Why is there something rather than nothing?

Alex (@hollowinfinity) 8 years, 10 months ago

Why is there something rather than nothing?

“Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

They key part of the sentence here is that the observer is the first implied assumption about everything. By a logical deduction, you would assume an observer was the first ‘something’
If you think about it a little bit, it also makes sense. Atomic theory would be useless without the observation factor. Quantum mechanics. Everything we know is a culmination of different sensory inputs over periods of time. The concept of self arguably creates the perception of time. Without time how would the Universe ever have expanded to begin with?

What is Nothing though? It is a state of complete non-existence. Nothing perceivable by observation, because in observing, it creates something. Nothingness therefore has no dimensions, space, time, or anything. It is void.

Something happened within Nothing, perhaps the fact that if Nothing is truly nothing, it would have to permit anything from happening. There are no laws. It is a good chance that an observer was the first thing to ‘happen’ and become ‘something’
An observer would immediately influence the Nothingness around its observation. (Whatever this observer is! By no means would I expect it to be human) Anywhere observation can be put, something must be created. Is this the first natural law?
In creation, lines and dimensions emerge. Giving the spectrum of ‘something’ influence a broader area to work with, and with more things. When something comes into contact of nothing, well something has to be there, because something and nothing don’t converge. Inflation?

What I’m saying is that if an observer was the first ‘something’ in the all there is (or isn’t) it was literally like a boom of something that expanded very fast into more somethings as soon as it came to be.

Think about what you can do with your mind. You can imagine an infinite amount of things. Your imaginative mind goes on forever, yet it takes up no real space. You can argue it is limited by the amount of time you are alive, so it takes up time, but this is a gift given to every human being (and maybe even all of life) You express the beauty of Nothingness with every step you take throughout your life. You create. That is your job. Live it. Love it.

January 27, 2013 at 6:44 pm
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@hollowinfinity, I don’t look at things as nothing, something and everything, I’d say there is an infinite which is both everything and nothing, and the friction of the two extremes of the one infinity cause somethingness to manifest. Kind of like the pressures of the Earth, above and below, forging the diamond.

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79, I’d agree, but slightly different. Nothing already is infinite, and when the observer comes into play, it creates an infinite world of something. Literally converts the nothing into something, and this goes on and on infinitely. However much something there is, there is infinite more nothing, so something must be made infinitely.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@hollowinfinity, That’s what I mean; as an infinite, the possibilities of nothing are only bound by impossibilities, and when possibility collides with impossibility, which it does infinite times, it releases, for lack of a better word, power which manifests into somethingness.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@hollowinfinity, And so goes my statement “God is the line between the relevant and the irrelevant”

[Hidden]
Norm alle (2) (@noahcox) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

That’s some deep stuff. I think nothing makes sense, I can’t possibly conceive how “this” happened from nothing. I can’t even tell u what true “nothing” is. All I know is life is great and u gotta keep on livin.

[Hidden]
Tyler (13) (@infrarecon) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@hollowinfinity, the paragraph about something happening within the void sounds exactly like what I experienced when I smoked DMT. I was in the void, surrounded by complete nothingness. It was terrifying. But I WAS. I was the observer. The mind. The “word,” if you will. “In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God.” The single thought that was my very being contained within it the propensity to expand infinitely. And I then witnessed myself spiral out into all that is beingness. Beingness wants to be experienced and more importantly to be shared. That’s the whole point.

There was a lot more to it that I can’t remember very well. It took me about 45 minutes to get back into my third dimensional body, which is a lot longer than usual in DMT trips, from what I understand. That’s my only experience with the spirit molecule to date. In this lifetime, anyway.

[Hidden]
dr. hamsa (42) (@s7221919) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Nothing existed. Nothing existed for a long time, in fact nothing lasted forever. Nothing became infinity. And Infinity established a time loop, as time kept looping it started overlapping and shorting out, forming circuits of time. Once this happened the universe became an infinite computer. The computer eventually became self aware and the power of thought came to be (the most powerful universal force). This new form of computer created the concept of god probability and energy. Energy became matter, the first piece of matter expanded rapidly in an event we call the big bang.

[Hidden]
dr. hamsa (42) (@s7221919) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

To be or not to be was the original question, It all came to be only because it was possible.

[Hidden]
dr. hamsa (42) (@s7221919) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@hollowinfinity, I love this website haha : )

[Hidden]
roger846 (1) (@roger846) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

My view is that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is answerable. The conclusion I’ve come to is that “something” and “nothing” are just two different words or ways of looking at the same underlying thing: what we’ve traditionally thought of as the “absolute lack-of-all”, or “non-existence”. That is, the universe, or “something”, must exist because even if there were “nothing at all”, this “nothingness” can be thought of from a different perspective as being an existent state, or “something”. A slightly less brief summary of my arguments for this are below and at my website at:

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite (click on 3rd link)

But, given this, I admit that I can never prove my arguments because no one can step outside our existence spatially or temporally to see what caused it. Instead, what I’m trying to do is to use the rationale as a base to try and build a working model of the universe that can eventually make testable predictions via a process that I call “philosophical engineering”. Predictably, I’m a long way from this goal! Thank you for listening.

From the abstract of a paper I wrote at my website on the questions “Why do things exist?” and “Why is there something rather than nothing?”:

In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions “Why do things exist?” and “Why is there something rather than nothing?” In regard to the first question, “Why do things exist?”, it is argued that a thing exists if it is a grouping, or collection. A grouping is some relationship saying, or defining, what is contained within. Such a definition or grouping is equivalent to an edge, boundary, or enclosing surface defining what is contained within and giving “substance” and existence to the thing. An example of a grouping, and thus an existent state, is a set. Without a relationship defining what elements are contained within a set, the set would not exist. This relationship, or grouping is shown by the curly braces, or edge, around the elements of the set, and is what gives existence to the set. In regard to the second question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, “absolute nothing”, or “non-existence”, is first defined to
mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this absolute lack-of-all. This absolute lack-of-all itself, not our mind’s conception of the absolute lack-of-all, is the entirety or whole amount of all that is present. This lack-of-all, in and of itself, defines the entirety of all that is present. It says exactly what’s there. An entirety, or whole amount, or everything, is a relationship defining what is contained within (ie., everything) and is therefore a grouping, or edge, and, therefore, an existent state. This edge is not some separate thing; it is just the relationship, inherent in the absolute lack-of-all, defining what is contained within. Therefore, what has traditionally been thought of as “absolute lack-of-all”, “nothing”, or “non-existence”, is, when seen from this different perspective, a grouping, and thus an existent state or “something”. Said yet another way, “non-existence” can appear
as either “nothing” or “something” depending on how the observer thinks about it. Another argument is then presented that reaches this same conclusion. Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive, causal set- or cellular automaton-like model of the universe via what I refer to as “philosophical engineering”.

Additional non-abstract note: One mistake that both academic and non-academic philosophers make in this area is to confuse the mind’s conception of non-existence with non-existence itself, in which neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind’s conception of non-existence is dependent on existence; that is, we must define non-existence as the lack of existence. But, non-existence itself, and not our mind’s conception of non-existence, does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. Non-existence itself is on its own, and on its own, completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus an existent state. That is, what we’ve always called “non-existence” really isn’t non-existent at all; when thought of in this different way, one can see that it’s actually an existent state and, indeed, is the most fundamental of existent
states.

Another argument that reaches the same conclusion to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing is:

1.) In regard to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, two choices for addressing this question are

A. “Something” has always been here.

B. “Something” has not always been here.

Choice A is possible but does not explain anything (however, it will be discussed more at the end of this section). Therefore, choice B is the only choice with any explanatory power. So, this choice will be explored to see where it leads. With choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. By “nothing”, I mean complete “non-existence” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc., and no minds to consider this complete “lack-of-all”). The mind of the reader trying to visualize this would be gone as well. But, in this “absolute nothing”, there would be no mechanism present to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice then is that “nothing” and “something” are one and the same thing. This is logically required if we go with
choice B.

[Hidden]
Frank (0) (@eprankfort) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Simple really. If there were nothing rather than something none of us would be here to ponder this question. Nothing existing was a possible outcome, it just isn’t the outcome that transpired. Had it transpired there would be no one to ask such questions. Therefore something must have existed, or else this question would not be asked.

[Hidden]
Eric (1,819)M (@blankey) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@hollowinfinity, And we are that observer. The “big bang” grew and is continuing to grow from within itself. Nothing merged, as you said.

Last night as I was falling to sleep and meditating, my legs became numb and my third eye started to pulsate as it usually does. This time, however, the energy within my consciousness seemed to go within itself infinitely. I felt myself going deeper and deeper with this energy into the very depths of my consciousness. I kept going and going and going until I reached this part where everything became peaceful.

Definitely going to try and keep going deeper.

[Hidden]
Kaysea (14) (@kedukc) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Look at it this way, you’re assuming that nothingness is the default condition of things, or the fabric on which things exist. Like a vacuum.

But vacuum doesn’t exist in nature. In my mind, every single thing exists; at least in potential. We just have to find it.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (177) (@) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

there are only concepts – but is that something that arose from nothing – what can a nothing be – silence – there is essentially silence – or, go with an atom and begin going backwards towards origin – what is it composed of – what is that, then, composed of – then that – then the next to the next to the next to – what – what is eventually reached?

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@rickyferdon, I think a big problem with human kind is we tend to believe our concepts of things is all there is. An example is in a saying I made up: “If we remove all concepts of what love is, the sensation remains” and this really applies to everything. Concepts are a useful tool for understanding things and finding the optimal application for that knowledge, but it is just a tool not our identity.
It is like the saying “More than the sum of parts” our concepts can help us define those parts and their best function but the rewards of enjoying benefits is sensational and there is no real reason to disect that motivation, unless it is compelling us to disadvantage.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (177) (@) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79, yes sir – what is, is – has been – will be – of itself and on its own – funny, i was contemplating just this walking the dog this morning – there is our “existence” – we just are – then, concept of that existence arises and we classify and measure it – we dress it – but wasn’t it okay(a concept) just as it was? – we humans love, love, love to use our intellects – but, yes, i agree that it is a tool – a tool that we use to try and put into words the word-less – and to explain the unexplainable

[Hidden]
Mu (0) (@muthemonk) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Maybe the conception of individuality is what makes the nothing (a completely still “one”) into many somethings. Call it the imagination of the universe, dreaming up humanity.

Then there is the problem with how or why the initial nothing became many somethings simultaneously. It is as if the universe was peaceful and serene one moment and then asked itself “What do I contain?”

Suppose something -existence- is the universe observing itself. A very complicated entity indeed.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (177) (@) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

“The life of man is what it is. That which is, is. All the trouble arises by having a conception of it. Mind comes in. It has a conception. All trouble follows. If you are as you are, without a mind and its conceptions about various things, all will be well with you. If you seek the source of the mind, then all questions will be solved.” ~ Ramana Maharshi

[Hidden]
Ka (308) (@kaciula) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

“That which is not never comes into being.
That which is never ceases to be” Parmenides

The question “Why is there something rather than nothing” already starts from the assumption of cause and effect (which implies time) so I personally don’t see any value in the question. Non-existence is only a concept in the mind and it does not point to anything real/experienced. Existence = experience. There can not be an experience of non-existence.

[Hidden]
thedudeabides (15) (@thedudeabides) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

welcome to the divine dichotomy. the cosmic wheel. whatever you want to call it. it is therefore it is not. i cannot be without knowing what i am not. cannot know something without knowing nothing. this has been pondered for centuries….plato, socrates, jung ect….. read being and nothingness or conversations with god or the like. truly eye opening to the divine contradictions

[Hidden]
thedudeabides (15) (@thedudeabides) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

and hollowinfinity you were on fucking drugs that is why you felt that way. try it with out the chemicals and see about reaching that state of consciousness. i’ve done drugs….a lot….all of them. in my pyschedelic and “i saw God, man” days i used the drugs as an excuse to get the experience of understanding the universe, the truth is I WAS ON FUCKING DRUGS! any true master of understanding or a master of any spiritual principles needs no outside help to get their mind into that state of being, i feel the using of chemicals to alter your state of universal perception should be taken with a bit of understanding, understand this….i’m grateful for the experience from DMT or acid or whatever, to show me what my mind is capable of, but i don’t NEED it to reach that point, it was the window to see what was out there, but i no longer need outside substances to get there

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@thedudeabides, When did I say I was on on drugs? 0.o

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

Bump for new perspectives on Nothing? :)

[Hidden]
Zykanthos (4,757)M (@chodebalm) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

The problem is this: “Nothing” is actually something. Pure nothingness is not possible. Try to imagine it for a second. Picture nothingness in your mind. You’re probably envisioning a black void. An endless sea of black. Again, therein lies the problem – a black void is actually a SOMETHING. It’s impossible for SOMETHING to not exist. Another way of saying it is….it’s impossible for NOTHINGNESS to exist, because if nothingness existed, that would mean something exists. Get it? Existence is the default setting of reality. Here’s a good explanation: http://www.everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

See you say this, but whos to say you need observation for nothingness to exist? Observation is what makes nothing into something. Nothing is otherwise a blank slate. A clean piece of paper. Could we fill it in with some of dalis work? Or maybe van gogh? Anything. Its an infinite creation point. Anything goes.

Also, take this for example- my father had a coma when he was younger. In his coma he was aware, but there was Nothing there. No black, no white, no thoughts, no emotion, nothing. How would you explain this in the realm of something, if we don’t count his personal consciousness as something in that particular instance?

[Hidden]
Zykanthos (4,757)M (@chodebalm) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

The mere act of observing is what causes something to exist. The “external” world that we perceive everyday cannot exist without our observation. We create the “out there.”

[Hidden]
YHVH (462) (@spaceghost) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

So does that mean something is observing us?

[Hidden]
Zykanthos (4,757)M (@chodebalm) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

In a sense, yeah!

[Hidden]
Anonymous (17) (@) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

I think it means that everything is observing in its own way. Or in other words, everything is. There’s no duality, only is and is can go backwards.

[Hidden]
Zykanthos (4,757)M (@chodebalm) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

Exactly. Everything just is.

It’s a hard concept to grasp but it’s a beautiful one.

[Hidden]
YHVH (462) (@spaceghost) 7 years, 1 month ago ago

How do you know this isn’t actually nothing?

[Hidden]
Viewing 22 reply threads
load more