the question makes little sense and answering it makes not a wit of difference to anything. — SophistiCat
By the way, if you put an extra space between paragraphs, your posts will look less like an unappealing wall of text. — SophistiCat
2 contradictory propositions : «it is impossible for the universe not to have existed» and «it was far more likely for the universe not to have existed» — Amalac
Lawrence Krauss, physicist, science educator, has written a book titled "A Universe From Nothing" that's supposed to, in Krauss' opinion, answer your question. I believe Krauss' starting premise is that the total energy in the universe is zero. It must be mentioned though that his book has met with some criticism with other scientists, philosophers, etc. alleging that Krauss hasn't actually explained why there's something rather than nothing. — TheMadFool
My personal opinion, for what its worth, is that we have to start from what is obvious viz. that something exists. — TheMadFool
1. That an event x occurs implies that x was liklier than not-x. That Stephen Hawking was given the Lucasian Chair Of Mathematics, that it happened, implies that it was likelier than Stephen Hawking not being given that honor - Stephen Hawking had what it takes to get that position. Likewise, that something is rather than nothing should mean that something was likelier than nothing. — TheMadFool
If I flip a coin and I get heads, it doesn't imply that heads was likelier than tails - the probability of either is equal at 50%. Ergo, that there's something (I get a heads on a coin flip) and not nothing (I get a tails on a coin flip) doesn't mean that something is likelier than nothing. — TheMadFool
I should like to point out that the question isn't exactly «why is there something rather than nothing», rather: «What was the likelihood of there being nothing rather than something».
It brings into consideration also things like philosophical probability. — Amalac
It seems to me that what Krauss is refering to isn't the philosophical «nothing», but rather to «vacuum» or «void». The philosophical «nothing» means, I think, «absolutely nothing», not even vacuum with energy or empty space. — Amalac
Would you agree with Kolakowski then in thinking that «something exists» = «necessarily, something exists»? How would you then respond to someone who argued like this?: It is always more likely for anything to not have existed, and this is true not only of every particular thing, but also about the whole universe. A universe that was just like the actual one, but where a rock didn't exist, was more likely to exist than the actual universe because it is simpler. And so, if nothing existed at all, that's as simple a scenario as it gets, and therefore not only is it not impossible that nothing should have existed, but it was in fact infinitely more probable. — Amalac
Does it though? Something may happen in spite of the fact that it is improbable. For example: It was unlikely for many people to be struck by lightning, but it happened anyway. — Amalac
One of my university professors said once in a class: The world could have not existed, and the chances of it not existing were infinitely greater than the chances of it existing. — Amalac
Well, in my universe these two are two sides of the same coin - to answer one is to answer the other, no? Why is there something rather than nothing? = Why not nothing rather than something? — TheMadFool
Perhaps you missed the part where I said that the "something" in your question refers to physical stuff and with respect to the physical, vacuum is nothing or, if not, is the closest "thing" we have to nothing. — TheMadFool
We may need to give your idea a closer look because one could argue that, in a way, nothing ain't that simple. I don't know if this helps but consider nothing in math, zero. At first glance it has that outward appearance of simplicity - it's nothing and it's been given a symbol of it's own "0" - but try dividing by it and, supposedly, all hell breaks lose. I'm simply offering you what to me is a good starting point to make the case that nothing may not be simpler than something. — TheMadFool
I see, my question for you would be: Do you think it was logically possible for the universe not to have existed? Or do you think that very question is meaningless? — Amalac
I am asking if you think the proposition «The universe could have not existed» is true, false or meaningless. Is there something selfcontradictory in that proposition? — Amalac
Existence is a human concept. — T Clark
So if I understand you correctly, you deny the transcendental notion of truth (like Husserl's for example), according to which an assertion is true independently of the fact that we think that it is true or even come up with the idea of the assertion. — Amalac
Here you have committed a fallacy, as "Existence" is independent of the awareness of its existence. — Gus Lamarch
I think what you mean is that I'm wrong. — T Clark
There is a good, non-supernatural argument that existence is not independent of awareness, but it will take us into Taoism, which I think is beyond the scope of this thread. — T Clark
Please introduce me to this argument - or start another discussion if it is of interest to you - as I strongly disagree. — Gus Lamarch
My position is based on the proposition of "Cosmic Ontologism", or as I prefer to call it, "Natural Egoism", where existence is independent of self-consciousness, because the very substance of existence is its "Craving for Craving", that is, Existence is its own cause. — Gus Lamarch
Although ... the Tao Te Ching has some interesting things to say about being and non-being. — T Clark
One of my university professors said once in a class: The world could have not existed, and the chances of it not existing were infinitely greater than the chances of it existing. — Amalac
But what is the probability of any other particular result? They're exactly the same! People only think all heads is unlikely because it stands out. The probability of any particular exact sequence of heads and tails is exactly the same as any other: one out of a trillion. Yet some result must occur. — fishfry
That's one of my favorite verses and Mitchell is the translation I read first. It's probably the most accessible for modern English speakers. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.