Banner
    Why There Is Something Instead Of Nothing
    By Sascha Vongehr | December 5th 2010 08:38 PM | 17 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.


    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 answer; it is nonsensical to claim that 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 confusing different meanings of 'exist'.


    The correct answer is: Because it is possible!


    If the posed question were about any other system but totality, this answer would be wrong: That something is merely possible does exactly not imply that it is necessarily actualized.


    As philosophy, we are still unable to fully grasp the answer. Physics presents it 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 or such world.


    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 anything possible? This question we may be able to answer, once fundamental physics rests on epistemology, as it must, since all else is upside down.

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

    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.
    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.
    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"

    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.

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <span> <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.