Banner
    Why There Is Something Instead Of Nothing
    By Sascha Vongehr | December 5th 2010 08:38 PM | 43 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Sascha

    Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory)...

    View Sascha's Profile

    Why is there anything? It is kind of conceivable that there could be no thing "existing" at all – no world, no universes, no consciousness. However, there is at least something; that is for sure, if none else is.


    Let me clarify the question: The opposite of “there is something” is “there isn’t anything (e.g. observed)” but not “there is (e.g. observed) some nothing”. This is important to avoid much ado about nothing. “Nothing” refers to the absence of anything. “Nothing” is not another something.

    If nothing were another something that “is”, this “something” would have to “be” precisely in case there is not anything (a contradiction). This contradiction is not the big answer; it is nonsensical to claim: there is either whatever else or there is still nothing, so something is always there, even if that something happens to be nothing. Such is crazy talk and not the proof of the impossibility of nothing; this is merely confusing different meanings of the term “exist”.


    The correct answer is: Because it is possible!


    This answer may seem wrong. After all, if the posed question were about any other system but totality, the given answer would be preposterously wrong: That something is merely possible does exactly not imply that it is necessarily actualized.


    As pure philosophy, we are almost unable to grasp the answer. It is physics which presents the answer to us in a more acceptable form, although physics could have been expected to be the least likely science to do so: Physics, the science that started out to be squarely about things bumping around inside a world, but ended up showing that there are no such things, neither the former nor the latter.


    Quantum mechanics brought the posed question into the realm of science. Although it is a pseudo question that depends on what you mean by “exist”, quantum mechanics kind of answered it anyway. It thereby turned the posed question into a lesser one:


    Why is there anything possible? This question we may be able to answer. We will then finally know how a more intelligent species could possibly have known all along, as fundamental physics will then rest on epistemology, as it must, since all else is upside down.


    And this describes my work: Like Marx took Hegel, who stood on his head, and put him on his feet, I work to take physics and turn it around from its upside down orientation, to put it on the only solid foundation possible, which is the head of course.


    -------------------------------------------------


    More from Sascha Vongehr topic by topic

    Comments

    I'm just a layman, but since I read about a quantum fluctuation possibly being the cause of our something coming into existence from the quantum vacuum, I'm intrigued and puzzled about this. The quantum vacuum is, even by physicists, said to be "nothing", but in fact , a\s afar I've been able to understand, it is the minimal state of energy. Minimal implies it's not nothing. It may be that I'm just too ignorant about this, but if the quantum vacuum is not nothing, what could have caused it?

    vongehr
    The quantum vacuum is, even by physicists, said to be "nothing"

    The QM vacuum is far from nothing. There are many "physicists" - some even doubt special relativity.

    Not sure if I get your meaning -- are you referring to something like Vilenkin-style quantum creation? If so, there's something I never quite got -- doesn't this assume the priority of the laws of quantum mechanics? In other words, does the question 'Why is there something instead of nothing?' not just become 'Why is there quantum theory instead of 'nothing'? (i.e. perhaps no laws at all, or any other different set of laws, if one wishes to broaden the question somewhat)'?

    This would seem to necessitate some a priori justification of quantum mechanics to really cut the mustard -- and while I do have a soft spot for the possibility that such a thing will ultimately be possible, I am not aware that it has been achieved as of yet (though promising hints have emerged in odd places).

    vongehr
    No, my meaning is not Vilenkin-style creation at all, and precisely for the reason you state. You go on with
    "some a priori justification of quantum mechanics to really cut the mustard".
    Precisely! Much like with Riemann geometry and general relativity (GR): One is operationally inevitable for any observer, the other may be emergent symmetry due to thermodynamics. GR is not the basis of Riemann geometry. QM being the basis of the multiverse is equally upside down. The "multiverse" is a given and known for thousands of years (e.g. Parmenides). Why it must be QM is to be derived, say in the way D. Deutsch is trying (decision theory), and I have my own idea on which I am working.
    Do you mean something like this:

    "Basic reality must be something which exists simply because it is possible"?

    This is clearly not the case for any PART of the universe ("universe" meaning the totality"). Every existing part of the universe is of course possible, but not all possible things exists. Existence doesn't follow from being possible. But this is only correct because of QM. If classical physics were correct, the existence of something actually follows from its being possible (determinism).

    If it is correct, that basic reality is the only "thing" that necessarily exists because it is possible, then you can ask the question: Is basic reality physical?

    Basic reality is certainly not physical in the ordinary, everyday sense of the word, I would say.

    vongehr
    "This is clearly not the case for any PART of the universe"
    Yes, I agree, which is why I wrote "After all, if the posed question were about any other system but totality, the given answer would not only be wrong, but preposterously so: That something is merely possible does exactly not imply that it is necessarily actualized."

    We basically agree except for that
    "If classical physics were correct, the existence of something actually follows from its being possible (determinism)."
    This form of possible is possible via being hidden in the initial values, while the possible of the discussion is more the "parallel existence in and by itself" of all possible initial scenarios, even if they are all deterministic.
    My understanding is that theories of the universe fall into two camps: the Standard Model and String Theory. The multi-verses and other really fun stuff are derived from string theory, but there is as yet no observational evidence or testable hypothesis from string theory. Because of this, I regard all String Stuff as delightful speculation. Am I correct?

    Thanks!

    vongehr
    No, theories do not fall into the 2 camps SM or ST, nor do multiverses have much to do with ST (some ST advocates like to confuse this and claim that everything fashionable is ST, but actually very little really is due to ST). However, ST is much more than delightful speculation.
    Existence has far more possibilities than nothingness
    So existence is just more probable than nothingness
    Compare f.i. a pencil on his tip(nothingness) with a fallen pencil in any direction(existence)

    Vladimir Kalitvianski
    > Why is there something?

    > The correct answer is: Because it is possible!

    No, the correct answer is "Because it exists!"
    The weak anthropomorphic principle. I can buy that!

    Because 'nothing' is unstable. Once upon a time there was nothing, but it exploded.

    Vladimir Kalitvianski
    No, something exists and makes us wonder why it exists. There is no place for nothing here.

    Not all our "WHYs" can be answered. Only those that have causal origin. There are some "somethings" like primary elements (facts), like axioms, to which the question "why" is not applicable by definition. And "nothing" is just an empty element of "something", without any impact by it presence or absence.
    That's because 'nothing' is pure potential, pure possibility. The disturbance that caused it to 'explode' was an observation.

    Quentin.

    Vladimir Kalitvianski
    Nothing is not a possibility or a potential by definition.
    Hi Vladimar...

    Agreed, hence the qualifying ' ' of 'nothing'. It's very difficult to describe 'no-thing' from a thingy-centric world.

    Nothingness belongs to the realm of not-possible. This also implies that potential is as 'real' as actualised reality.

    Please explore http://everythingforever.com/ for the ideas of someone who has thought long and hard on such matters.

    Cheers,
    Quentin.

    vongehr
    "Because it exists" does not even mean anything! It is not even the right "it" anymore. The "it" of "because it is possible" is the fact (of that there is something). Your "it" cannot be the same (or if it is, then "because it exists" would be no more than the restating of the fact and not add anything whatsoever). The next issue would be the naive understanding of "exist", which is not equal to the "is" in "why is there something". Sorry to be so harsh, but "because it exists" is really silly, while "because it is possible" is actually the correct answer, but it goes very deep, much deeper than it seems.
    Sascha, your painting gives me an impression of a heart imprisoned in (or protected by?) a ribcage of tangled thoughts. This probably says more about me than your artistic intentions!

    I sense another phase in your gradual unveiling on this site. Looking forward to the truer Sasha...

    Cheers,
    Quentin.

    Vladimir Kalitvianski
    I tried in vain to find something super-symmetric in his painting but later decided that it's probably something from the non-commutative geometry.
    Much ado about nothing! (Somebody had to say it!)

    vongehr
    If you refer to some of the comments, agreed, as the "instead of nothing" could as well have been omitted altogether (it just makes the issue more recognizable). However, the post is little ado about something.
    How about this analogy.
    Lets say this universe is a content of file with 0 and 1s.

    Other file with 0 length can be nothing.]
    Other file with all content that are only 0s might be nothing.

    So lets say one day god got bored and empty content of this universe file.

    Other than that, I would say there's possibility that universe is shrinking. For example we are falling into super black hole type thing where light is traveling 1mm per billion years to the observer that are not affected by gravity etc.

    Why is there something rather than nothing is an age-old question.

    Your article states the correct answer is: Because it is possible!", which of course can be re-stated that it is impossible for there to be nothing. Even stating the opposite is inaccurate due to the language limitations. i.e, 'be' implies an existence.

    To me, one of the questions this subject brings into the light is the following: What is the essential difference, in a mutiverse, between a potential event and and actual event, given that all events must be actualized in multiverse simultaneously as an uber-superposition?

    Further, what relation does this multiverse uber-superposition have with quantum mechanical uncertainty?

    Cheers,
    Quentin.

    vongehr

    "which of course can be re-stated that it is impossible for there to be nothing."

    This depends on what "it" and "be" refer to. I would rather leave "nothing" out entirely (maybe I should have also in the post, but who wants to read "Why there is something").
    [The question of why concerning P = “something exists” makes only sense in competition to the opposite of P. Not-P is not “there is (e.g. observed) nothing” but “there isn’t anything (e.g. observed)”.]
    socrates
    Oh Sascha, what whirlwind of confusion you have stirred up with this ancient question? Indeed, why is there something? Well somethings are because we know their cause. We have yet to discover, what, if anything, is fundamental. That is to say, what, if anything, has no cause. That which has no cause, is fundamental and the is the cause of all else.

    So there are two possibilities. There is a fundamental, or prime mover as the ancients would say, that is the cause of all that follows, but has no cause itself. OR there is no fundamental, prime mover, and there is no beginning. It's "turtles all the way down", as the saying goes.

    In either case, the question "why?" ceases to be applicable. That which has no cause, has no reason for being. And an infinite regression into the past has an infinite number of causes, but likewise no initial cause.

    One final point as to the phrasing "something instead of nothing". Are they mutually exclusive? Can't we have both? Can't there be lots of somethings with nothing in between (in space or time)? Sure. That would be one possibility. The only other possibility in my opinion, would be that there is really only one big thing, with lots of granularity which we mistake for different things.
    Citizen Philosopher / Science Tutor
    vongehr
    The title is not asking, and the actual question was "Why is there anything at all?", not "why is there something?". Your reformulation naturally concentrates on a physically causal "why", even a time-like one, and indeed, those are not applicable to totality, which is why I wrote "it is in a sense a pseudo question". The "why" asks for a logical "because" rather than a mechanical cause. After all, it is still valid to put P = "consciousness is impossible" and then to ask why P is wrong.
    Hi Steve,

    "The only other possibility in my opinion, would be that there is really only one big thing, with lots of granularity which we mistake for different things."

    I second that! This is also well addressed at http://www.everythingforever.com/st_math.htm.

    Cheers,
    Quentin.

    vongehr
    Thanks everybody for your comments - I have now revised the post accordingly in order to avoid some confusion and much ado about nothing.
    Steve Davis
    "That which has no cause, is fundamental and the is the cause of all else." Steve, I liked that! In fact, I liked your summary full stop! "Citizen Philosopher" is starting to look the goods.
    this reminds me of the three emergent "nothings" of kabalah.

    ain -> ain soph -> ain soph aur
    (without -> without limit -> without limit light)
    (followed by emergent creation through progressively less refined levels of abstraction from an ideal)

    ie.
    nothing -> infinite nothings (infinity of not somethings)* -> potential for all possiblity

    so, maybe this is more about perception of reality than reality itself .. assuming the two are independent.

    on the other hand ... isn't: "possibility"/"something" like wave/particle?

    *note: for a mundane illustration of ain soph (infinite nothings), please refer to the Monty Python Cheese Shop Sketch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0

    socrates
    Very funny skit indeed, well worth the jump. Thanks for the link, Anonymous.

    On the wave/particle issue, I don't see why they are always presented as equals. I think that is Bohr's doing. To me, it makes more sense that particles are emergent from waves. That is to say, waves are more fundamental than particles. To put it in crude terms, particles are more like something than waves and waves are more like nothing than particles. Therefore the direction of emergence should be from waves to particles, since it is the something that emerges from the nothing. That's more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one, but there you have it.
    Citizen Philosopher / Science Tutor
    i have a tech degree from years ago, but no *real* physics (as in particles). But i enjoy the goddam insanity of it all 8-) Making sense of physics is the real mysticism. It's interesting how, at the very fundamentals of physics it's all tangled up with the fundamentals of psychology (which is the source of mysticism)

    One question that fascinates me is the randomness involved in wave->particle. I notice in educated circles there seems to be an abhorrance at the idea that randomness is fundamental. But it seems to be a feature of crossing the divide between the two realities. There's the reality of the potential beyond observation, and there's the reality within observation. Randomness occurs at the crossover.

    Ps: yeh .. my subjective sense of reality emerged from nothing. So nothing is the supreme source.

    By mild coincidence I was reading a great paper by Derek Parfit on this problem earlier today. Entitled "Why anything? Why this?" it was first published in 1998 in the London review of books. It is written in a very accessible style so I would recommend it to your readers. The opening is worth quoting at length..

    Why does the Universe exist? There are two questions here. First, why is there a Universe at all? It might have been true that nothing ever existed: no living beings, no stars, no atoms, not even space or time. When we think about this possibility, it can seem astonishing that anything exists. Second, why does this Universe exist? Things might have been, in countless ways, different. So why is the Universe as it is?
    These questions, some believe, may have causal answers. Suppose first that the Universe has always existed. Some believe that, if all events were caused by earlier events, everything would be explained. That, however, is not so. Even an infinite series of events cannot explain itself. We could ask why this series occurred, rather than some other series, or no series. Of the supporters of the Steady State Theory, some welcomed what they took to be this theory’s atheistic implications. They assumed that, if the Universe had no beginning, there would be nothing for a Creator to explain. But there would still be an eternal Universe to explain.
    Suppose next that the Universe is not eternal, since nothing preceded the Big Bang. That first event, some physicists suggest, may have obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics, by being a random fluctuation in a vacuum. This would causally explain, they say, how the Universe came into existence out of nothing. But what physicists call a vacuum isn’t really nothing. We can ask why it exists, and has the potentialities it does. In Hawking’s phrase, ‘What breathes fire into the equations?’
    Similar remarks apply to all suggestions of these kinds. There could not be a causal explanation of why the Universe exists, why there are any laws of nature, or why these laws are as they are. Nor would it make a difference if there is a God, who caused the rest of the Universe to exist. There could not be a causal explanation of why God exists.
    Many people have assumed that, since these questions cannot have causal answers, they cannot have any answers. Some therefore dismiss these questions, thinking them not worth considering. Others conclude that they do not make sense. They assume that, as Wittgenstein wrote, ‘doubt can exist only where there is a question; and a question only where there is an answer’.
    These assumptions are all, I believe, mistaken. Even if these questions could not have answers, they would still make sense, and they would still be worth considering. I am reminded here of the aesthetic category of the sublime, as applied to the highest mountains, raging oceans, the night sky, the interiors of some cathedrals, and other things that are superhuman, awesome, limitless. No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing. Nor should we assume that answers to this question must be causal. And, even if reality cannot be fully explained, we may still make progress, since what is inexplicable may become less baffling than it now seems.


    you can read the rest here.. .LRB.. Part 1 - Part 2

    vongehr
    Hmm - that guy just seems to be caught in the usual misunderstandings about statistical reasoning if the statistical ensemble ain't making sense and instead of sitting down and thinking about it, he instead writes the usual stuff that kids think when they smoke a bong. Sorry - I am a little harsh most of the days.
    given the recent post "The Fundamental Nature Of Light" ..
    http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861
    .. where it is shown (from light perspective) light has no time/space dimension and no energy ..

    i felt obliged to come back here and suggest the title for this piece ought to be:
    "Why There is Something Aswell as Nothing"

    The Jocaxian Nothingness
    João Carlos Holland de Barcellostranslated by Debora Policastro
    The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physicalsystem devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of anykind. [1]In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally buildit as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from theuniverse. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is somethingthat is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppresselements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If wedo not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believednothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, issomething from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule:“Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness peoplegenerally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simplest possiblenothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition isdubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then,nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist:“Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
    1-Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)2-Has no laws (mainly the law embedded in “Trivial Nothingness”).

    See Complete Article: http://pt.scribd.com/doc/53743910/O-Nada-Jocaxiano-Eng

    New term:
    Quantum Vacation - taken in a Quantum Vacuum, when nothing exists temporarily. Everything exists temporarily, therefore nothing cannot exist forever, which is evidence of something.

    2 Others:
    Laws of Quantum Motion of Electrons - aka "E-Motion":
    "an e-motion tends to stay e-motional until everyone ignores the person."
    This opposes Newtonian laws in that outside forces have to end their influence on e-motions in order for them to change direction. This change comes from within.

    Applause for Quantum Movements - for children only. Constipated adults merely get relief, no applause.

    Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen.There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen,then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in asystem without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionallyhappens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally randomand unpredictable

    We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once theycome from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them,
    they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations,JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms.Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to whichits elements - now itself – would have to obey.Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: supposelaws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does notconflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws.However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, itreplaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed(until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a littleset of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logicalrules?”

    Possibilities is a little lower on the scientific and reality-based observations than "probability". One really must factor probability as a factor of existence.

    vongehr
    Agree, but QM leads to difficulties with frequentist probability, and we have no solution to the measure problem. That is why I talk about possibilities, since probabilities are ill defined in QM. They do not follow from QM, we just take the square of the amplitude as the probability without a derivation of why we should do so.
    Why is there something instead of nothing?
    The question assumes that the appearance of "something" displaces "nothing" so that after the appearance of something, only something exists.
    Why is there something instead of Nothing?
    If the correct answer is because "it is possible" it does not mean that the possibility is contained in the nothing as pure potential. For if that were the case, then after nothing has been displaced by something possibility would cease to be
    The nothing that you are describing is a nothing in comparison to something - which is a relative nothing
    The Nothing that we should be looking at is an absolute nothing

    I haven't seen Baysian probability mentioned yet. What was the prior probability of possible existence actually happening given that it actually did?

    Now derive the prior probability.

     

    The answer is :
    "because in the nothingness thereis not law, not rules at all"

    If there is no law, there is no law of conservation at all or
    some law avoid something to happen, so,
    sometingo can ( or not ) happen in the nothingness.