• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Why is there something when there could be nothing?

Indeed we could not. So why can we ask the question?
 
Everything doesn't exist though, only something.
 
everything doesnt exist only in the sense that it is also nothing


dont bother trying to wrap your mind around the infinite.. it is impossible.
 
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

- Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

link
 
Because of inflation. ;)






Seriously though, buy the book "Parallel Worlds". Should help shed some light on the universal questions plaguing your mind. Obviously it won't answer them definitively but the book is very interesting in my opinion. Its convincing me of some pretty crazy possibilities.
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
Shouldn't this put to rest the question in the OP?
Click to expand...

So far I think it's still in theory mode, should it be correct; then yes it would answer his question almost entirely. Mr. Krauss is brilliant and explains things very well. Hope you liked the video :D
 
I would think nothing exists in the exact same way something exists just different or maybe not we wouldnt know because we are something or matter or whatever you want to call it where the nothing may be wondering if there is something. By the way there is no such thing as time on a scale outside of light years and even then im iffy about its existence simply because time is pure subjective perception just like colours. I would go on but im way to tired to organize a coherent sentence.
 
Something comes from something, nothing comes from nothing. If something is nothing then we would not be able to say it. I think what we call nothing is really, as Aristotle said "the bodiless dimensions" of something, or something that may be nothing to us but is something to someone who has the words to describe it. I dont know if i made sense but whatever lol
 
caseface99 said:
Because of inflation. ;)
Click to expand...

That made me chuckle...

B9 said:
There cannot be nothing without something, one is a framework for the other - I feel I've said this a thousand times - so obviously I must like saying it - who knows or cares why ?
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting. Weird.

There must be something, because there is something. Right?

The question assumes that there "could be nothing". The universe didn't have a choice in creating itself, did it? The universe didn't wake up one day and say, "I think I'll create myself".
 
good question. I think the something and the nothing are one in the same. Vacuum Energy is a result of something from nothingness, apparently. Maybe the nothingness from which Vacuum Energy originates is only nothingness from our perspective in this material world.

Anyways, why is there something? I think it has to do with creation itself. These are just my ideas, keep mind.

There first was the creator, who was and is everything, the whole universe, including all living and nonliving entities. This creator is the only true god. It existed as true unity, a single cohesive whole. It desired to know more of itself, to learn and to grow. However, as a whole entity, the singularity could only know so much of itself. So it split itself into individuated consciousnesses (big bang type thing) and allowed those individual consciousnesses, given their unique perspective by their ego and the transcendence thereof, to learn more and more. All individual consciousnesses will eventually learn enough to merge back with the creator like a drop of water in the infinite ocean.

The "soul" or eternal consciousness of each living thing, and even things we humans do not consider to be alive, continues through various lives and incarnations in various realms as it learns spiritual lessons, lessons of love and wisdom and free will and the act of creation itself. Evolution is a grand scale spiritual evolution manifesting itself in the material realm. Our bodies and everything in this world are temporary, transient. Ego allows us to see ourselves as separate from the creator and to transcend that illusory separation in order to learn more. Each ego/incarnation has its own perspective and thus can learn more of other parts of the creator from that unique perspective. In the end, we all serve the Law of One/Unity without fail. We serve each other, we serve ourselves. <3

As others have said, however, something and nothing are two sides of the same coin, but are complementary sides indeed. One may argue that the universe is completely and perfectly formed, or completely (and perfectly even?) flawed. You can say it's either and be right, depending on your outlook on life. The universe is infinitely interconnected and thus a single unit in truth. Spiritual and physical ideologies profess this truth of unity. I think that either everything is perfect, because the only way things could be is the way they are. Thus, the universe is a wholly self-fulfilling prophecy (w/ regard to physical/metaphysical laws). The only flaw I can find would be if the formative system upon which the universe is based is itself flawed, in which case the evolution of the universe would still be perfectly based on these unbreakable laws.
 
Yerg said:
Peter van Inwagen has devised a probabilistic proof that the existence of something is infinitely more likely than nothingness. The argument rests on the concept of possible worlds, and on the principle of identity of indiscernables, which was formulated by Liebniz. The principle is that any two things that have all the same properties are, in fact, the same thing; if two things are completely identical qualitatively and relationally, then they are numerically identical.

Now, given that any two possible worlds that have identical properties are actually the same possible world, there is only one possible world in which nothing exists. However, there are a huge number, even an infinite number, of possible worlds in which something does exist. Thus, for any world, the chances of it containing nothing are infinitesimal, and the chance of it containing something almost certain.

Not really too sure what to make of the argument, it's not very compelling intuitively, but it's certainly interesting.
Click to expand...

The problem with this thinking is it assumes a state space of possibilities. Why must such a state space exist when there could be nothing? More kicking the can.
 
The question is worded incorrectly, IMO. It should be "why is there everything when there could be nothing?" because if there is something, then the totality of that something is everything.

The answer, IMHO, is that everything and nothing are the same entity.

Both are degrees of magnitude so extreme that they cannot function as a scale relative to anything outside of themselves. They are singular and continuous.

Whereas scalars, such as 1, 2, 3, etc, can only exist relative to another perspective of reference. They are discrete, not continuous, entities.

The universe just is, even if it were nothing, it would still have to be nothing.
 
The answer, IMHO, is that everything and nothing are the same entity.
Click to expand...

Roughly speaking, this is what I wanted to get at. I might break from you on some of the nuances though...

I believe that it is because we begin from the position of crafting knowledge in terms of discrete entities that the nothing/everything appears continuous. Rather, I think that the nothing/everything inheres prior to the discrete/continuous distinction.

I'll have to think more deeply about the argument that the nothing/everything is autonomously 'logically necessary', whereas that which exists 'inside it' falls subject to contingent determination. My impression is that your insight highlights a key oversight of mine.

ebola
 
The question is worded incorrectly, IMO. It should be "why is there everything when there could be nothing?" because if there is something, then the totality of that something is everything.
Click to expand...
I think if using an ontology that differentiates nothingness from its finite content( e.g scalars ), everything is different in that it is a union of both. In that case, everything is a partial ordering of the nothing/something dichotomy.
........everything
........./.........\
nothing......something
Click to expand...

I'll have to think more deeply about the argument that the nothing/everything is autonomously 'logically necessary',
Click to expand...
I think that's consistent with traditions. Finite phenomena inherit the property of nothingness in the same way that logic/ideas/differentiations inherit the property of sentience. In that sense nothingness isn't a priori as a specific idea but as a property that permeates any given consciousness structure.
 
One of the big fundamental questions.

We can only theorize on the possibilities but the frank truth is we can never know since our perspective is limited.
 
This is no joke, you can become
Absolute right now! You are
Absolute right now! Just focus your
attention on the `I am'.
The concept of being born as an individual with a
body and mind has been so strongly hammered into
you that you simply refuse to accept anything that
challenges it. In such a state of being, the truth
that you are the Absolute `Parabrahman' in this
very moment may sound too far-fetched, or like a
joke. You can even become it right now by simply
focusing your attention on the `I am'. The moment
you do so you stand apart from the `I am' as a
witness to it. Now, who is this witness?


Who has the knowledge `I am'?
Somebody in you knows the knowledge
`I am', `you are'. Who is it?
As you stay focused on the `I am,' the question
"Who is watching the `I am'?" will occur to you.
There has to be something in you that knows the `I
am' or that `you are'. How come `you were not'
and now `you are'? This transition from `I am not'
to `I am', how did it occur? Was there any volition
in it or did it occur spontaneously? Who is it that
knows this appearance and disappearance of `I am'?

The primary concept `I am' is
dishonest, a cheat. It has tricked you into
believing what is not. Focus sharply on
the `I am' and it'll disappear.
The teaching says that first you must start an
inquiry into the nature of this knowledge `I am',
how it appeared on you and what it lead to. In the
process of this inquiry you land up with the
conclusion that this `I am' is false and has
deceived you into believing something that's not
true. You may theoretically agree with this
conclusion but in order to actually understand it
you have to keep a sharp focus for a prolonged
period on the `I am'. You have to do this
repeatedly; in fact this is the `Sadhana' (practice).
What will be the outcome of all this? A moment
will come when the `I am' will disappear and you
will end up in your true natural state.

The way in is the way out, from the unmanifest to
the manifest, from absence to presence, from nonbeing
to being. How is this so? It is the knowledge
`I am', which, when it spontaneously appears,
makes this possible. So the `I am' is the connection
or gateway in, thus it must also be the means on
disconnection or the gateway out. But, for this
reversal to occur you have to be in the `I am', the
feeling of the wordless `I am' must completely
engulf you, only then will you be free from its
clutches and enter non-being.

Who would have witnessed the
message `I am', if your prior state of
non-beingness had not been there?
The very answer to such a question, if asked with a
deep intensity, can land you into the Absolute state
instantly. Prolonged, earnest meditation on the `I
am' holds the potential for such an occurrence.
Even if you cannot actually experience this,
through pure verbal understanding you can see
that there has to be `someone' that witnesses or
knows the `I am'- otherwise the `I am' would never
have come to be. Meditation on the `I am', which
is the `Sadhana' (practice), holds the key to
knowing and becoming that `someone'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top