A Probabilistic Answer To The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics

TheMadFool

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics — Martin Heidegger

There are 2 equiprobable possibilities:

1. Something = S

2. Nothing = N

P(A) = probability of A

P(S) = 1/2 = 50%

P(N) = 1/2 = 50%

That P(S) = P(N) = 50% is the mathematical version of The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics. One seems as likely as the other. So, why something rather than nothing?

Let's zoom in a little.

What's something? When we ask this question to ourselves, we immediately think of things, from atoms to galaxies, and that's precisely the point that needs to be taken into consideration to find the answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics - the word "something" makes us consider many things. What this implies is that something is a different animal compared to nothing - there are many kinds of something but only one kind of nothing. Make a note of this point.

Remember we're dealing in possibilities: Nothing is as possible as something so, why not nothing?

The universe can be conceived of as having emerged from the possibility space that has something and nothing, both being equally likely. Nothing - there's only one kind of it. Something is of many kinds and let's assume, for convenience but without affecting my argument, something consists of the following things: {A, 7} that can exist in any and all combinations possible. Mutatis mutandis this covers our universe and any other that has something

If so,

1. Something = A or 7 or (A,7) [3 possibilities]

2. Nothing = N [1 possibility]

Total possibilities: 4 = 3 + 1

Viewed this way,

The probability of something = P(S) = 3/4 = 75%

The probability of nothing = P(N) = 1/4 = 25%

P(S) > P(N)

In other words, the probability of something is greater than the probability of nothing, and that's why there's something rather than nothing.

Roger

↪TheMadFool

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

Philosophim

You might be interested in my post: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8924/a-fun-puzzle-for-the-forums-the-probability-of-god

You won't need the later part, just the first 6 points or so. It explores the idea of a first cause, and what that would logically entail. If it is necessarily the case that the origin of our universe was a first cause (this does not require a God) then there is an interesting idea in comparing all possible first causes with the idea of there never having been a first cause, or nothing.

From that viewpoint, it would seem infinite to one that here would exist something, if you are looking at all possibilities as logically being just as likely to occur as another. I do not wish to derail your thread, so if you're curious, peek in there. If not, no harm, no foul.

Wayfarer

Damn! Knew I should have placed that bet when there was Nothing.

Harry Hindu

There are 2 equiprobable possibilities: — TheMadFool

That's an unfounded assumption. How did you come to the certain conclusion that something existing and nothing existing are equiprobable outcomes?

TheMadFool

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

P = The universe exists.

My modal logic ain't that good but I think the following statement is true.

1. If P then ◇P

What this means is that for the universe to exist it should've been possible for it to exist and possibility space is simply that condition.

↪Philosophim

:up: Will check that link (later).

Damn! Knew I should have placed that bet when there was Nothing. — Wayfarer

:lol:

That's an unfounded assumption. How did you come to the certain conclusion that something existing and nothing existing are equiprobable outcomes? — Harry Hindu

As I said in my OP, the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" assumes that the probability of something P(S) = probability of nothing P(N)= 50% because if that weren't the case, we would either have the answer to the question or would be claiming knowledge we don't possess.

1.If P(S) > P(N) then we have the answer: The explanation for why there's something rather than nothing is something is more probable.

2. If P(S) < P(N) then we're claiming knowledge we don't possess. It would mean we know that nothing is more probable than something but we don't know that.

The only option left is P(S) = P(N) = 50%

Wayfarer

The universe exists. — TheMadFool

You know, I think this is incorrect. Things exist. All kinds of them - big list. But 'the universe' is the background against which the notion of 'existence' is defined. It is tautologous to say that it exists, and preposterous to say it doesn't. And that means something.

TheMadFool

You know, I think this is incorrect. Things exist. All kinds of them - big list. But 'the universe' is the background against which the notion of 'existence' is defined. It is tautologous to say that it exists, and preposterous to say it doesn't. And that means something. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by "it is tautologous..."?

TheMadFool

↪Wayfarer

Well?

Wayfarer

↪TheMadFool

It's tautologous because any statement relies on the fact that the universe exists. It goes without saying.

TheMadFool

It's tautologous because any statement relies on the fact that the universe exists. It goes without saying. — Wayfarer

I don't agree with you completely on this. The fundamental question of metaphysics asks, "why does the universe exist?" and implicit in that question - you could label it a complex question - is that the universe exists. To assert "the universe exists" is just acknowledging that implicit and true assertion. Yes, it's as tautology but as you said, it would be "...preposterous to say it doesn't"

Harry Hindu

if that weren't the case, we would either have the answer to the question or would be claiming knowledge we don't possess. — TheMadFool

We do have the answer. Something exists. Therfore, this whole endeavor is unnecessary.

TheMadFool

We do have the answer. Something exists. Therfore, this whole endeavor is unnecessary. — Harry Hindu

Buy why does something exist?

Harry Hindu

↪TheMadFool

Thats a different question that your formula doesn't address. It also seems like a useless non-sensical question. How useful do you expect the answer to be?

TheMadFool

Thats a different question that your formula doesn't address. It also seems like a useless non-sensical question. How useful do you expect the answer to be? — Harry Hindu

There's no formula in my post. Why is it "...a useless nonsensical question"?

Harry Hindu

↪TheMadFool

It assumes nothing can exist, or that something can come from nothing, but we know that to be wrong, therefore I don't see how asking such a question is useful. Something exists. There is no why.

TheMadFool

It assumes nothing can exist, or that something can come from nothing, but we know that to be wrong — Harry Hindu

1. Nothing can exist can be interpreted in two ways:

1a. It's impossible for things to exist

1b. Nothing, itself, can exist

The fundamental question of metaphysics is about interpretation 1a. it's impossible for things to exist, it's falsity specifically which is "it's possible for things to exist". Why?

2. How do you know that "something can come from nothing" is wrong?

Harry Hindu

1. Nothing can exist can be interpreted in two ways:

1a. It's impossible for things to exist

1b. Nothing, itself, can exist — TheMadFool

Looks like both are saying the same thing.

The fundamental question of metaphysics is about interpretation 1a. it's impossible for things to exist, it's falsity specifically which is "it's possible for things to exist". Why? — TheMadFool

Not sure I'm really understanding your question. The absence of one thing doesn't mean nothing. It means something else. In other words, when you imagine something not existing, you don't imagine nothing existing, you imagine something else in its place (space and air, or maybe a bachelor if you were imagining a married man).

2. How do you know that "something can come from nothing" is wrong? — TheMadFool

Because its impossible. Its impossible to even think about how something could come from nothing, much less provide a coherent and useful explanation of how that would happen.

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

Equipossible =/= equiprobable.

E.g. there are countless ways for 'something' to be and yet only one way for 'everything' to never have been (i.e. not to be).

I know you get there through some speculative jugglery, Fool, but dispensing with this confused modal assumption ... gets there much faster.

The fundamental question of metaphysics asks, "why does the universe exist?" — TheMadFool

What is real? seems to me more fundamental in (and to) the history of speculative thought.

TheMadFool

E.g. there are countless ways for 'something' to be and yet only one way for 'everything' to never have been (i.e. not to be). — 180 Proof

A fine observation on your part. However, you seem to have missed an important detail - that what's being asked isn't "why is there everything rather than nothing?" but "why is there something rather than nothing?" There's a difference between everything and something, right? Too, everything doesn't exist! Where are the unicorns? Where's the talking lion from Narnia? Where's the spaceship Enterprise from Star Trek? I could go on but I think you get the picture.

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

You misread me. I did not state or imply "Why is there everything ...?"

TheMadFool

You misread me. I did not state or imply "Why is there everything ...?" — 180 Proof

:up:

TheMadFool

↪180 Proof

Looks like both are saying the same thing. — Harry Hindu

No, they're not saying the same thing.

1.. Nothing can exist can be interpreted in two ways:

1a. It's impossible for things to exist

1b. Nothing, itself, can exist

1a. is about the nonexistence of things and 1b. is about the existence of nothing. Entirely different issues.

Not sure I'm really understanding your question. The absence of one thing doesn't mean nothing. It means something else. In other words, when you imagine something not existing, you don't imagine nothing existing, you imagine something else in its place (space and air, or maybe a bachelor if you were imagining a married man). — Harry Hindu

This is another aspect of this metaphysical puzzle. What is the opposite of nothing? Is it something or everything? If something exists then definitely not the case that nothing, no? If you disagree then you'd be saying that something AND nothing is possible and the burden of proof rests on your hairy Hindu shoulders I'm afraid :smile:

If everything exists and I remove one or more but not all things, it's no longer everything but something, right? Ergo, the opposite of everything isn't nothing but something. In other words, it's possible that not the case that everything AND still not the case that nothing i.e. not everything AND not nothing is possible. That means nothing isn't the opposite of everything.

Ergo, the opposite of nothing is something and not everything. Remember that something is defined as at least one thing and so the opposite of something isn't something else like you seem to be thinking ["The absence of one thing doesn't mean nothing. It means something else."] but nothing.

Just think of it. Something means that there should be at least ONE thing. Anything less than ONE thing is not something and anything less than ONE is ZERO and that's nothing.

Because its impossible — Harry Hindu

Why is it impossible?

TheMadFool

↪180 Proof

What's the opposite of nothing? Is it everything or something?

180 Proof

↪180 Proof What's the opposite of nothing? Is it everything or something? — TheMadFool

Not-nothing.

Wayfarer

actually, anything would do.

Harry Hindu

What's the opposite of nothing? Is it everything or something? — TheMadFool

Everything entails something.

1a. is about the nonexistence of things and 1b. is about the existence of nothing — TheMadFool

The latter is a contradiction. Nothing is not something that exists. One might say that existence is the opposite of nothing.

Harry Hindu

Equipossible =/= equiprobable — 180 Proof

The distinction is meaningless in regards to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. To say whether it is more or less likely that there is something rather than nothing requires you to know the likelihood of something, rather than nothing, being the case given a set of prior circumstances. Is the prior set of circumstances something or nothing? Is it something all the way down? If not, then how does something come from nothing? Is that possible or probable?

TheMadFool

Everything entails something. — Harry Hindu

There's a difference between everything and something and this becomes clear when we realize that something doesn't entail everything.

Harry Hindu

There's a difference between everything and something and this becomes clear when we realize that something doesn't entail everything. — TheMadFool

Everything encompasses something.

Everything = All (some)things.

TheMadFool

Everything encompasses something. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I get that but there's a difference between everything and something and that difference is important when we consider the relationship of these two concepts with nothing.

Not everything isn't nothing, it's something. However not something is nothing.

A Probabilistic Answer To The Fundamental Question Of Metaphysics

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions