Colin McGinn - Why is There Anything at All?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 09. 2022
- Why is there a world, a cosmos, something, anything instead of absolutely nothing at all? If nothing existed, there would be nothing to explain. That anything exists demands some kind of explanation. Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why anything? Why not nothing? What can we learn from the absence of nothing?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on why anything exists: bit.ly/3jz6tB9
Colin McGinn is a British philosopher, currently Professor of Philosophy and Cooper Fellow at the University of Miami.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I like the exestentional questions and thinking of Dr. Kuhn so much. His research is always based on arguments which touch us permanently
This is a question where there is no need to analyse the question itself, its right there on your face. It's the mother of all questions.
This is the best answer so far on this series.
Funny thing is My Dad who was an atheist told me about this (same answer) and answered other similar questions when I was a young boy. He had quite an imagination for the days of no youtube.
I agree totally.
I think the more interesting aspect to the question is what happens when you try to contemplate nothing ever existing... you're faced with the realisation that it is impossible and your brain starts to throb and contort on itself in an existential spiral of doom. What's that about?
I don't think that's accurate. In fact, you have a reference point to it in the course of your own existence. Tell me about the time before you were born? ...
The time before I was born I was Cleopatra ,well that's what the hypnotist told me and he wasn't cheap..
Nothingness isn't even the absence of everything. In fact, the very moment you try to think of nothingness automatically makes it something.
You've stumbled on the answer to the riddle: the solution comes when you realise that the question's(the 'why is there something...' question) structure is incoherent. You're correct that 'nothing' is not the kind of thing that can be an alternative to 'something'. 'Nothing' is 'what rocks dream about'. It's meaningless and empty conceptually. Proposing 'nothing' as an alternative to 'something' is literally identical in meaning to the statement 'there is no alternative to something'. Which means 'something' is the only conceptual possibility.
'Nothing' is the only concept in human civilisation where the very act of thinking about it involves a category error. If you're thinking about it...it's not nothing.
@@chrisgarret3285 does it matter time after you've gone! The problem is corporeal beings like us ask questions begins with why when how what etc. How about absolute reality belongs to immortals per se.... THey can manipulate time even realty for agents like us!!!!!
Very powerful conversation here.
This is why St. Thomas Aquinas is so important philosopher: First Cause is imperative, a wall no one can ever cross.
The fact that we desire an answer to the question doesnt mean there has to be one we are capable of understanding.
This is enough to inspire
Fascinating discussion. Also, this channel constantly reminds me how dumb I am, lol.
The fact that you are entertaining these concepts provides evidence that you are not "dumb". To not know is not dumb. To have the capacity to understand that you do not know and not question the "meaning' or the "why"is not necessarily dumb, perhaps lazy. Unless you conclude that the "meaning"or the questioning of "why" is the inherent purpose of not knowing.
Great explanation
Wow totally mind blowing
Best explanation I've ever heard.
@wong ton Please explain how my statement "Best explanation I've ever heard" is, or even could be, wrong? What other explanations have I heard? Which ones were better?
The answer is that even nothing is something, but since nothing by its definition cannot exist, then the only alternative is something.
Something is nothing in that sense 🤷♂️ it's a cosmic zero sum game!
Robert finally you found a guy who just got you
We just watched a guy have something thats been bothering him his entire life answered to ATLEAST a personally servable degree.
Incredible
Hum ? Wow . . . ? Seem logical and we'll thought out . Bravo
Guest: I don't think you should be up at night worrying about this
Robert: and I took that personally
The fact that something exists makes the question moot. The real question is "what is the root of all existence" And second question is "Are we different than our source"
There is a formless dreamer and consequently there is the dream illusion. Everything that exists is within the boundaries of that dream. Which begs the question "How can the one dreamer become the many and still be the one!"
"The fact that something exists makes the question moot" --- SHEER STUPIDITY ---> THAT ANSWERS NOTHING
@@tomdi-grazia5243 you are right. Most of the questions fall in your category. Our consciousness is so diffused and distracted by so called reality that we fail to know our core self. Instead of trying to get to the root problem of existence through outward measurement, mathematics and mental gymnastics, become the source through quiet reflection. Once you realize who you are all of this confusion and unsolvable questions will evaporate like the fog in the morning sun. You don't have to go anywhere, just be where you already are. I know what I'm saying maybe difficult to comprehend but until you try it it's like criticizing a scientist for saying that the Earth is round. Good luck in your search for truth in whatever form it may take.
'Nothing' is a schrodinger's cat of sorts, once contemplated becomes something - so conceptually is implausible.
From CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) Wiki:
Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways:
Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator.
Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[32]
The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33]
Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.
The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[34] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.
Nice to get reminded of the CTMU, the ideas somewhat resonated with me when I first encountered them, even though I never fully understood it, but I had forgotten about its existence until now. If I understand it correctly, the UBT has a similar role as 'god' in 'new age' pantheist thinking or consciousness in philosophical idealism, correct? What I don't fully understand yet, is whether Langan believes that the UBT simply randomly generates all structures ('worlds') with all possible constraints (similar to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?) or if there is a 'learning' algorithm at play that builds increasingly complex structures, subject to more increasingly complex constraints, based on 'what previously worked'. A similar question would be whether the UBT has an inert 'drive' towards creating 'stable worlds' (learning algorithm, maybe hinting at a 'god'?) or whether any stable reality is just a by-product of the infinitely structure-generating property of the UBT (true randomness). If anyone understands both the CTMU as well as the question I am getting at (but am unable to properly phrase), I would really appreciate an answer (or even just a pointer where I could go to learn about and explore such ideas).
Interesting idea.
However there is a terrible flaw.
The reasoning holds that reality is “self caused” (which in itself is a paradox, but that’s not even the flaw I identified), and this was a result of an actualization from the UBT, which is described as unbounded potential.
The problem with that is a state of affairs can’t be actualized from a potential, only that which is actual can bring about an actualization. Cold water has the potential to be hot, however that potential can’t bring about the actualization of hot water. It takes something that is actual (for example, like fire which is “actually” hot) to actualize the potential for hotness of the water.
_Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator._
_Langan opposes both views, arguing that;_
_For an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise._
This is the silly old question of "If God created everything else, then who or what created God?".
The problem with the above argument is with the use of the word "reality". Its true that God (external creator) is real and we can say God is reality.
However, when we say God created reality, we use the word "reality" in a limited sense. Its not all inclusive to mean all that is real, as we do observe that there has to be something that is real yet uncreated (necessary). So, there is no contradiction.
Unlike Langan's reasoning that ends with the absurdity of a self-caused reality, the theistic account holds that the ground of reality is un-caused (not self-caused) and the rest of reality is caused.
According to Langan, why does this unstructured field of potential not just continue reproducing indefinitely its own unstructured ground state? If this answer to this is that, since it is unbounded, some structure will eventually have to come out of it, then everything that is possible will necessarily exist, aka we have a kind of multiverse with all possible configurations, and although interesting, this conclusion is hardly a definite solution to our original problem.
Imagine a child coming to you with this question and this is how you reply. Then imagine being smug about how deftly you talked them out of their meaningless question.
"but why?!" .... "because I said so!"
the question as to why anything exists, why do things seem to be the way they are, are things really the way they seem, what is really going on seem nonsensical (bc they have no answer). but they plague almost everyone at one time or another. an answer may be impossible in our lifetimes. but pursuing those question does still i think have existential benefits.
In my opinion above the numbers are their meanings. Numbers are nothing without meaning. Does Mr McGinn refer to numbers or meanings?
I wonder if they already answered the question in this discussion. They established that abstract concepts like numbers and logic necessarily exist in all possible worlds. They also posit that in order for contingent objects to exist there must exist causes of their existence that are not contingent, that don’t require explanation. They don’t provide any idea what such necessary causes could be. But what if those necessary causes are the abstract concepts like numbers and logic, that we’ve already established necessarily exist? Maybe our universe is simply a possible world, and it’s possible because it’s existence is compatible with abstract mathematical and logical principles. If all logically consistent possible worlds exist, simply as a consequence of their consistency, then there is no mystery. It’s possible that this argument is a sort of restatement of the many world interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. All possible states of the quantum fields are manifested, on the basis that they are all equally valid, and there is no reason for any one of them to be considered any more real than another.
I'm quoting the video and a part of a comment, my take:
Video:
There are some concrete things that don't have an explanation.
Just like a brute facts, some thing are brute existens.
For anything to exist with an explanation, there has to be things existing without one.
It could just be particles, but some things does just exist.
Comment Charles Udou:
The intriguing question to ask is “what is the nature of this something?”
What ever this primary and necessary something is, it has to have causal powers. It simply has to be able to cause other things to be.
is it only because im thinking it Now in relation to what i know ~~if there is No thinking can there be something
The point I see missing in this argument is this: The question, however formulated, is always asked within the junction of subjective experience (the wonderment asking the question) and objective reality (the physical things we can't avoid navigating around in the intersubjective world). I am a layman and don't have all the terms and concepts to work that out. But at the edge of my awareness is this: It may be, given the crackling relationship between our minds asking the question and the agreed upon world outside our minds, that existence is a necessary condition of both itself and the relationship between subject and object, but not of the universe of concrete objects alone, and not of the subjective mind of wonderment and questions alone. The necessity lies only within the mysterious synapse, the always-on, always buzzingly active interface between the in life and out stuff.
STICK TO BEING A "LAYMAN", RON. YOU ARE ALREADY IN VERY DEEP WATER !
The only answer I can come up with is because the thing called "nothing" is just a thought construct to describe the idea of the absence everything and therefore is without substance and does not in any way exist. There is only everything, something or anything.
Existence was with intelligence (innate) but without experience (motion) in a way of being a superposition. Intelligence desired more in a way that was with intention and so gave way to something (the big bang), in a way that reality was born in a way that something else happened.
This is with being the cycle of change in a way of evolution and so in a way of progress. This always begins with inertia but ends with transcendence in a way that the beginning justifies the end in a way of becoming more.
You essentially said "there are existent things rather than existentlessness [things]" but in fact there are infinite non-existent things, alongside all things. This line of inquiry has puzzled me since a preteen as well since immediately after watching the Truman Show for some reason. I suspect the question has more to do with our lack of understanding what time actually is, than space. 🤔 If we understood time better, we'd be able to manipulate [our sense of] it better.
He is correct in observing that the question is absurd because “nothing” is infact an absurdity, there has to be “something” that exists necessarily.
However, he is wrong in limiting necessity to just abstracts.
Its clear that there has to be something that is necessary. The real intriguing question to ask is “what is the nature of this something?”
What ever this primary and necessary something is, it has to have causal powers. It simply has to be able to cause other things to be. That’s the only way we can account for the existence of contingent things.
Abstract concepts such as numbers and laws and logic don’t possess causal powers and so are not a candidate for this necessary thing. The number 2 can’t cause anything to be. They are only meaningful in so far as they are grounded in a mind. Without a mind, you couldn’t talk about abstract concepts.
For me, classical theism and thomistic metaphysics puts forward the best explanation and account of “the nature of this necessary something”.
You are just asserting that something necessarily must exist without any proof whatsoever of that statement. There's nothing you've said which precludes the possibility of nothing existing at all.
@@outisnemo8443
Its no assertion, its basically common sense.
Consider the phrase in your last sentence, “nothing existing”.
Do you see how that is a contradiction? Nothing can’t “exist”, if it did, it is something.
This isn’t just a play on words, “nothing” in the truest sense is an absurdity and purely conceptual.
If you imagine nothing as the non-existence of everything, even if that were the case, you would still have a state of “no - thing” existing that can be differentiated from a state of “things” existing.
The initial state of “no - thing” existing is still something, its a state of affairs that can be differentiated from another state of affairs. If its a state that can be differentiated from another state, then it is something.
That’s the point. There is no “nothing”. You can strip everything away and you would still be left with a background of existence that simply is necessary.
That’s the common sense.
@@charlesudoh6034:
No, it's not "common sense", it's a completely baseless assertion; talking as if one's baseless assertions are "common sense" is a typical sign of intellectual dishonesty or downright stupidity, or perhaps a good mix of both.
Again, there's absolutely nothing that precludes there from being nothing at all. It's *YOU* who are trying to reify "nothing" as it "existing", rather than understanding "nothing" to mean what it actually does, which is a complete absence of anything.
So, again, it would be fully possible for there to not exist anything, and you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you also tried to jump from that moronic nonsense to theism makes it even clearer that you really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Why questions are ultimately unanswerable, all they ever do is create an infinite regress.
ok, then "how is there anything rather than nothing?" it's the same question, it was never really a "why"
I wonder if there is a more fundamental question still than "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" Right now, to me, that seems like the ultimate question. Can anyone postulate a more fundamental question, or more importantly, does anyone think there ever will be a more rudimentary or prime question about existence than that one?
The question of “why is there something rather than nothing” is an absurd question because “nothing” is an absurdity.
There has to be a necessary “something”.
The real question and the most fundamental question that can be asked is; *what is the nature of this necessary something?*
For that question, I believe classical theism and thomistic metaphysics provides the best answer.
It could be that the observer and the observed must co-exist that you cant have one with out the other. Only an observer could ask the question of reality.
@@charlesudoh6034 it's not an absurdity, but the idea of anything existing necessarily definitely is an absurdity
There cannot be a nothing, it's literally in the word. It maens 'not" it means "cant", it means impossible by its very definition. One you have a proverbial 'nothing' it becomes a something.
It is because there is no nothing that a something exists, which cannot exist wothout a nothing as it's opposite existing to give something it's value. It is an always paradox, it is because it cannot not be. It's I am.
In essence existence exists because in order for it to never exist it must exist so it can create never existing first which is impossible so it keeps trying and trying, dividing something and nothing, and this action is motion, which is matter when the motion curves in on itself and creates spherical units with spin barriers. Out and out, and in and in, everywhere and always. Simple.
Existence is 0÷1=0, which is impossible so it's 0÷1=0÷1=0÷1=0÷1=0 on and on something and nothing being created simultaneously. Nothing is an impossiblity, but also must exist to give something value, so it continues and contiues trying to 'solve' itself, causing an expansion at all points, and an inspansion at all points congruently.
All of existence is separation. Even the base something and abstract nothing must be separated. This is how and what existence is, this separation and the paradox needing the separation, metaphysical motion, that's all it all is.
Matter is motion itself, it is not a material 'in' motion. Matter is abstract, metaphysical, 'had to be' motion itself, amd it is the action of separation. We live in between something and nothing, we are and everything is this motion.
@@mineduck3050 ?? Nothing is "not... hing" or is it "no...thing".... you know... like the definition... come clean, how high were you when you wrote your comment?
Suppose there is no space and matter, what would be the meaning of abstract things like numbers? I would say they just couldn't have any meaning.
"Nicht wie die Welt ist, ist das Mystische, sondern dass sie ist." Wittgenstein's point here is that the one question that cannot be answered, is why the world exists, why there is a world, and this encompasses everything -- numbers, logic, matter, a creator, the subject posing the question, and the question itself. One could say that this is the ultimate ontological point, but it is not an ontological argument, certainly not like that of Anselm and Descartes who appeals to the clarity of the idea of a supremely perfect being, and the unavoidability of this being's existence in virtue of the idea itself. The point is that the world is here, and we understand more and more of it, but the only answer to the question of why it is here, is, why not?
And what placed those basic laws there? Us humans aren't capable enough to dive deeper to those depths of philosophy. Or simple perhaps haven't evolved enough yet.
You misunderstand the concept of "basic" in this case. Natural basic laws are just that what is, without being "placed". Otherwise, they would not be called basic, brute facts.
It is fine if you want to shoehorn in some kind of god-thing, but then you need to prove the claim, and you would need to explain why it needs no brute facts for its existence itself.
"That's just the way things are" is the least scientific statement I've ever seen on this channel.
In Science, Theories cannot be verified. Only the predictions that a Theory makes can be verified (or refuted).
In addition, Science doesn’t deal with proofs - that is the realm of mathematics or logic which are not part of Science.
Science therefore can never be “fundamental” in a pure sense.
Science is basically practical neurotic nonsense
@@PetraKann from my experience, I see the same level of smugness and bias in scientists and science in general as I do in theists and theism in general.
If a scientist says ""That's just the way things are", it's normally in the context of "because we _currently_ do not have an explanation for its cause". In this context it's a sound scientific statement as it is implying the enquiry into its cause has not concluded yet.
@@johnyharris that is not what he said, he said logic dictates so. End of the story according to him, no suggestions at all how to solve it because as far as he's concerned it's solved.
@@chrisgarret3285 McGinn is philosopher, not a scientist. They have a habit of positing unscientific statements.
I really don’t buy that numbers necessarily exist. Numbers are about sets and correlations. And sets have to be collections of things. Even in the tricksy set-theory definition of numbers using the empty set, numbers are collections of parentheses.
By virtue of existence, "nothing" is purely conceptual. What is nothing? Is it the absence of everything? The question that seems to be asked is why is there existence?
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"...? If existence is a surprise (which, apparently, is what we are talking about here), then it is all the more necessary to find out whether this gift is not a "Trojan horse"?
We're inside our universe bubble trying to explain how our bubble started. If we could zoom out from our universe bubble and see what's outside it then we could see the cause and effect that caused our bubbles creation. Maybe we're in a field of other bubbles and they morph into each other occasionally.
Very plausible
That doesn't matter though, that's just one level of the question, what about the existence of the said "cause and effect that caused our bubble creation".
I think this is beside the point here. The question here is "Why anything at all?" Even a single atom, single quantum quark. And this question i think is the mother of all questions.
@@chrisgarret3285 right... it's a never ending circle. Turtles all the way down lol
@@dustinellerbe4125 that's why it's laughable that anyone would think any variant of the String or Superstring theory is the final answer. All they did is "explain" fine tuning while also adding infinite complexity to the problem of creation. Total nonsense.
I figured reality has a fundamental need to be logical, thus provable, thus not only can there be nothing, but the something must include observers.
zero infinitesimal time (nothing) interacting with infinite time produces energy in mathematical way?
Of course at the end of the video Robert says that McGinn's explanation doesn't take away the majesty and the awe of the question. Granted that there has to be this brute fact of something existing without explanation, we should try to ponder what bestows upon existence itself its character of absolute necessity instead of contingency.
Even supposing that reality is made up of just a chair - and its existence is a brute fact - there must nonetheless be a reason why existence itself is unavoidable. Existence obtains, existence wins over nothingness, therefore existence is superior to nothingness, somehow, somewhere, there is a powerful reason which gives the power and the faculty to existence to win over sheer nothingness, so to speak. What is this reason?
Maybe the comment I posted will help?
I’ll post it again. This is from the CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) Wiki. The theory was created by Chris Langan.
Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways:
Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator.
Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[32]
The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33]
Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.
The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[34] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.
That a good point, how can you ask what cause everything to exist if there is nothing to cause it's existence.
That is why there is a argument for a infinite (time) universe , because this same question has to be asked again , but there no logical answer for it.
So phism rhetoric show it Not phich or philosophy but he plays with words without searching true evidence. It is baseless misticism.
abstract things do not exist necessarily. They first require a mind or a framework to have a meaning.
bingo, just about turned it off when I heard them both agree on that
Same with the bit on logic and numbers...both based on human experience, derived from human experience.
@@bitphr3ak more importantly, needing other things to exist in order to exist. Numbers are measuring tools. If nothing exists the existence of comparison tools doesn't make sense.
I agree.
A philosopher once tried to test Colin McGinn, he ate their liver with some favs beans and a nice chianti
Exodus 3:14 Tell them it is “I Am” that sent you. I think “Amness”, if you will, is the most fundamental axiom. Logic, laws, and all other axioms require an “Amness” foundation.
Well I just realized it is not possible for someone to ask “Why is there nothing instead of something?”
Even still someone asks why there's nothing. ............
Since something is everything there cannot be nothing ... so to speak
I know why there's something rather than nothing, nothing is impossible, nothing can't exist because even nothingness is something, something exists simply because nothing can't.
If "something" includes logic, then the cause can not be logical.
smacks of the Monty Python skit, Argument Clinic.
How so?
Numbers and other abstract ideas don't exist necessarily. It's so obvious too, I don't know how they don't get it. How will the number 3 exist, as it relates to existing in nothingness, when the number 3 is contingent on number 1 and 2 existing? Contingent on any relations between all other numbers which are also ideas. You can't say 3 exists cause 1 and 2 exist, that's circular reasoning.
In other words, don't bother asking because we simply do not know.
And the thing that exists, has to exist, without explanation, because it is a necessary thing and not a contingent thing is the creator of all things, the subject of metaphysics. Aquinas said this 800 years ago!
There is a thing because there can be
"there has to be logic and numbers" - yeah because we live in a computer and they're the programming language.
I always question the question, and then try to acknowledge the very grounds i stand and from where i am precieving what the question puts before me so to apprehend the limitations thereof -- subject and object relation.
I read great books and there are subtle differences. We do not see what God see's; some say God is non sentient, though that is true i say God has to be greater than sentient. In emanation the progenitor is greater than the offspring. God is bodiless therefor beyond time. Some say that from God's point of view everything is simultaneous, all at once, no beginning, no end. That God's effulgent self sustained overflowing nature and Goodness is to produce.
The artificer is not seperate from his artwork -- he is very much in the artwork. God's canvas is the cosmos, and the majesty therein is God.
I'm going deeper in Vendanta philosophy and really like it. Trying to understand this Maya creative faculty of God, and avidya and nescience which is a veil over our Self, thus we superimpose notions and obscure what really is. Those we observe something, we see it as something else due to our perspective and ignorance.
Long story short, we are seeing God before us, just not in the true Glory due to...whatever you want call this.
My favorite saying: God experiences himself through us, and we come to Know the Self in God.
Atman is the witness, and we become aware of this in ourselves and in others.
"That Thou Art".
I bright light may not be able to become aware of another bright light, but when an object comes into the illumination, much happens. An embodied soul becomes attached to objects, thus ego arises. Later on awareness of the Self becomes apprehended after desires are meet and agony never ceases due to wordly attachments, the turning inword becomes the place of rest.
We are learning of endless potiential. What science, physics, quantum reveals.
When I ask myself why is there something, I realize the veil over my own conceiving. Should I keep believing in what I superimpose. Should I just focus inwardly and meditate.
There is something very powerful; I'm going to deny my wordly self and seek the Good, reckon the beauty, acknowledge this majesty and contemplate apon.
Sometimes evil men seek great power. This likely is not proper, however the body is really a great testing grounds for somebody who wants the power of God. Do you succumb to the worldly desires and serve only the ego...to think all this is for simply testing the ego is likely wrong.
God is effulgent and overflowing.
Robert, i would really like to know what Rupert Spira or maybe Francis Lucille would answer in this case of your everlasting disturbing question.
Rupert would just explain that consciousness is eternal/all that exists or can exist.
@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098 ok
'There must be something that must self-subsists', concludes McGinn. Indeed there must. But things we encounter in the world just are contingent. He is in a self-induced conundrum. If there is something self susbsistent the only candidate must be God, who must exist but is not (and this bit is important) is not an existing _thing_ or _entity._ in the world. It cannot be that any _thing_ can be why there is something rather than nothing, for any _thing,_ no matter how fundamental, would be contingent. Moreover God must exist as completely 'other'. This is what classical Christian theology has maintained from its earliest days, and has done so precisely because it has understood the essence of McGinn's conundrum.
And, no, nothing is not and cannot be an existing state of affairs. If it could it would be, well, just a sort (perhaps well thinned out) something, which would be self contradictory. However, that does not mean that there might not have been anything, which is what the word 'nothing' means after all. RLK's opening question, then, still makes sense, for it's asking why there should be anything rather not anything.
As for abstract objects (if they exist) they may be necessary given that a contingent world of any kind exists at all, but not necessary in any all embracing sense. It's a matter of the logical scope of necessity at play. After all, if I am to exist then it is necessary that I exist as a human being, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary that I exist. Abstract object we may call 'limited necessities'. Uniquely, though, God must exist necessarily in the unlimited sense.
Logic is just a way of organizing thoughts. It does not lead to necessary conclusions. Thus, it does not require as in this argument "there must be concrete things that have no explanation." Such conclusions omit the premise that concrete things do have a 'reason' or explanation that human beings are simply unable to understand. That may be the core question pertaining the query of super-naturalism [as in 'god']. Just because though we are unable to understand the explanation of concrete things does not require that beings such as ourselves have to resort to the supernatural as an real possibility which undermines the very thought of religion. The material universe is more likely to have a material explanation even if we're incapable of understanding it than the likelihood there has to be a supernatural explanation. Super-naturalism provides an explanation that is easiest to understand even if there is no 'truth' to it. There is no good reason to abandon materialism and substitute it with non-concrete explanations. It's more honest to admit to ourselves the most likely explanation, that everything has a concrete explanation ever if we are incapable of comprehending it. There's always existed the false assumption that simply because we don't have a handy explanation for something that it necessitates some supernatural explanation. Human history demonstrates two things about the human mind. 1. As thinking beings we seem to need handy explanations for things even if they are false. 2. Too often the human brain is incapable of controlling impulse and having the patience to reserve judgement until concrete explanations are revealed. As an example for centuries humans believed the Sun was the center of the universe. We came to the realization just 400 or so years ago that the Sun is at the outer edge of a vast galaxy of suns.
William James after a lecture on cosmology and structure of the solar system was accosted by a little old lady.
"Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but I've got a better theory," said the little old lady.
"And what is that, madam?" inquired James politely.
"That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle."
Not wishing to demolish, James decided to gently dissuade by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.
"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"
"You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and a very good question, but the first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."
"But what does this second turtle stand on?"
"It's no use, Mr. James-it's turtles all the way down."
- J. R. Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, 1967
If that has to be some things that exist without explanation then what would that be?????
Imagine a cup of water. The shape of the cup determines the shape of the water. However, what if there were nothing to determine the shape of the water? What if there were nothing to determine, even, that the water was water? Then because nothingness is only one possibility among many, nothing in particular is determined, allowing every possibility to exist at once, both everything and nothing, the only two states of reality that aren’t arbitrary, in other words, chaos or what results from reality being undetermined and there being no causes to make reality a particular way.
I have sent a manuscript to a science journal about the only thing that is unquestionably self-existing. Yea, there is one thing that not only exists eternally and is not created, but its existence is inevitable... But the journal has been marinating the article for few months now... kind of everyone is busy with something else...
Is it space of possible?
You mean smurfs?
@@xtratub
You have to specify you question. Possibilities are part of the story, but I have no clue what you mean with "space of possible"...
Should make a nice stew.
The universal mind knows
short answer: Nothing is an absurdity.
disagree, there is no such thing as brute facts or things that exist necessarily, notice how he said "some physical things must exist BECAUSE some abstract things must exist". Literal contingent existence by definition.
If there is truly nothing then it can be defined. If it is defined then it cannot be nothing. Therefore it is something, and things can be.
I imagine absolute nothing. At this point, there is a clear definition of nothingness. At that point, this is a contradiction because the purity of nothing is purely defined. The act of defining is something. This is how something comes from nothing.
Yeah, existence is, non-existence isn't, I don't see any problem here, lol.
Because “anything” can’t make itself.
You can’t have an infinite regress of physical contingent things.
It's a cosmic zero sum game. We are nothing and nothing exists. Part of nothing is something. We can't see the whole/everything which is nothing.
Could this be a "God of the gaps" answer?
If numbers and logic exist necessarily why can't God then.
He seems to imply it is unquestinable that something always existed in order to create everything we know however why it is so diffucult to admit that is exactly the premise of the existence of God but why not say so?
Why is there something rather than nothing? It seems like there really isn't anything after all...
It's funny that a human being ask this question to another fellow human being expecting to learn the answer. Don't get me wrong, I love science, but this question is way beyond the scope of our understanding.
Finally! Someone in the comments who has a working brain.
I disagree, but you have to realize before solving it how conditioned we are, from our biological birth and human scale. We project our experience on top of such a question. No wonder that you wont solve it then. That is way to lineair thinking. Step out of the box of your experiences. But to do that you first must realize how conditioned we are! And we are very conditioned. The human experience scale is not an objective scale for Reality as a whole.
Finally a response I like. Bertrand was right. Existence is a brute fact
it's not true though just like the brute existence of numbers and concepts is not true
@@chrisgarret3285 It is true. pls explain to me why existence exists if you disagree? And then when you are finish doing that explain to me why the reason existence exists, exists? Ad infinitum. Hopefully you get the picture. What ever explanation you come up with would already be part of existence.
You need to carefully think of the logic. Explanations must either come to an end or it goes on forever or it loops around on itself. This is basically Agrippas Trilemma. However, what ppl tend to neglect is that explanations always presuppose something that already exists i.e. a reason or explanation.
Now I think logic and numbers are just concepts. They have no objective existence. They are mental abstractions/phenomena. The distinction is arbitrary. They are just tools to carve reality up into slices. The substance that everything is formed from, exists as a brute fact, it is becoming/change itself that we try to explain. We merely try to track the order of change itself, except existence is time independent if time itself is an illusion. For all we know, Parmenides was right. Change itself is the illusion. An illusion we are part of.
@@CMVMic that's very easy, here I go. Numbers do not exist; they are comparative mental tools agreed upon by convention. On their own they have no way to exist because by definition they are a tool used for measurement. There is nothing to measure, nothing to compare. Therefore, let's look at it. Even if you insist that one number exists, let's call that number 8, no other number existing would be different than 8 because there is no metric of comparison. Multiples of anything do not exist because nothing exists. Concepts can only exist if they have meaning. If they cannot be tied to an existence of anything they themselves do not exist. You know this too, where/when did these concepts exist if there was no space or time before the Bing Bang? It's nonsense.
If brute facts-phenomena that don't have any causes or explanations whatsoever-are the sort of things that do in fact happen in the universe, why do we never see them occur?
I agree with you. I don't think we disagree here. I don't think they have any objective existence. I actually sympathize with nominalism
What if the logic "something cannot come from nothing" itself did not exist, and is only contingent on the existence of the universe? Then there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the Universe existing from NOTHING.
that's like saying "the concept of red flying elephants not existing itself did not exist" therefore red flying elephants did exist before not existing now
This was a good conversation...
Some people simply cannot get it around their heads what Aristotle taught us- that there is one reality that we perceive and it is fully real.
They ask questions like:
Who created the universe?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Who created the "nothing"?
What God does God believe in?
And so on...
The great irony is that this mentality, oblivious that these are invalid and meaningless questions, believes them to be profound.
Why does that reality exist?
Whose purpose is it serving?
What is its goal?
These are more than valid questions.
What if things exist because you exist, they are there to support your existence. If you did not exist then there would be no need to support your existence, and so it would be for all conscious life.???
Is there really such a thing as "nothing"?
The error here is talking of existence in absolute terms. Reality is relative to the observer. Mathematical structures are necessary, but they do not exist in absolute terms. They describe abstract logical possibilities. If such a possibility includes observers then elements of that structure are real to those observers.
"it's just the way things are". This gentleman didn't even bother to think about the question, and didn't care about answering it.
This is sort of the ‘because I said so, that’s why!’ answer
You either didn't listen, or didn't understand.
@@Bringadingus I may be a dimwit but at least I’m not mean
@@stevefaure415 *"I may be a dimwit but at least I’m not mean"*
... Existence is a self-enacting state that operates beyond Nonexistence. This is a form of circular reasoning that remains unresolved. Because Existence is self-enacting and apparently circular, your _"[Existence exists] because I said so, that’s why!"_ summation is fairly accurate.
The ones posting their follow-up comments are the ones who don't understand.
yep, all "brute" or "necessary" things are, it's total nonsense and laziness from the scientific community
@@chrisgarret3285 *"yep, all "brute" or "necessary" things are, it's total nonsense and laziness from the scientific community"*
... The only requirement I have is the juxtaposition of "Existence" and "Nonexistence" because there is no logical conceivability beyond this archetypal pairing.
The reason there is something rather than nothing is because nothing itself is something
Nothing unstable as well....
Well if you go strictly by perception a better question is, why are they somethings-matter - and why is there nothing( empty space) between matter . Did space come before matter, or matter come before space. Or is the emptiness of space between matter just a sublime illusion, such as water to a fish
Empty space is not empty though, actually not even close. There is nothing I'm aware of in the current universe that is at least localized "nothing".
@@chrisgarret3285 I know. But its interesting that most theoretical science is based on the idea of moving through empty space. Between matter is probably another form of matter that sustains us. Water might be just as sublime to a fish as to what we think empty space is to us . I think because of our bodies, we’re numb to the Constant stimulation of what we would call emptiness
@@MrSanford65 I think part of that is old convention, remember, it's not been that long since we figured out that empty space is not really empty.
It's possible what you say, maybe via some kind of quantum mechanical property that we don't know of. I do know scientists do generally reject the idea of quantum mechanics being the vehicle for consciousness... that said, I have to remind myself that no scientist on the fucking planet actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to quantum mechanics so here we are hahha.
@@chrisgarret3285 well think about the metaphysical implications . If there is no empty space then there is no space for space-time. This may be one of the reasons why people who have near death experiences, people who dream, and even in our own memories we always remember them in a snapshot of time that doesn’t evolve -because the unconscious brain or mind cannot re-create the illusion of empty space, therefore cannot re-create the phenomena of time when unconscious. And If there is no empty space, then every scientific theory based on space-time is not ultimately , existentially true. And in reference to theology, much of atheism is based on emptiness being proof of the non-existence of a higher power.
But what if there really is no emptiness ?
@@MrSanford65 "If there is no empty space then there is no space for space-time." - yes, that is the accepted way of looking at it, the universe didn't come into existence into something, it created the space and time of existence as it came into being.
I'm not sure I follow. Specifically, the part about dreams being a snapshot. I'm interested though, can you rephrase?
It's a good question but the answer is even better. It's because nature acquired the ability to notice the difference.
I think they both exists but not simultaneously............
There is anything because there is. If there is nothing then there is no thing to ask this question.
There's be no one to ask this question if intelligent life hadn't evolved either. The asking of the question isn't the issue.
How can you claim that abstract things surely exist?
I think they don't truly exist because every abstract idea is an invention of the brain and not an actuality of the universe. if you zoom in enough every abstract idea falls apart, doesn't it?
Dr Khun I would humbly suggest you to have a Talk with Jean Pierre Garnier Malet. It's a little narrow-minded to look for answers only from Angloamericans experts.If the French scientific theories fail to Illuminate your mind,then stop looking for answers to your questions about Life origen and purpose because the angloamericans do not know the purpose of life
In a long time the views of this person were interesting..
Why is there smoke coming out of my ears?
I like the clarity of this take but it has 2 pressupositions that i find debatable at least. First is that the world is intrinsically knowable, so rational in a wide sense to make this logical point about such thing as things and non-existing things, in other words to interpret the question in this way. And second, under the umbrella of "everything is physical" except math and logic, what about intentionality, cosciousness or qualitative experiences? Are these physical aswell? If so, how can we reduce them because there is no theory in this direction (only wild guesses, more like hope and desperation lately)) and all the research in the last 100 years in this domain points rather towards an imposibility of a radical physical reduction. Any radical reductionist will always have to explain in which way numbers are more fundamental than cosciousness for example. It would be too easy to just put everything in one basket. And anyway, the conclusion isn't very satisfactory, isn't it? It just puts it on pause.
I'm not saying he is wrong, because he is not, i just expressed my worries, so to speak.
Nothing(ness) can't exist, because then it would be something. It's really that simple. Not saying that the answers to other questions are.
I still question whether even non-concrete things like numbers and logic would exist if there were truly nothing. Nothing means NOTHING AT ALL.
I like his 9 levels of nothing starting from the obvious: 1. no visible matters. 2. No energy. 3. No matter nor energy. 4. No matter nor energy permanently. 5. No space and time. 6. no laws of physics. 7. No consciousness. 8. No abstracts(numbers and logic) and 9. No possibilities.
@@joeclark1621 How can levels 6 to 9 exist without space and time?
@@boom9999 Well I believe abstracts like numbers do not require space though time is a bit difficult to imagine. Consciousness also does not require space and time but that is his list anyways. Me personally, I think if there are no space and time, there would be no laws of physics either.
If there are concrete objects that exist without contingency, then isn't _everything_ that way? If a chair exists because a craftsperson made it then why doesn't it follow that there are craftspeople all the way down?
All the way down to what ?
Yes. Everything is contingent. There is no such thing as necessary existence, or an infinite regress, whether it be of contingency or of anything else, but rather than something existing necessarily that is the same as all other contingent things, there is something rather than nothing due to the initial state of existence being uncaused. With no causes there is nothing to determine reality to be THIS way or THAT way, even nothingness is just one of the ways reality could be and is not privileged over other possibilities. So, because there are no causes, reality doesn’t “decide” or actualize any one possibility over any other, and so all possibilities exist at once in superposition.
Because the turtles got in the way.
@@tonyatkinson2210 sorry, it was a riff on turtles... The story goes that a physicist was giving a public talk about general relativity when an old lady suddenly interjected. She said that in reality the world was carried around on the back of a gigantic elephant, and that the elephant in turn was supported upon the shell of a giant turtle! The physicist was in a good mood, and so said to the old lady "Yes, but what is the _turtle_ standing on then?"
And quick as anything the lady retorted again "You think you're so clever, don't you young man? But you're not. It's *turtles all the way down!"*
Simple answer - Be/cause.
Say what? Begging the question? I get there is no answer, we can only contemplate the question with a sense of wonder. But why beg the question?
HWHY is YHWH spelled backward. BTW it is also the mirror image. As to HWHY there is something rather than nothing the answer is because there is.
YHWH speaks English confirmed
Perhaps the answer is that these are not antimonies. Both something and nothing can both exist. And in fact, they do both exist. There’s plenty of nothing, and some something, but not enough.
Shouldn't it've been "what was there before?"