No one ever agrees with this argument, so I'll just put it here in case anyone's interested. If not, just ignore it. Thanks.

I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".   If any extant solution were satisfying, we wouldn't still be asking the question.  Another way to say that you start with "nothing" is with the analogy where you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something").  We know you can't change a 0 into a 1 (ex nihilo nihil fit), so you can't start with a 0 unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something".  That is the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something".  A proposed mechanism for how that can be is as follows.

I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".   If any existing solution were satisfying, we wouldn't still be asking the question.  Another way to say that you start with "nothing" is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something").  We know you can't change a 0 into a 1 (ex nihilo nihil fit), so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking, "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something".  That is the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something".  So, “something" doesn't come out of "nothing". Instead, the situation we used to think of as "nothing" is actually a "something" if we could see through its disguise. A proposed mechanism for how that can be is as follows.

    How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping.  A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole.  This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually.  This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping together of stuff into a new unit whole or existent entity.  Some examples of groupings are 1.) the grouping together of paper and ink atoms to create a new unit whole called a book that's a different existent entity than the atoms considered individually; 2.) the grouping together of previously unrelated elements to create a set; and 3.) even the mental construct labeled the concept of a car is a grouping together of the concepts tires, chassis, steering wheel, use for transportation, etc.  Here, the grouping is better thought of as the top-level label "car" that the mind uses to group subheadings together into one.

    Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.

Some other points are:

1. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Humans are stuck having to define "nothing" in our existent minds (i.e., "somethings"), but "nothing" itself doesn't have this constraint.  Whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of how we define it or talk about it.
This is also why just talking about "nothing" does not reify it.  Our talking about "nothing" has no impact on whether or not "nothing" itself exists.

2. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".

3. While no one can directly visualize "nothing" because the mind is not present in "nothing", what we can do is to try to visualize the entire volume of the universe/reality shrinking down to just the size of our mind's eye and then trying to extrapolate what it would be like if the mind weren't there.  That's as far as we can get.

If anyone's interested, more details are at:
https://philpapers.org/rec/GRAPST-4
or
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/

So, the mind makes a false artifact, thinking that a lack of anything can have being. This leaves The Existent to have no opposite and no alternative. Parmenides said that 'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

Good for Parmenides, but I'll do my own thinking.

What would make it such that The Existent has no alternative? There can't be a sequence in time from 'Nothing' that has no time nor has anything.

I already said my view, which you had previously quoted, that the seeming temporal change from "nothing" to "something" is like an artifact imposed by our minds. That is, "that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".

Everything is now physically known about our everyday lives:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf

I'm not a big fan of Sean Carroll's because his final answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it's a brute fact. I'm still going with my original nothing idea.

That's great! If quantum fields are "the basis of all that is possible" and "the fundamental strokes", who am I to argue with great literature?! I withdraw my previous criticism of physicists' nothing! :smile:
If you wrote that, nice writing!

Yes, I would agree that something is either self-created or that it was always here (infinite regression). :)

Agreed! On this, we are in unity! :smile: It's a possibility that something has always been here, but to me, that seems unsatisfying since I still don't know what that thing is and why it's always been here. So, while possible, I'm going to ignore it. But, if time itself begins with a thing that's self-created, it also seems possible to say that thing has always been here?

You're saying that the first existential grouping is self-created?

Yep, that's what I think. Without having some thing that exists because of whatever's inherent to that thing, I think there will be an infinite regress of explaining one thing in terms of another. So, if "nothing" can, when thought of differently, be seen as an existent entity, this entity would be the beginning point of defining things in terms of other things.

Hmmm, that's interesting. A grouping of existence.

Not a grouping of existence, but I think a grouping is what causes something to exist. For instance, a grouping together of paper, ink and binding atoms creates a new unit whole called a book that's a separate existent entity than these atoms considered individually. A set exists because it's a grouping together of elements. The set is a different existent entity than the elements considered individually. This idea of a grouping being related to being, or existence, isn't new. Many refer to it as a unity or a bundle. For instance, Leibniz thought that "unity is the hallmark of a genuine substance" (SEP).

What grouping? I think you skipped that part, hehe. Nothing is not a grouping of anything.
Existence was the grouping remember?

To me, when you get rid of all things, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this, this nothing would completely define the situation or be the all. A completely defined situation, or the all, are groupings just like a set exists if the elements in it are completely defined or all there. It's important to try and visualize what "nothing" would be like when the mind is not there. Of course, this is impossible, but I think that's the key step. In the existent mind, nothing just looks like nothing.

In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.
— Roger

Ah, that's logic. :) Clever trick but logic cannot exist if there is nothing.

This isn't logic. It's the nature of the situation. Only later, do human minds invent logic to describe this situation.

Thanks!

Hi. When you hear physicists talk about something coming from nothing, the nothing they're talking about still contains the laws of quantum physics, quantum fields, abstract concepts like the laws of logic or mathematical constructs. This isn't the absolute "nothing" of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?".

My view is that I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".   Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".

    How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole.  This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually.  This applies to even inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.). For these, though, the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.). 

Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.

Some other points are:

1. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".

2. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Logically, this is indisputable. In visualizing "nothing" one has to try to imagine what it's like when no minds are there.  Of course, this is impossible, but we can try to extrapolate.

If anyone's interested, more details are at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/

Or not. Why?

I'm more along the lines of this. At the most fundamental level, the reason for what exists is inherent to it. I put my view on what this might be on page 6 of the comments.

Benj96: Hi. My view is more along the lines of your first choice "The universe came from nothing. Something is a property of nothingness". My rationale is below.

  Before beginning, it's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which the mind would not be there.  When I use the term "nothing", I'm talking about "nothing" itself.  While one can't visualize this directly, it's important to try and get close and then extrapolate to what it might be like if the mind were not there.

    I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".  If this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice if we start with "nothing" is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing” but was in fact a "something".  Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".

    How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole.  This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually.  This leads to the idea that a thing only exists where and when the grouping exists.  For instance, groupings can exist inside a person's mind or outside the mind.  For outside-the-mind groupings, like a book, the grouping is physically present and visually seen as an edge, boundary, or enclosing surface that defines this unit whole/existent entity. For inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.), the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.).  This idea of a unit whole or a unity as being related to why things exist isn't new.

Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.

Related points are:

1. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the above imply a temporal change, time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".

2. Because  the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself are two different things, our talking about "nothing" itself (which is derived from the mind's conception of "nothing") doesn't reify "nothing" itself.  Our talking about it has nothing to do with whether or not "nothing" itself exists or not.

3. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. In visualizing "nothing" one has to try to imagine what it's like when no minds are there.  Of course, this is impossible, but we can try to extrapolate.

In using "it" to refer to "nothing", I don't think it's reifying "nothing" just by talking about it because the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself are two different things. In order to talk about "nothing" itself, whether or not it exists, we have to refer to it somehow. But because the mind's conception of "nothing" and therefore our talking about "nothing" is not the same as "nothing" itself, just talking about "nothing" as an it doesn't reify it. What I'm trying to do is to imagine getting rid of everything in the universe and then trying to extrapolate what would be there if we could also get rid of the mind.

But I think the question remains. Why is quantum field theory, logic or statistical probabilities there? If we say the laws of math, logic and physics exist always in some sort of Platonic realm, where is this realm and why is it there instead of nothing.

Why is that something that must be/quantum field there? While it's possible there's no explanation possible, I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". As you said, if this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice if we start with "nothing" is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing” but was in fact a "something".  Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to your point of "something" always having been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".

 How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping that ties stuff together into a unit whole and that in so doing defines what is contained within that unit whole. This idea of a unit whole or a unity as being related to why things exist isn't new. Next,
when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.

Two important points are first that it's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Second is that while the words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something" in the above imply a temporal change, time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".

When you say

"We starting confusing ourselves when we lose track of the difference between the world and the words we use to describe it. That's what we're talking about when we talk about paradoxes."

this is exactly right and well put. The example I like to use to illustrate this is the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Most people seem to mix up "nothing" itself and the mind's conception of "nothing". In "nothing" itself, no minds, including that of the person thinking about it, are there.

In applying what you say to a "heap", a heap is just a term that everyone has their own definition of about how big a collection of items is. The real point to me is what causes a heap, or any collection of items, to exist as a separate entity from the items considered individually. My view is that a grouping of items is an existent entity wherever that grouping exists, whether that's in a person's mind or outside the mind. In other words, there's one existent heap outside the mind, but another existent entity is a person's mental image of that heap. Anyways, that's my view.

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must of existed permanently
3. There is no reason for something existing permanently - to exist permanently, it must be beyond causation - have no cause - no reason for it’s existence
4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’

I agree with your points 1 and 2, but disagree with 3 and 4. I also agree with "S", that based on these 4 points "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is still an open question. My thinking is that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question, we have to face up to the possibility that there once could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". Based on this, the question is similar to saying that you start with 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with 1 (e.g., "something"). Because, as you say, there's no way to turn a 0 into a 1, the only way to start with 0 and end up with 1 is if that 0 was not actually a 0 but a 1 in disguise. To me, I don't think there's a way around that. That is, the situation we usually visualize as "nothing" can also, if thought about differently, be visualized as a "something". So, I agree with your point 2 because either "nothing" or "something" would be here forever.

How can "nothing" be a "something"? First, I define "nothing" as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic/Platonic realms, abstract concepts, possibilities/potentialities, and the lack of all minds to consider the supposed lack of all). Next, I suggest that the reason a thing exists is that it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together to create a new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing. In the case of a book, the grouping together of all the individual atoms and the bonds individual atoms creates a new and unique existent entity called a “book”, which is a different existent entity than the atoms and bonds inside considered individually. This grouping provides the surface that we see and can touch and that we call the "book". Try to imagine a book that has no surface defining what is contained within. Even if you remove the cover, the collection of pages that’s left still has a surface. How do you even touch or see something without a surface? You can’t because it wouldn’t exist. As a different example, consider the concept of an automobile. This is a mental construct in the head that groups together individual concepts/constructs labeled “tire”, “engine”, “car body”, etc. into a new and unique entity labeled as the concept “automobile”. Here, the grouping is not seen as a physical surface but as the mental label “automobile” for the collection of subconcepts. But, this construct still exists because it’s a grouping defining what is contained within. One last example is that of a set. Does a set exist before the rule defining what elements are contained within is present? No. So, overall, a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within is an existent entity.

Next, apply this definition of why a thing exist to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Now, try to visualize absolute "nothing". It's hard to do because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn't exist. All we can do is to try and visualize it and extrapolate from what we visualize to absolute "nothing". But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute lack-of-all", would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or "the all" is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. The entirety/whole amount/"the all" grouping is itself the surface, or boundary, of this existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, "absolute nothing"/"the all" defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities.

What this means is that we can give a reason for why "something" exists". "Nothing" would be the entirety. So, it'd be a grouping, and would therefore exist, and we usually see it as "something". This reasoning also gives an answer to the question of "what came before something?". That is, if there were "nothing" and then there was "something", how can this be because time wouldn't exist in "nothing", so there could be no "before"? The answer is that "nothing" didn't come before "something". Instead, these are just two different words that describe the same situation (the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract thoughts, minds, etc.). So, the human mind views the switching between these two different words/perspectives as a temporal change even though all it is is the mind switching between two different ways of describing the same situation.

Another objection that often comes up is that by talking about "nothing", I'm reifying, or giving existence, to it, and this is what makes "nothing" seem like "something". But, this is incorrect because it conflates "nothing" itself with the mind's conception of "nothing". These are two different things. In "nothing" itself, our minds and our talking about "nothing" would not be present. This means that the mind's conception of "nothing" and, therefore, our talking about "nothing" have no effect on "nothing" itself. That is, our talking about "nothing" will not reify "nothing" itself. Said another way, whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of our talking about it.

Thanks.

While cosmology is physics, and metaphysics is philosophy, the way I look at it is that they can work together to let us figure out how the universe works at its fundamental level because:

1. Metaphysics is the study of being and existence. It can theoretically be used to figure out why things exist and the properties of the most fundamental of existent entities.

2. Physics (and cosmology) is the study of the universe.

3. The universe exists and is made of existent entitites.

4. Metaphysics, through its ability to reason out the properties of the most fundamental of existent entities, can be used to deduce the laws of physics, cosmology and how the universe acts.

To me, this seems totally logical. I think this metaphysics-to-physics approach is a good method to get to the most fundamental laws of the universe. For me, in my amateur thinking about why things exist and the properties of existent entities, I'm trying to use these properties to build a simple model of the universe. If a model like this can make testable predictions, and these are validated by observation and experiment, this is science. It is the scientific method. Of course, this is easier said than done and I'm only just beginning, but I think this is a good method to use.
Anyways, it seems to make sense, and that's my approach.
Thanks.

For me, it doesn't matter if it's an illusion/simulation or not. What ever it is, it exists. Now, why? If we can figure that out, even if it is a simulation, I think we'll have outdone the simulators.

Hi. I like the way you put it when you say "some people can't conceive of it while others can" and "it's not clear if arguments of the form: «X is unimaginable, therefore X is impossible» are always valid." While none of us can directly see or even imagine nothing because our minds would not be there in nothing, what we can do is to try and think what nothing (all gone, including our minds) might be like. And, I think what it might be like when seen this way is as an existent entity.

The second part of the argument about what does "nothing" mean if "not something" is related to the first part. I think "nothing" can mean two different things, depending on how we think about it. The traditional way is when we visualize it in our existent minds. This way, it just looks like nothing. But, if we can try to visualize it when all including our minds is gone, then I think it looks like "something".

On the last part, about "Why is there something rather than something?", I don't think this is meaningless, or at least not value-less, because:

1. At least, we'd have an answer to the original question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". The answer would be the new way of thinking about "nothing" as a "something".

2. We'd have presented a mechanism for how "nothing" can be a "something".

3. If we now know a mechanism for how "nothing" can be a "something", we can go further and try to figure out some of the properties of this fundamental existent entity formerly thought of as "nothing". Because the universe we live in is composed of existent entities, we can theoretically use these properties of the fundamental existent entity to build a very simple model of the universe. If that model can make testable predictions, this becomes science. I think this metaphysics-to-physics approach is useful. While it will be very difficult and take years, I think this kind of model building is the only way anyone will ever be able to convince anyone else that their answer to the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is correct. No one listens to logical arguments as I've found out in both this kind of thinking and at work. They listen to evidence.

I think my vote is that I have neither of the two intuitions. My views on the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" are:

1. I don't agree with the idea that nothing exists is non-sensical or meaningless for the following reason.
If we're to ever give a satisfying answer (satisfying, at least in my opinion) to the question, we have to accept the idea that there might have been nothing and then figure out how there can be something now. I think another way of saying this is to say that you start with a 0 (e.g., nothing) and end up with a 1 (e.g., something). Because you can't turn 0 into a 1, the only way to do this is if somehow the 0 isn’t really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, if we could just see through the disguise of what we've always considered to be nothing and see this "nothing" in a different way, we could see that it looks like an existent entity, or a "something". So, the idea of "nothing" existing is not only not non-sensical but required, I think, if we're to satisfactorily answer the question.

2. How can nothing be thought of as a something? First, I define nothing as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws of math/physics/logic, possible worlds/"could have been"s, and the lack of all minds to consider this supposed lack of all. Next, I think it's important to ask why a normal thing like a book is a something? I think a thing exists if it's a grouping. Groupings tie whatever is there into a new unit whole, or existent entity. The grouping together of the atoms of paper, ink and binding are what make these formerly independent atoms into a new existent entity called a book. Applying this idea that a thing exists if it's a grouping to nothing, once everything (all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws of math/physics/logic, possibilities, etc.) is gone and the mind thinking about it is gone, this situation, this “absolute lack-of-all”, would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that “absolute nothing”? No. It is “nothing”, and it is the all. Entirety, whole amount or “the all” are groupings, which means that the situation we previously considered to be “absolute nothing” is itself an existent entity, or a something. Said another way, by its very nature, “absolute nothing”/”the all” is a grouping and an existent entity, and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities.

Thanks for listening

"The universe can be conceived of as having emerged from the possibility space"
Where does the "possibility space" come from?
Possibilities exist in minds.

I wasn't saying to start with a 1. I was saying that we start with nothing. But, another way of visualizing nothing is as a something. They're two different ways of visualizing and thinking about the same thing.

To answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" in a satisfying way, I think we have to face the possibility that there could have been nothing. To do this, think about the question as similar to asking how you can start wit 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). Because there's no way to turn a 0 into a 1, the only way to start with 0 and end up with 1 is if that 0 was not actually 0 but a 1 in disguise. To me, I don't think there's a way around that. That is, the situation we usually visualize as "nothing" can also be visualized as a "something".

I define "nothing" as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic/Platonic realms, abstract concepts, possibilities/potenialities, and the lack of all minds to consider the supposed lack of all").

How can "nothing" be a "something"? I first define a thing that exists as a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together to create a new unit whole. This grouping or new unit whole can be thought of as a surface or boundary denoting what is grouped together from what is not. Then, if you apply this to "nothing", if there were "nothing", that would be it. That nothingness would be the entirety of all that is present. It would be the all. Entireties and all are groupings, which means that "nothing" can be seen from this different perspective as being a "something".

In some ways, I agree with you and in others I disagree. I agree that you just can't get something from nothing, with from (implying a change), being the important word. I disagree in that I think nothing is more like the 0 you talk about. There's no volume, or black void. The situation I consider nothing to be is the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume/void, time, laws of physics/math/logic, abstract concepts, possibilities, and the lack of all minds to consider this lack of all.

The way I look at it, the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is like saying you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with 1 (e.g., "something"). But, like you said you can't get something from nothing, so the only way, you can do this is if somehow the 0 isn’t really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, maybe the way we've always visualized the situation we consider to be "nothing" is incorrect. If we could instead see this situation from a different perspective, we could see that it's a "something". How can this happen? And, I apologize for the long comment.

In regard to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, two possible solutions are:

A. “Something” has always been here.
B. “Something” has not always been here.

Choice A is possible but doesn’t explain anything; although, I’ll come back to it below. If we go with choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. In other words, there was “nothing” and now there is “something”. Now, if this supposed “nothing” before the “something” was truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing”. There must have been some existent entity, or “something”, present that could either have been the “something” we see now or that would have contained the mechanism needed to cause that “something” to appear. Because we got rid of all the existent entities we could think of, the only thing that could be an existent entity would be the supposed “nothing” itself. That is, it must in fact be a “something”. This is logically required if we go with choice B, and I don’t think there’s a way around that. Another way to say this is that if you start with 0 and end up with 1, you can’t do this unless somehow the 0 isn’t really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. Overall, this idea leads to the result that “something” is necessary because even what we used to think of as the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, is a “something”. Ironically, going with choice B leads to choice A. If what we used to think of as “absolute nothing” is actually an existent entity, or a “something”, this would always have been true, which means that this “something” would always have been here.

Instead of insisting that “nothing” can’t be a “something” and refusing to continue, it’s more useful to follow the logic described above and try to figure out how “nothing” can be a “something”. So, how can this be? I think it’s first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping that defines what is contained within. By defining what is contained within, it groups what is contained within into a single unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives “substance” and existence to the thing. In the case of a book, the grouping together of all the individual atoms and the bonds individual atoms creates a new and unique existent entity called a “book”, which is a different existent entity than the atoms and bonds inside considered individually. This grouping provides the surface that we see and can touch and that we call the “book”. Try to imagine a book that has no surface defining what is contained within. Even if you remove the cover, the collection of pages that’s left still has a surface. How do you even touch or see something without a surface? You can’t because it wouldn’t exist. As a different example, consider the concept of an automobile. This is a mental construct in the head that groups together individual concepts/constructs labeled “tire”, “engine”, “car body”, etc. into a new and unique entity labeled as the concept “automobile”. Here, the grouping is not seen as a physical surface but as the mental label “automobile” for the collection of subconcepts. But, this construct still exists because it’s a grouping defining what is contained within. One last example is that of a set. Does a set exist before the rule defining what elements are contained within is present? No. So, in conclusion, a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within is an existent entity.

Next, apply this definition of why a thing exist to the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” To start, “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”. Now, try to visualize this. When we get rid of all existent entities including matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, we think what is left is the lack of all existent entities, or “absolute nothing” (here, I don’t mean our mind’s conception of this supposed “absolute nothing”, I mean the supposed “absolute nothing” itself, in which all minds would be gone). This situation is very hard to visualize because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn’t exist. But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this “absolute lack-of-all”, would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that “absolute nothing”? No. It is “nothing”, and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or “the all” is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be “absolute nothing” is itself an existent entity. The entirety/whole amount/”the all” grouping is itself the surface, or boundary, of this existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, “absolute nothing”/”the all” defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. What this means is that “something” is necessary, or non-contingent, because even what we previously, and incorrectly, visualized as the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, is a “something. While this is not a new idea, a physical mechanism for how this can be is new.

One objection some could raise is that starting with “nothing” and seeing how it could be a “something” seems to imply a temporal change (first “nothing”, then “something”), but time would not exist until there was “something”. So, I don’t consider this a temporal change. Instead, I suggest that in switching between the perspective of visualizing “nothing” as just nothing at all and the other perspective of seeing it as a grouping and therefore a “something”, the mind can misinterpret this as a temporal change. It’s not. It’s just flipping back and forth between two different ways of thinking about the same thing: nothing.

Another objection that often comes up is that by talking about “nothing”, I’m reifying, or giving existence, to it, and this is what makes “nothing” seem like “something”. But, this objection is incorrect for the following reason. It conflates “nothing” itself with the mind’s conception of “nothing”. These are two different things. In “nothing” itself, our minds and our talking about “nothing” would not be there. This means that our talking about “nothing” has no effect on whether or not "nothing” itself exists.

Where I get back to agreeing with you is that we can figure out some properties of the existent entity we used to consider as being nothing. This entity and its properties lead to the universe we see around us, which is made of existent entities.

If you’re still reading at this point, thanks!, and there’s more detail at my website at:

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/

That's pretty much what I was trying to get at. But, like I said, while it's not possible to visualize"nothing" directly, we do our best to imagine what it might be like. That's what people do when they think about the "nothing" in "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Anyways, that's a very minor point.

Hi. It's for sure that we can't directly visualize or grasp "absolute nothing", so all we can do is try to visualize being as close to that as possible and then extrapolating to what "absolute nothing" would be.

What I meant by "switching back and forth between ways of thinking" is that when we think of "absolute nothing" in the traditional way, it just seems like "nothing". But, when we think about it in the way I'm suggesting as being a grouping and therefore an existent entity, or a "something", changing from the first way of thinking ("nothing") to the new way ("something") can seem to us almost like a temporal change. The reason I bring this up is that a common objection is that there would be no time in "absolute nothing", so how can it ever change or transform into "something", when transformations would seem to take time? It's just a way of answering that objection. I don't think "nothing" actually changes into "something" but that "nothing" and "something" are just two different ways of thinking about the same thing. It sounds almost the same as what unenlightened said with "there is only the being and not-being happening that give rise to time as the relation of one to the other."

But, it sounds like what you said in the first reply that maybe we're thinking along similar lines with maybe a few wording preference differences.

Hi, Eremit. Thanks for replying! I agree with you when you say that the concept of nothing presupposes the something that it negates, but nothing itself, not our concept of nothing, would not depend on something.

I think nothing itself (not our concept of nothing) might be the same as what you call the One, and what I think some refer to as the Absolute. If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, then I'd agree that the "absolute nothing"/"The One"/"The Absolute" would be the most fundamental of all. This "absolute nothing" would also be the all, it would be everything there is or isn't. All and everything are groupings, and so this "absolute nothing" would be an existent entity. So, I would say something similar to what you say "then it split in two: being and non-being." except I'd say that it doesn't really split into two, but it instead can be thought of, after the fact, as either "nothing"/non-being or, when thought of in terms of its being a grouping, as "something"/being. And, it's this switching back and forth between ways of thinking of it that we might mistakenly call before and after, or a change in time.

Anyways, I think this kind of mechanistic thinking is what will let us finally make progress on this question and then use the answer to discover and invent new things.

Hi. I'm a new subscriber. Sorry for the little bit longer post to begin with.

Others have suggested that the seeming insolubility of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is based on a flawed assumption. I agree and think the flawed assumption is that the situation we often visualize as being "absolute nothing" or the lack of all existent entities (e.g., the lack of all matter; energy; space/volume; time; abstract concepts; laws of physics, math and logic; possibilities; and minds and consciousness to consider this supposed "nothing") is really the lack of all existent entities. Instead, I think this situation is itself an existent entity, or a "something". If so, this means that "something" is necessary, or non-contingent because even what we used to think of as "absolute nothing" is a something. How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think that two possible solutions to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" are:

A. “Something” has always been here.

B. “Something” has not always been here.

Choice A is possible but doesn’t explain anything; although, more will be said about it later. Also, in order to ever answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and not just constantly ask it into the future, I think we're going to have to address choice B. Therefore, if we go with choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. In other words, there was "nothing" and now there is "something".

While the words "was" and "now " imply a temporal change, time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation, and that the human mind, in thinking about tis situation, can view the switching between the two different words/perspectives as a temporal change.

Now, if this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, though, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing”. There must have been some existent entity, or “something”, present that could either have been the “something” we see now or that would have contained the mechanism needed to cause that “something” to appear. Because we got rid of all the existent entities we could think of, the only thing that could be an existent entity would be the supposed “nothing” itself. That is, it must in fact be a “something”. This is logically required if we go with choice B, and I don’t think there’s a way around that. Another way to say this is that if you start with 0 and end up with 1, you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. Overall, this idea leads to the result that “something” is necessary because even what we used to think of as the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, is a “something”. Ironically, going
with choice B leads to choice A. If what we used to think of as "absolute nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something", this would always have been true, which means that this "something" would always have been here.

Instead of insisting that "nothing" can't be a "something" and refusing to continue, it's more useful to follow the logic described above and try to figure out how "nothing" can be a "something". So, how can this be? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties things together , defines what is contained within and groups what is contained within into a single unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within is equivalent to a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing. In the case of a book, the grouping together of all the individual atoms and the bonds individual atoms creates a new and unique existent entity called a “book”, which is a different existent entity than the atoms and bonds inside considered individually. This grouping provides the surface that we see and can touch and that we call the "book". Try to imagine a book that has no surface defining what is contained within. Even if you remove the cover, the collection of pages that’s left still has a surface. How do you even touch or see something without a surface? You can’t because it wouldn’t exist. As a different example, consider the concept of an automobile. This is a mental construct in the head that groups together individual concepts/constructs labeled “tire”, “engine”, “car body”, etc. into a new and unique entity labeled as the concept “automobile”. Here, the grouping is not seen as a physical surface but as the mental label “automobile” for the collection of subconcepts. But, this construct still exists because it’s a grouping defining what is contained within. One last example is that of a set. Does a set exist before the rule defining what elements are contained within is present? No. So, in conclusion, a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within is an existent entity.

Next, apply this definition of why a thing exist to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" To start, "absolute nothing", or "non-existence", is first defined to mean: no energy, matter, space/volume, time, abstract thoughts/concepts, laws of physics/math/logic, possibilities/possible worlds, etc.; and no minds to think about this "absolute lack-of-all". Now, try to visualize this. Of course, we can't visualize it directly but we can try to do the best we can. When we get rid of all existent entities including matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, we think what is left is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing". I don't mean our mind's conception of this supposed "absolute nothing", I mean the supposed "absolute nothing" itself, in which all minds would be gone. This situation is very hard to visualize because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn't exist. But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute lack-of-all", would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or "the all" is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. The entirety/whole amount/"the all" grouping is itself the surface, or boundary, of this existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, "absolute nothing"/"the all" defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. What this means is that "something" is necessary, or non-contingent, because even what we previously, and incorrectly, visualized as the lack of all existent entities, or "nothing", is a "something. While this is not a new idea, I don't think a mechanism for how it could be has been presented.

One objection that often comes up is that by talking about "nothing", I'm reifying, or giving existence, to it, and this is what makes "nothing" seem like "something". But, this objection is incorrect because "nothing" itself and the mind's conception of "nothing" are two different things. They are not the same thing. In "nothing" itself, our minds and our talking about "nothing" would not be present. This means that the mind's conception of "nothing" and, therefore, our talking about "nothing" have no effect on "nothing" itself. That is, our talking about "nothing" will not reify "nothing" itself. Said another way, whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of our talking about it. Also, to even discuss the topic, we have to talk about "nothing" as if it's a thing. It's okay to do this; as just mentioned, our talking about it won't affect whether or not "nothing" itself, and not our mind's conception of "nothing", exists.

Like all proposed solutions to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", I can't prove my views because I can't step outside the universe to see why it came into being. All we can do is provide evidence for our arguments. That leads me to this next point. All of us can argue forever about whether this view or that one on the title question is correct. But, without evidence, all of these are just good arguments. The only way to make progress is to take our metaphysical ideas for why there are existent entities and use them to build a model of the physical universe, which is composed of physical entities. If this model is consistent with physical observations and can make testable predictions, this is science. I think this metaphysics-to-physics approach is the best way to make progress and gain wider acceptance for one's views, whether they be theistic, non-theistic or whatever.

If anyone's still reading at this point, thanks!, and there's more detail at my website at:

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