so on. You always have an answer, whether it is satisfying to the listener is beside the point as the real question should be why does there have to be a start?
Our society is largely material in thought and action. Thus, we inevitably feel the need to time box all forms of explanations. When we think of existence as material, the thought is incomplete without a start and an end. When we think of existence as fundamental, we can avoid the question 'why anything exists at all'. Then its an absolute given.
I think that the traditional question of "why is there something rather than nothing" may be an erroneous formulation. Maybe the correct question is, why does THIS specific (universe)/(field of reality)/(realm of existence), take your pick, exist rather than another. Perhaps, if we were capable of seeing far enough into the question (I'm not saying we ever will be able to see far enough), we would see that it would be a logical self-contradiction for nothing to exist. Consider the hypothetical proposition: Nothing exists. Within what reality would that be a true proposition? What's the frame of reference (in the Physics sense) within which the proposition is true? "Everywhere?" But what's the "where" from which every "something" is being excluded? We agree that unicorns don't exist, by which we don't mean that the idea of a unicorn is a contradiction in terms, we just mean that since unicorns have appeared in human fiction stories, but nowhere else on Earth, we're certain they were made up and don't exist anywhere. In other words, reality has such a nature that it doesn't include unicorns.
We are ... so something is! Existence of universes are something so! Why should we have to tackle such question? Zero point doesn't exist ...and never existed...this kind of question is properly a human thought ....an abstraction effect of consciousness when eventhough mathematical formula tries a GOD LUCK! ( good wishes from ROMA ITALIA , città eterna)
this is indeed the biggest question
My answer is that nothingness does not deny potential, so the universe began as a realization of a randomly selected potential state. It's also why quantum particles can exist in coherent waves; these are possibility states. The big bang singularity had all the mass of the universe in coherent quantum form, which is as close to nothingness as possible. The bang is essentially the collapse of that initial wave (decoherence).
Mick Ronson But that's the best kind of rambling 🤣
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).
that is a beautiful thought. #respect
Paul Davies is a wise man
"There's only one way for the universe to be nothing..."... had to tear my phone out of my pocket to look at the face of the person who said that.
Even if there was nothing space would still be there, so that's something. Space must go on forever, if it stopped somewhere then there must be something beyond what's stopping it. If something has created everything, what has created the something? My head hurt!
Even empty space is not nothing. The vaccum itself is roiling with particles popping in and out of "existence."
I ask myself, are there more ads on this channel than regular TV? To answer this question, I turn to the leading experts on YT channel monetizing... Were there more ads before? Will there be more ads later? Where did the ads come from? Do the ads go anywhere? To ask these questions drives me nuts!
Haha I love this
After the 4 th add I was convinced adds exist
Fantastic, this is so natural question, the reason for this question is for the abandonment of each and every one when dying, when we are motivated to have faith as a mustard seed for a post death saving God, when crores of people die in a war in the past present,, during a pandemic in the past and present, there is absolutely no reaction in the natural or in the visible space for any help from Aliens or any super natural being, we can tend to wonder and are convinced, that we are surely alone, that loneliness that we are alone is what is what killing us.
Still chaos Without any explanation !! Searching Nothing!
To simply have experience...
If the question is asked then there must be something. If there is nothing the the question can not be asked, changes are then possible, but from nothing there is no change, because there is nothing.
best channel
Even nothing is a presence onto onto it's self
There is anything at all because there is relationship and argument
I like Tegmark’s idea about mathematics, that mathematical abstractions exist even if nothing else does. So, if what we think of as God is actually a set of mathematical relationships, voila! We have explained how an uncreated being has always existed.
and mathematics explain him
That last part at the end of the video is what I think... To me, it at least answers HOW something exists, but perhaps not why. something exists rather than nothing - because something has always existed... have no idea what that could be - but that is the only thing that seems to explain how something could be...
I think there are really only 2 possible main answers to this question. Physics (which, as an empirical science, can not directly answer this question) shows us nested sets of physical laws that are causal explanations of one another; for example, magnetism is caused by the electromagnetic force, which is a consequence of the breaking of the electroweak force when the universe began, which is a consequence of the conditions just after the big bang, which is a consequence of more speculative ideas, such as the collapse of the inflaton field. The two philosophical solutions to "why is there anything at all" are that 1. this set of nested physical laws, each being a consequence of something more fundamental, is endlessly recursive, meaning that there is no theoretical "bottom" where an all-knowing physicist would find an ultimate law that explains everything, things exist in ever greater contexts. The alternative is that 2. there in fact is such a "bottom" to the laws of nature, but this is an even stranger solution, since this bottom would be, essentially "irrational" because it would have no intrinsic reason for being, like a cosmic "just so". Even if this ultimate set of laws is something highly rational, like the laws of mathematics (proposed by Tegmark, and also appearing in theories like quantum holonomy as a fundamental structure to everything), it would still be ex nihilo. This second solution I think essentially proposes a "prime mover", an impersonal, irrational "decision" about existence, although certainly not an anthropomorphic god. I think this is, for a philosopher anyway, an unavoidable choice. I personally think the first solution is more likely, but can't help but aesthetically prefer the second solution. The solutions mentioned in the video that amount to "chance," "value/perfection," and "mind" all amount to solution 2, since they are all some form of prime mover-type solution. I think the "blank is absurd" and "no explanation needed" amount to solution 1 since infinite recursiveness is the only way to avoid the prime mover.
But really all that philosophy can do is identify human responses to the question and figure out which answers are the most anthropomorphic, which answers are informed by the way our minds are structured to think. The scholastic "proofs" of God's existence, like Anselm's proslogion, are all informed by a wish to retroactively prove the existence of an a priori deity, they are essentially tricks. This problem has not disappeared since the middle ages and I think people are destined to invent solutions that tend to be wishful and anthropomorphic. I think there might be a third solution, but it's speculative and I'm not sure if it makes sense myself, but I will post it anyway since I like speculative ideas: we could reverse the problem of recursive causality by asking what "fundamental" really means. We tend to think of fundamental physical laws as causative explanations (i.e. "the big bang caused the universe, the big bang was caused by the end of inflation, inflation is eternal, etc), but what if it is actually the "end products" of causality, that is physical matter, living creatures and the emergent phenomena of meaning and structure are more fundamental, and the physical laws that underpin the existence of these things exist by necessity so that there may be something rather than nothing. Even empty parallel universes, or ones that instantly collapse again due to different physical constants, exist to provide a background of "possibility parameters" for the concrete "something" of existence around us to come into being. Perhaps more fundamental laws only come into being, existing in a state of uncertainty analogous (but not identical) to quantum uncertainty, and only become definite when some detail of physical reality requires there to be such a more fundamental law? This would, I think, in effect mean that physical laws are literally empirical: there exists nothing beyond that which is falsifiable, although here "falsifiable" does not mean "falsifiable by human beings" but "falsifiable in theory, disregarding technological or other physical limitations on practical experiments". Beyond this theoretical empirical limit there exists only a flux of possibility that we could call nothingness.
What if there isn't anything at all? What if what we perceive as anything is nothing? And, that we are nothing? But we believe that we are. So, there is something that we perceive as anything. What if there is nothing and there is something? There is never one view / one correct answer / one perfect perspective. The fact that there is perfection in this imperfection is 'magical'. Our and our world's very existence is 'magical'.
I'm very certain that the reality we experience isn't the absolute base reality.