What a great gentleman and scholar. What a wonderful program Robert Kuhn has created. I would of never been exposed to these great minds if it wasn’t for his efforts.
9:23 Nothingness can explain both consciousness and the probabilistic wave-function imho. Possibilities need some substrate to work off of. If there was nothing, you couldn't have possibilities because there's no substrate from which the possibilities can form. If there was nothing, you would have to rely on 'metabilities' - or the possibilities of what could be if there was something. I fall in-line with the idea that even if there is nothing, the one thing that could exist are metabilities. Now, here's the thing - metabilities are nothing-compatible because they don't actually exist; they're ethereal nothings that describe what could be if things could be. This means that they would describe entire universes, the life that inhabit that universe, their thoughts, etc. etc. etc. So if nothing was the truth - if nothing actually existed, then would it not be conceivable that the intelligent life described by the metabilities would feel as though they actually existed? The quantum mechanical waveform would start to make a bit more sense. It's a probabilistic oscillation between existence and non-existence. If we lived in a metability, that would start to make a bit more sense. Probability is a spectrum that lays between possible and impossible; there and not there; something and nothing ... exactly what you would expect from the dynamics of a system that doesn't really exist ... yet does. And this is all outside of time, so perhaps some fundamental metabilistic phenomenon from which time itself emerges, also causes what appears to us as the oscillation - when, in fact, it's simply the metabilistic mechanics trying to remedy the fact of nothingness with the fact of its own existence. Perhaps a pendulum-like effect. Finally, the qualia of consciousness makes sense as well. Metabilities would have to also contain, or derive something akin to an essence. After all, it's not built on anything substantial. It would have to first give rise to the essence of a reality which is a much better precursor to qualia than hard matter. Anyway - those are my thoughts on the matter.
My probably nonsensical mathematical response to this question is that "Something" is just the "plus one" in the equation +1 + -1 = 0 Where "zero" is "Nothing" and "negative one" is (work with me here) "Anti-Something". So it isn't so much that there is something rather than nothing, but rather that there's still nothing; it's just we're just living in some fractured part of nothing, which, from our perspective, is really something...
Only an intelligence makes Functions. Anything that is clearly a Function is made by an intelligence. Mathematics is an abstract function from the mind of an intelligence. Man's body is a complex Function composed of Functions. The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System .. which is a Function .. and originates from the surrounding Systems which must provide the matter & energy ... and ... time, space, laws of nature ... and ... an Intelligence to exist & to function. There was always something: a very very powerful intelligence called God who made Man in His likeness with a body & soul in an UNNATURAL System less than 6 x 1000 years ago. There's a reason the world had a 7 day week before Abraham was called to be the Father of the Jews & Faith, and Moses wrote Genesis with the 6 day creation and the 7th day belongs to God. There's a reason the Torah(Bible) says 1 day is like 1000 and Jesus (Son of God) will return to rule the Earth for 1000 years with 144 000 Jews who were killed in End times believing in the Christ (Savior). The Jewish year is currently ... 5782. God always existed .. is a Father, Son & Spirit ... and knew it would take 7 x 1000 years to save His Children from His just nature to punish all who sin with death (body & soul). Only an intelligence makes Functions. Why is so difficult for most to accept?
I don't see why the concept of absolute "nothing" is some type of logical impossibility ? It seems zero progress has been made by philosophers or scientists on this ultimate question Leibnitz famously expressed but I'm sure was wondered about since the dawn of Man: "Why is there something rather than nothing?". When you deeply contemplate this question, it does sends chills through your being and haunts you.
@@visancosmin8991 I guess because there's no way for you to imagine nothing, even if you remove space, there is something that had space on it and so on, you never reach nothing. This is just what I think, I could be wrong.
As humans we intrinsically ask the question "why?". But reality doesn't have to answer it. Matter in some form just maybe the something that has always existed. This may not suit our intuition, but it doesn't have to suit our intuition.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices No, it's everything that science has uncovered, presently. The corners of reality that science hasn't illuminated yet, such as what gave rise to the universe, is currently left open to opinion.
*"As humans we intrinsically ask the question "why?". But reality doesn't have to answer it"* ... I believe that the question "Why?" absolutely CAN be answered. If reality exists, then so does the reason for its existence. However, I don't believe science alone can reveal it. It's going to take more than just "observation." You can either boldly stand in the arena of "Existence" or remain a spectator. Science can be located in seat #16, row 12 (between theism and atheism).
Here's another approach to the question that haunts us, "why is there something rather than nothing?" There IS ***nothing***. The summation of everything is always zero. Think of it as a cosmic conservation law. Just like ALL the numbers on the number line, the infinite number of both positive and negative numbers, add up to ZERO. All matter, all energy, all space, and all time, sum up to ZERO, because everything cancels each other out when summed. In other words, NOTHINGNESS is necessarily a launch pad for INFINITY, which always adds-up to NOTHINGNESS. 0 contains and is the summation of ∞. Isaac Asimov wrote an essay expressing this thought. I'll try to find it.
That's your religious belief talking. You have no evidence that everything in reality adds to zero. In fact there is a lot of evidence against it, since no negative mass objects have ever been observed to balance out all the positive mass objects that are observable.
@@medexamtoolscom It's just a theory that I, Isaac Asimov, and likely many others (independently) came up with. I never said I conducted a peer reviewed scientific study. I don't think you understand it. I suggest you open your mind to possibilities other than your pre-conceived ones.
The fact that there is something leads to the logical conclusion that there had to be the possibility of something. If there had to the be the possibility of something then that in and of itself is something. Therefore, the question of why there is something rather than nothing doesn't make sense because there had to be something and "nothing" could not exist but we are still left with the question of "Why?", but knowing that the concept of nothing could not really exist leads one in the direction of "something" being a brute fact.
The word "rather" is what's causing all the confusion. Nothing, Something and Everything are all *EXACTLY* where they're supposed to be which is the *ONLY* place they can be: Nothing is Nowhere Something is Somewhere Everything is Everywhere
@@visancosmin8991 All language is word play. The Julius Ceasear we know is in the same place he always was and always will be, living his life in the time frame of "12 July 100 BC - 15 March 44 BC." From our vantage point, a position in *3D* space, that was a point in "time" that only existed in the "past," but if we had the ability to access higher dimensions of space, say *4D* space or higher, from *THAT* vantage point, his entire life span would be a position in space, not time.
If there was a reason for nothing to exist, then it wouldn't be "nothing" because a reason exists. Therefore, there's no reason for nothing to ever exist.
Similarly I had a thought one night as a kid, that maybe the universe never had a beginning. Boggled my own mind. Now I'm all but convinced it had no beginning.
Here is a question. If there was nothing at all, how long would it last? Since nothing means no time I guess it would be over instantly. Then if that nothing is over what comes after it?
Only an intelligence makes Functions. Anything that is clearly a Function is made by an intelligence. There was always something: a very very powerful intelligence.
You don't feel anything when you are dead, not even nothing. It's better to conseptulise the idea while still alive, we were in nothing before we were born.
This is like saying that something must come from nothing. Yet that itself is hard to explain in our terms. We may not need a God to create something from nothing because that still creates eternal regression, who created that God etc.
Even if there was absolutely nothing in terms of matter, there will always be this vast empty dark void of space where three dimensional objects can move through. That in itself amazes me. It’s an eternal open dark room of which is all there is. Interestingly enough, I had this same thought when I was 8 years old. I was not the smartest, but always been ahead of everybody else in terms of ideas and questions.
That's the problem with trying to imagine what "nothing" would be like. A big dark empty void is "something" so we can rule that out, but the real problem is that you are observing this nothing, otherwise you would not know that it was black and empty, so that means there is an observer there. If you remove these two "somethings" then maybe you have a place to begin in your search for "nothing".
Before your mother was impregnated you was materialistic nothing and nothing materialistic will be left when you die so you will go totally dark..it is absence of everything. Before the universe was born and after it dies the situation was likely the same.
Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes Functions. A Function is a system that processes inputs into outputs and has clear purpose, form, design & properties which are INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & to function. Only an intelligence makes Functions which possesses INFORMATION. Only an intelligence extracts INFORMATION from a Function. The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION that Man (an intelligence) has extracted from various Functions made by an Intelligence. The Universe is a Thermodynamic Systems with finite matter & energy and increasing entropy. All Thermodynamic Systems are Functions and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the mater & energy ... & ... time, space, laws of nature ... and ... Intelligence to exist and to Function. Man is the only known intelligence .. in a Universe that is a Function ... made by an intelligence. And Intelligence .. has a Mind ... and free will, nature, & consciousness to think, believe, say & do whatever he wants ... with existence & reality.
Robert is going beyond that: "not even the existence of emptiness". It's the deeper void when even space is not there so there is nothing for light or matter to exist in or move through.
Clearly, given that somethingness exists, there's some aspect to the deep nature of being that guarantees at least the possibility of existence. Therefore, the low resolution answer to "why" there is something rather than nothing, is that somethingness is possible. As @Medusa Skull mentioned, maybe the "how" question is the more interesting and perplexing one than the "why" question. The physicists only need empty space and quantum activity to give us the observable universe, but that may be the extent of the progress they can make regarding "how" it's possible that there there should be something rather than nothing. Still, I'd say this work constitutes progress. At some point, I think we run into an aspect of being that is irreducible, noncontingent, and uncaused. We can reflect all we want on what that might be (perhaps "possibility" itself?), but clearly we aren't theoretically or philosophically mature enough to broach that aspect of being with clarity and might never be, sadly.
@@visancosmin8991 How is that relevant to my post? Feel free to provide a link, and please explain how it's relevant if you want me to spend the time reading it.
if you have something "irreducible" you will never be able to say that is "uncaused". You will always have to say that you were "lucky" that this "thing" was present and caused your existence , and the one of the universe.
@@francesco5581 I know that I and everything in the observable universe is reducible. That which is irreducible and noncontingent upon anything else (i.e., that which is at the ground floor of being) is, I submit, uncaused by definition.
Would there be any space if there were no time? I think, not. Possibly then space is created out of time? But if there is no beginning and no end, what then is time?
"There's no such thing as there being nothing". Precisely. Hence why the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is malformed in the first place, since it ponders an impossibility as an alternative prospect. The reformulated question, 'why is there anything at all?' fares better in the sense that it questions Existence itself without evidently assuming the possibility of Non-existence. That being said, embedded in its formulation 'why is there' is the use of the very thing it questions: existence, thus it is doomed to assume, not explain, Existence. Can such traps be avoided in our question? Maybe, maybe not. For what it's worth, here's my possibly futile attempt: how does Existence occurs? Or to be even more neutral: what fundamental principle(s) govern(s) occurrences? This might sound like the pitfalls have been avoided, yet upon closer inspection I quickly realise that I am in fact presuming Existence to have some condition of actualisation, that events must have reasons for occurring, that occurrences are necessarily contingent. But what dictates these parameters for occurrence? How is Existence itself fundamental if it depends on a 'law of Existence' in the first place? And what would it mean for Existence to have no such law, condition, or parameters? Would it be some brute fact as Russell said, or some spontaneous instantiation, making Existence fundamentally random? Perhaps it would be some fundamental necessity even deeper than the mere notion of logical necessity? Some proposition such that it entails itself, some kind of... ontological tautology? Or maybe it is all explained by the deepest, thinnest particular possible, some kind of substance of possibilities? In order to avoid more esoteric verbiage, let's consider one last concept: true randomness as the fundamental substance of everything. Here the idea is that, not unlike the host's remark that 'but at bottom there has to be at the very least possibilities!', a case can be made that the deepest possible idea one can propose is fundamental randomness: the quality or state of lacking any pattern or principle of organisation, including having a state of affairs, as it's something that would imply some kind of situation stable enough to be characterised as distinct from any other. This speculative fundamental randomness is the only proposal that can account for just about anything, seemingly without requiring any explanation itself. Under this view, any actualised state of affairs becomes a grounding situation from which things evolve, since there necessarily is no prior state of affairs, given the fundamentally random acting as the unwitting substrate of existence.
What do you mean by saying something is "existing"?. Existing where ? Existing when? We cannot imagine existence not in space and time. And existing for whom.
It seems to me that conceptually the biggest gap is between nothing and something. Still, the conceptual gap between mere existence and conscious existence is way up there! But why do we think that the gap between intelligent life on earth and advanced life elsewhere is so mind boggling?
@@visancosmin8991 if everybody believed that, then the world would be a much better place ... little boys would not smash rocks just for the heck of it, let alone step on bugs. People would not say proudly that they did something dangerous and got away with it, believing that their Shroedinger twin would not have dodged the bullet. People would not waste time or energy. They would not unnecessarily increase disorder by mixing hot and cold, etc. They would have a much more mindful and reverent walk through their days on earth. They would be more careful about harming anybody or anything. It's a good example of the wisdom of what Joseph Smith, Jr. said ... "It is better to believe too much than too little."
I find puzzling that "nothing" is an imposibility. Is imposible to remove physical laws and possibilities from a space, therefore. Nothing does not exist.
It can exist. If this is a computer simulation the simulation can just stop. If god made everything why can’t he just take it all away. If all life everywhere die there will be nobody to know if anything exists and the question becomes irrelevant.
@@jonathanchalmers7844 from the perspective of the observer there is nothing after there is nothing there is no more observer to see the god or computer. What you are saying is that something has to create the nothing and the existing of something means there can never be nothing. But I’m saying relative to our perspective nothing can exist. That doesn’t mean “nothing” will ever exist, it’s all some stupid mind exercise to justify out existence and give meaning to life. If nothing can’t exist there must be a supernatural entity beyond all the something we can see.
Only an intelligence makes Functions. A Thermodynamic System is a Function and originates from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space,time, laws .. & .. intelligence to exist & to function. The Universe is an isolated Thermodynamic System. There was always something: a very powerful intelligence.
What an awesome mountain of irresolvable speculation and pointless verbal activity. Just an opinion, of course. A hamster wheel does at least benefit the creature's health, even if it doesn't get anywhere. Maybe I'm missing the poetry :)
@@chyfields the conscious energy is then something that was always existing. What must be clear is that nothing comes our from nothingness ... So something always existed.
@@chyfields i prefer to think that outside that "chapter in the middle" there is a "no time" environment, that always existed and always in the "now" moment.
Subscribed to this channel this morning and then I get notified of a video with the biggest question of all. The one question I keep coming back to in this search for meaning we are all on. Thanks.
This channel & commenters routinely ignore the obvious because they are fixated on their firm beliefs & opinions. Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes Functions. A Function is a system that processes inputs into outputs and has clear purpose, form, design & properties which are INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & to function. Only an intelligence makes Functions which possesses INFORMATION. Only an intelligence extracts INFORMATION from a Function. The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION that Man (an intelligence) has extracted from various Functions made by an Intelligence. The Universe is a Thermodynamic Systems with finite matter & energy and increasing entropy. All Thermodynamic Systems are Functions and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the mater & energy ... & ... time, space, laws of nature ... and ... Intelligence to exist and to Function. Man is the only known intelligence .. in a Universe that is a Function ... made by an intelligence. And Intelligence .. has a Mind ... and free will, nature, & consciousness to think, believe, say & do whatever he wants ... with existence & reality. Man has known for over 120 years that the Universe is a Thermodynamic System ... and yet there is not one origin theory of a Natural System originating from an UNNATURAL System? Why is this?
I don't take nothing to be a thing, but simply the negation of all things. It's easier to conceptualize like that. As far as space goes, what if it exists merely as a potential, but not a thing that actually exists, unless the properties of actual things fill it. Imagine one thing was created, and nothing else, and it couldn't move. Then there was essentially no reality to the space outside of itself, because the one existing thing could not even move into that space. It would be truly empty. Or if it could move, the space might gain a sense of reality merely by an object that could move through it. A potential definition of space would be a mere potential for things that do not exist but could exist. The space could become real through things that fill it. This truly empty space may be a thing arising necessarily out of a necessary being with powers of creation, as far as anything was possible to that necessary being.
Instead of asking “why” is there something rather than nothing, we should ask how is the universe coming into being. If we run the universe backward in time to where time cease to exist, then there is no more time to run the universe back. At that point, the universe will just cease to exist due to no time. On other notion of nothingness or void, imagine if you can slice the entire universe into thin slices like a film wheel. Each slice is a universe at that moment in time. Now make that slice small enough to fit into Planck time, now you have a static 3d universe where everything is motionless. The nothingness or void you are seeking for is between these movies slices. In a sense, both nothing and something exists together to make up the universe. Without that in between slices, you don’t have a movie.
Only an intelligence makes Functions. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy .. & .. space, time, laws ... & ... Intelligence to exist and to Function. Man is the only known intelligence ... in a Universe that is a Thermodynamic Function. There was always something; a very powerful intelligence called God.
There's ample indication that superposition is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs. Maybe reality is just a case of everything and nothing at the same time.
In empty energy are existing. Energy expand and contract but empty nither expand nor contract. To make empty is vast than to travel speed of light or anything else.
I saw an interview with Lawrence M. Krauss recently. He got pissed because people were upset over not buying into his definition of 'nothing'. He was claiming physicists had identified 'nothing', and that it has weight even (Sic!). By definitiion, that already makes his 'nothing' something. Whatever he was on about (like some undefined 'goo' (for lack of a better term), with presumably virtual particles popping in and out of existence), the truth is very simple: if it has weight, it's something. Period. Thomas Aquinas once famously said there is no way to define God, but that we can define what God is not. Similarly, I don't think our brains can truly grasp full nothingness, but we can say that 'nothing is the absence of something.' Yeah, that is a bit lame, I know, but I don't think anything else fits.
You are right. Physicists weirdly have problems with certain concepts... there is a great article about 'Nothing' online, published, I believe, in The Atlantic, of all places. The point of the article is to chastise modern physicists for fudging the idea of nothing.
How do i know that its me and as we all made of same matter than why does i feel only myself not anyotherself because if the composition and processes are same in all of us than why i am only bound to feel myself or it might be i feel everyone but there is some restriction that prevents my unlimited myselves to feel or communicate themselves
Yes, maybe we've been looking at it the wrong way, we need to ask "what is this nothing, and could it ever have existed?". Just because we can describe something (that is... nothing), it doesn't mean it ever could have existed, if that's not a contradiction. I can describe many things that don't exist, but that doesn't mean they ever could.
The question should be "Why isn't there Nothing rather than Something?". Because something is, and nothing isn't. It's hard to understand because we are created, so we think everything else must be, but it only applies to phisical dimension.
But I can go a bit further than that and ask you "how do you know there is something?" If you were a mathematical abstraction that was not physically realized as something, perhaps you would still have that one moment of consciousness that corresponds to that state as it would be if it was physically realized. Like pi exists, but as a number on the number line though not as a physical entity. But what if pi or a similar number was some sort of abstruse representation of an assemblage of atoms, a blueprint for you in your moment as you are thinking right now, thinking what you're thinking, seeing what you're seeing, remembering what you're remembering about a life that isn't actually yours because they are memories that are just part of the state which represents one moment in time, and it doesn't need to be physically realized in order to "exist" in that sense. Then there could very well actually be nothing. Unfortunately no experiment you can perform can discern this, because the "you" which corresponds to what you would be in the next moment of time after the experiment if it was physically realized will be similarly deceived into thinking it had just performed the experiment and verified with empirical evidence that there is something and not nothing and so there is simply a series of mathematical abstractions that none of which are physically realized and all think they are a continuum of actually physically realized states of a conscious agent having performed an experiment that convinced it that there is something.
Taking a step back, here's another perspective. Why ask the question in the first place? I suspect "consciousness" is closely related to the question of "existence". Specifically, in the history of evolution, consciousness has evolved to a very specific form, known as "self awareness". Suddenly the "lights are on". it starts looking around, wondering "what is it all about"? It can entertain counterfactuals, such as "nothingness". And it can contemplate its own mortality, which might be the fear around "nothingness".
Ever night 🌙 you go to sleep you enter a state of total nothingness. Then you enter another state if dreaming, and then you enter the wake state. Nothing is a timeless state between moments. It nothing exists everywhere as an ereaser. We need nothing to understand something.
The way I think of this question is in this way: A crow lands on a coconut tree and at the same time a coconut falls. Now this event might seem related but we know that there is no relation between these events. I think of the universe this way. The universe just is. There doesn't need to be a reason for the existence of a universe.
What is 2 objects touching? The two on the same point? That would make it the same thing or a superposition, is that touching? Or 2 object close to each other? Cos you could always divide their distance by two and never came to an end...so what is 2 objects touching?
Why isn't there a lot more stuff? Why is the speed of light so fast. Why do the y call tuna , chicken of the sea but never call chicken tuna of the land? How come when I look into a mirror my right side is on my left but my feet aren't over my head?
I know this feeling when I first thought about those things, why not nothing, etc...scary, like loosing the ground under your feet. Surprising that this is a common reaction. Now I feel quite comfortable with this thoughts. To be honest, I think of it nearly every day, so I got used to it. My conclusion so far is....... no this would go to far here. Read Platon, his world of forms comes closest to my conclusion.
I totally agree. As soon as there is absolutely nothing then it is the definition of that state. Once defined then nothing becomes something. This is the first step.
This is just semantics. It is how we see those words that is critical. For example, space can be perceived as nothing and it contains infinite mentation and from it, as the background, we see all manner of things. You cannot not have mind at large IMHO. It is forever thinking up scenarios. It is not the ultimate question at all.
@@visancosmin8991 Well, I have my own experiential take. I don't need him to use my own states to see how nothing and something are mutually inclusive and implicit.
It is hard, or impossible, to imagine Being which Is. It is outside of Space and Time and our minds are conditioned by Space and Time. It simply is, is timeless, is awareness and is the only ''thing'' which is. It is Awareness, and out of it was born, imagined our universe of time and space.
In other words, nobody has any damn idea how the universe came to be ! A logical explanation cannot even be imagined, let alone be put forward as a theory. As for "nothing" .. science cannot even define what that means. At the end of the video, Bede Rundle says there is no such thing as nothing .. how does he know ?
It could be that the concept of even less than nothing (what's left when even nothing is taken away) is simply beyond our ability to contemplate. Also "why" presupposes a reason or cause but in a state of even less than nothingness neither cause nor reason could have existed. Perhaps we can't think of or imagine anything truly new, the best we can do is put our experiences together in a myriad of novel ways. For example people in the middle ages would have pictured gravity in terms of invisible ropes because they were familiar with ropes, would it have been physically possible for them to suddenly think of curved space and time? Chilling that there may be a ceiling on our minds and that it's not up to us how long or hard we think.
The notion of "even less than nothing" is a symptom of our conflation of the range of positive numbers with the range of unsigned numbers. This habit is so ingrained, we typically don't even notice when we speculate on invalid negative values of quantities that are inherently unsigned. Similar to how there is nothing on the surface of the Earth that can be farther north than the North Pole, there is no such thing as negative mass, negative energy, negative temperature, or negative gravity. These physical properties are inherently unsigned rather than positive, and it is at best science fiction to speculate on what sort of universe might result if they were to transform into bipolar quantities.
My pass friend asked sometimes this question? Nothing is where there is nothing: Stuff, mass, energy four constants. No one knows where this "stuff"(atoms)originally is from!? So always in the Universe much be something and that something is eternal. What it is? No idea🤔.
Trying to explain and pinpoint 'nothing' with ideas and words which are something is not going to work. You cannot explain 'nothing' with something, because the general idea is that nothing is not something. Maybe there is just not an opposite counterpart of 'something'.
@@noi000 I understand where you’re coming from, but if there were truly absolute nothingness wouldn’t there be no “you” in which to find anything alarming? Just a thought. Be well.
@@kevinlowercase Yes, the very fact that something (what ever its actual nature) is here now, means that the concept of 'nothing' is simply nonsensical. As soon as you have 'something', you can't possibly - ever - have 'nothing'. But then the flip side of that is that the 'something' you appear to experience can't ultimately be 'a thing' in its own right either - it must have a deeper, eternal non physical reality. Hence why I used the term _no-thing_ (above) as opposed to nothing.
Fascinating subject. Imagining an empty universe would be a contradiction because you'd have to imagine yourself existing in order to imagine nothing existing.
if THERE MUST BE something rather than nothingness (0) that "something" must be a 1 (god ?) because all other alternatives would require a peculiar starting set ... would have been like options that were chosen from a list of possibilities ...even more because without a God, then you have to follow a very deterministic universe that totally rely on the initial conditions.
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...
@@francesco5581 We seem to be compelled to demand an explanation of origins. But this is only part of being human. Matter seems to be an overwhelmingly abundant part of what we call reality. Maybe it existed for ever. Objective reality exist's regardless of any human's demand for an explanation.
we could say that there is something rather than nothing, because as you and I or we exist,but I think if we don't exist at all we would never bother of anything even nothing
"There's no such thing as there being nothing". Indeed, but that doesn't mean that there might not have been anything at all. All it shows is that nothingness cannot just be merely some mysteriously vacant state of affairs. What a gentle and patient consideration, though. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The gentle old-fashioned scholar is certainly something, though in our tedious, head-banging, fast-talking world it seems rapidly to be going out of existence itself.
@@visancosmin8991 If you mean that the subject is quite mind-boggling, I agree. However, we need to remain forever cautious about saying things that come dangerously close to turning nothing into a something - even an utterly mysterious something. Only _something_ can be 'an ocean of mystery'.
@@visancosmin8991 I don't know what that means but you appear to be attributing some sort of property (being non-localised) to nothingness. Nothingness would mean the complete absence of properties. Indeed, it is the complete absence of anything whatsoever.
Anything that is a Function can only be made by an intelligence. All thermodynamic Systems are Functions .. and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space, time, laws ... & ... intelligence to exist & to function. There was always something: a very, very powerful intelligence.
The glass is simply full of what constitutes glass. The air and water can be located within its "geometric structure". Take a glass and melt it down to a flat disc or into a ball, now tell me how much air or water it can "hold".(aside from surface tension and molecular structure).
Time doesn’t exist as in length. It exists in a single point. All experience passes through this point. So forget about a start and an end. Think about time as a screen. Everything passes over the screen but the screen itself is static. So we have experience but no time. Time is illusory.
But isn't time relative, if someone was to go through space at a very fast pace they could travel forward in time, so it's more like a layer of moments/screens rather than the one static screen.
I think of it like this: if you're asking that question('Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?') then you're implicitly accepting that there are two possibilities: 1. something 2. nothing But since nothing is *really* nothing, ie. 'what rocks dream of', all you're really saying when you claim that 'nothing is an alternative to something', is that there *is* no alternative to something. Nothing is not an alternative - it is the *absence of an alternative.* To say that nothing is an alternative to something is, quite literally, to say that there is no alternative to something - the two statements are epistemically identical. And therefore 'something'(however that's defined, whether it's all of reality or an eternal inflationary multiverse, or whatever) has to exist, necessarily. Because its alternative is conceptually self-negating. As soon as you start to talk about nothing, you've started talking about something instead. 'Nothing' is the only concept in human culture where the simple act of conceiving of it involves a category error. To conceive of something...well the clue's in the grammar. There has to be something there to conceive of. Which means you've already made a mistake as soon as you start trying to conceive 'nothing'. When you realise this, the question suddenly changes from being one of the most profound and mysterious questions a human has ever asked...into a question that is fundamentally incoherent and nonsensical.
The absence of time, space and energy is an idea. The human concept of 'nothingness" is not just the absence of light or darkness, time or space and everything else it is something that we can not conceive or find a proper analogy for, it is something unknowable. If you believe impermanence rules everything, that nothing is permanent then nothingness can't last forever..... problem solved.
Hmm? If nothing really, really is nothing? Then what is “around” that Nothing And Why is it necessary to encapsulate Nothing! Because something wants to get in that space of Nothing! Why would Anything want to Go Nowhere? The real answer “because Nothing makes sense!?” Until we change our conception of division between Something and Nothing, then Nothing will continue to make sense!?
Nothing is something. Isn't it? Eliminate everything and what's left? Nothing. No space, no time, np energy, no temperature. The nothing state. As valid as the something state.
How could you possibly know that there is nothing left if you aren't there to see it? Without an observer, it is impossible to make the distinction between something and nothing.
Nothing with absence of everything is likely like a blank piece of paper with possibility to write on it. It is advanced stuff really not something we can understand at this time in our evolution.
It's complete BS. Only an intelligence makes Functions. A Thermodynamic System is a Function and originates from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space,time, laws .. & .. intelligence to exist & to function. The Universe is an isolated Thermodynamic System. There was always something: a very powerful intelligence.
Nothingness is just a concept, it doesn't and cannot exist and will never exist because it is by definition nothingness. It cannot be positioned in space or time or anything else and to repeat it can only be understood as an abstract concept in our minds.
@@visancosmin8991 no, that's the world. You missed the mark again. "Nothing" has no properties to experience! But the person contemplating nothing is subject to their soul. Soul, as in character, it responds to everything just as the mind does.
@@visancosmin8991 yes, you could say that it's absolutely infinity! But again it's you saying it. So it's really you seeing nothing and appreciating it.
there is something instead of nothing because nothing needs nothing to exist. and if theres nothing then there's something that nothing needed to exist. this makes something the only possible outcome 🤔
What a great gentleman and scholar. What a wonderful program Robert Kuhn has created. I would of never been exposed to these great minds if it wasn’t for his efforts.
Your childhood experience reminds me of lying on my back looking up at the cloudless sky and wondering if up and down might suddenly reverse.
I've always wondered if I was the only one who ever had those thoughts as a child. Thanks for the confort.
9:23 Nothingness can explain both consciousness and the probabilistic wave-function imho.
Possibilities need some substrate to work off of. If there was nothing, you couldn't have possibilities because there's no substrate from which the possibilities can form. If there was nothing, you would have to rely on 'metabilities' - or the possibilities of what could be if there was something. I fall in-line with the idea that even if there is nothing, the one thing that could exist are metabilities.
Now, here's the thing - metabilities are nothing-compatible because they don't actually exist; they're ethereal nothings that describe what could be if things could be. This means that they would describe entire universes, the life that inhabit that universe, their thoughts, etc. etc. etc.
So if nothing was the truth - if nothing actually existed, then would it not be conceivable that the intelligent life described by the metabilities would feel as though they actually existed?
The quantum mechanical waveform would start to make a bit more sense. It's a probabilistic oscillation between existence and non-existence. If we lived in a metability, that would start to make a bit more sense. Probability is a spectrum that lays between possible and impossible; there and not there; something and nothing ... exactly what you would expect from the dynamics of a system that doesn't really exist ... yet does. And this is all outside of time, so perhaps some fundamental metabilistic phenomenon from which time itself emerges, also causes what appears to us as the oscillation - when, in fact, it's simply the metabilistic mechanics trying to remedy the fact of nothingness with the fact of its own existence. Perhaps a pendulum-like effect.
Finally, the qualia of consciousness makes sense as well. Metabilities would have to also contain, or derive something akin to an essence. After all, it's not built on anything substantial. It would have to first give rise to the essence of a reality which is a much better precursor to qualia than hard matter.
Anyway - those are my thoughts on the matter.
No matter what the answer is, it will always be profound.And that's really something.
I agree his 12-year-old reaction and fright is a good sign. I wish someone had helped him by saying "there is no such thing as 'nothing."
Nah, I am against lying to children so as to appease their fears.
Agreed, nothing is something!
My probably nonsensical mathematical response to this question is that "Something" is just the "plus one" in the equation
+1 + -1 = 0
Where "zero" is "Nothing" and "negative one" is (work with me here) "Anti-Something".
So it isn't so much that there is something rather than nothing, but rather that there's still nothing; it's just we're just living in some fractured part of nothing, which, from our perspective, is really something...
But this means nothing has an internal structure (something together with anti something ) which is contradictory,nothing has no constituents
@@mazenmohamed1065 Yes, you're right. Just an idea I like to play around with when I have to take my medical marijuana ; _)_
@@longcastle4863 the idea seems elegant but I think we have to accept the existence as a brute fact.have a nice day and a good mood
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
Anything that is clearly a Function is made by an intelligence.
Mathematics is an abstract function from the mind of an intelligence.
Man's body is a complex Function composed of Functions.
The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System .. which is a Function .. and originates from the surrounding Systems which must provide the matter & energy ... and ... time, space, laws of nature ... and ... an Intelligence to exist & to function.
There was always something: a very very powerful intelligence called God who made Man in His likeness with a body & soul in an UNNATURAL System less than 6 x 1000 years ago.
There's a reason the world had a 7 day week before Abraham was called to be the Father of the Jews & Faith, and Moses wrote Genesis with the 6 day creation and the 7th day belongs to God.
There's a reason the Torah(Bible) says 1 day is like 1000 and Jesus (Son of God) will return to rule the Earth for 1000 years with 144 000 Jews who were killed in End times believing in the Christ (Savior).
The Jewish year is currently ... 5782.
God always existed .. is a Father, Son & Spirit ... and knew it would take 7 x 1000 years to save His Children from His just nature to punish all who sin with death (body & soul).
Only an intelligence makes Functions. Why is so difficult for most to accept?
@@visancosmin8991 what is illogical about nothing? actually we can't talk about logic without any starting point which is the case with nothing
I don't see why the concept of absolute "nothing" is some type of logical impossibility ? It seems zero progress has been made by philosophers or scientists on this ultimate question Leibnitz famously expressed but I'm sure was wondered about since the dawn of Man: "Why is there something rather than nothing?". When you deeply contemplate this question, it does sends chills through your being and haunts you.
@@visancosmin8991 I guess because there's no way for you to imagine nothing, even if you remove space, there is something that had space on it and so on, you never reach nothing. This is just what I think, I could be wrong.
“Something” is a property of “nothing”. Even in spaces where there should be nothing virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time.
@@mnrvaprjct space is also something
Actually, Hindu and Buddhist thought preceeds, and far exceeds Leibniz’s Johnny come lately confabulations, that amount to nothing.
As humans we intrinsically ask the question "why?". But reality doesn't have to answer it. Matter in some form just maybe the something that has always existed. This may not suit our intuition, but it doesn't have to suit our intuition.
In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices The objective universe and everything contained in it of which we find ourselves interacting.
@@johnyharris so the objects contained within this universe, including yourself, is the SOLE reality?
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices No, it's everything that science has uncovered, presently. The corners of reality that science hasn't illuminated yet, such as what gave rise to the universe, is currently left open to opinion.
*"As humans we intrinsically ask the question "why?". But reality doesn't have to answer it"*
... I believe that the question "Why?" absolutely CAN be answered. If reality exists, then so does the reason for its existence. However, I don't believe science alone can reveal it. It's going to take more than just "observation."
You can either boldly stand in the arena of "Existence" or remain a spectator. Science can be located in seat #16, row 12 (between theism and atheism).
Honestly, as I live and breathe, I had this same thought at seven years of age. Looking back, this is crazy. I'm only 18 seconds into the video!
Here's another approach to the question that haunts us, "why is there something rather than nothing?" There IS ***nothing***. The summation of everything is always zero. Think of it as a cosmic conservation law. Just like ALL the numbers on the number line, the infinite number of both positive and negative numbers, add up to ZERO. All matter, all energy, all space, and all time, sum up to ZERO, because everything cancels each other out when summed. In other words, NOTHINGNESS is necessarily a launch pad for INFINITY, which always adds-up to NOTHINGNESS.
0 contains and is the summation of ∞.
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay expressing this thought. I'll try to find it.
That's your religious belief talking. You have no evidence that everything in reality adds to zero. In fact there is a lot of evidence against it, since no negative mass objects have ever been observed to balance out all the positive mass objects that are observable.
@@medexamtoolscom It's just a theory that I, Isaac Asimov, and likely many others (independently) came up with. I never said I conducted a peer reviewed scientific study. I don't think you understand it. I suggest you open your mind to possibilities other than your pre-conceived ones.
Nothing for Nothing
by Isaac Asimov
Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, February 1979, pp. 136-146
The fact that there is something leads to the logical conclusion that there had to be the possibility of something. If there had to the be the possibility of something then that in and of itself is something. Therefore, the question of why there is something rather than nothing doesn't make sense because there had to be something and "nothing" could not exist but we are still left with the question of "Why?", but knowing that the concept of nothing could not really exist leads one in the direction of "something" being a brute fact.
Why was there the possibility of something?
I would like to take his class.
We will never understand it, or we will not be able to come to terms with the answer.
The word "rather" is what's causing all the confusion. Nothing, Something and Everything are all *EXACTLY* where they're supposed to be which is the *ONLY* place they can be:
Nothing is Nowhere
Something is Somewhere
Everything is Everywhere
Go ask your mom.
@@visancosmin8991 All language is word play.
The Julius Ceasear we know is in the same place he always was and always will be, living his life in the time frame of "12 July 100 BC - 15 March 44 BC."
From our vantage point, a position in *3D* space, that was a point in "time" that only existed in the "past," but if we had the ability to access higher dimensions of space, say *4D* space or higher, from *THAT* vantage point, his entire life span would be a position in space, not time.
As a Buddhist, I would say that Something and Nothing are two aspects of the one non-dual Reality.
If there was a reason for nothing to exist, then it wouldn't be "nothing" because a reason exists. Therefore, there's no reason for nothing to ever exist.
That is interesting, good reasoning
A very interesting conversation... but I'm now more confused then before I watched the video!😳😅
8:39 that remind me of my grandmother
Similarly I had a thought one night as a kid, that maybe the universe never had a beginning. Boggled my own mind. Now I'm all but convinced it had no beginning.
Here is a question. If there was nothing at all, how long would it last? Since nothing means no time I guess it would be over instantly. Then if that nothing is over what comes after it?
Can anybody imagine "nothing" ? I can't and I bet nobody can, so I accept the brut fact, that there is something.
May be nothing is what man feel when beeng dead ….. essence of nothing….
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
Anything that is clearly a Function is made by an intelligence.
There was always something: a very very powerful intelligence.
You don't feel anything when you are dead, not even nothing. It's better to conseptulise the idea while still alive, we were in nothing before we were born.
@@visancosmin8991 you have a great sense of humour! I like it! but if the self is eternal, with that logic.. you can't be born either.
This is like saying that something must come from nothing. Yet that itself is hard to explain in our terms. We may not need a God to create something from nothing because that still creates eternal regression, who created that God etc.
Even if there was absolutely nothing in terms of matter, there will always be this vast empty dark void of space where three dimensional objects can move through. That in itself amazes me. It’s an eternal open dark room of which is all there is. Interestingly enough, I had this same thought when I was 8 years old. I was not the smartest, but always been ahead of everybody else in terms of ideas and questions.
That's the problem with trying to imagine what "nothing" would be like. A big dark empty void is "something" so we can rule that out, but the real problem is that you are observing this nothing, otherwise you would not know that it was black and empty, so that means there is an observer there. If you remove these two "somethings" then maybe you have a place to begin in your search for "nothing".
Before your mother was impregnated you was materialistic nothing and nothing materialistic will be left when you die so you will go totally dark..it is absence of everything. Before the universe was born and after it dies the situation was likely the same.
Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes Functions.
A Function is a system that processes inputs into outputs and has clear purpose, form, design & properties which are INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & to function.
Only an intelligence makes Functions which possesses INFORMATION.
Only an intelligence extracts INFORMATION from a Function.
The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION that Man (an intelligence) has extracted from various Functions made by an Intelligence.
The Universe is a Thermodynamic Systems with finite matter & energy and increasing entropy.
All Thermodynamic Systems are Functions and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the mater & energy ... & ... time, space, laws of nature ... and ... Intelligence to exist and to Function.
Man is the only known intelligence .. in a Universe that is a Function ... made by an intelligence.
And Intelligence .. has a Mind ... and free will, nature, & consciousness to think, believe, say & do whatever he wants ... with existence & reality.
what you define is not nothingness. is just an empty space. Is not true nothingness.
Robert is going beyond that: "not even the existence of emptiness". It's the deeper void when even space is not there so there is nothing for light or matter to exist in or move through.
Clearly, given that somethingness exists, there's some aspect to the deep nature of being that guarantees at least the possibility of existence. Therefore, the low resolution answer to "why" there is something rather than nothing, is that somethingness is possible. As @Medusa Skull mentioned, maybe the "how" question is the more interesting and perplexing one than the "why" question.
The physicists only need empty space and quantum activity to give us the observable universe, but that may be the extent of the progress they can make regarding "how" it's possible that there there should be something rather than nothing. Still, I'd say this work constitutes progress.
At some point, I think we run into an aspect of being that is irreducible, noncontingent, and uncaused. We can reflect all we want on what that might be (perhaps "possibility" itself?), but clearly we aren't theoretically or philosophically mature enough to broach that aspect of being with clarity and might never be, sadly.
@@visancosmin8991 I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
@@visancosmin8991 How is that relevant to my post? Feel free to provide a link, and please explain how it's relevant if you want me to spend the time reading it.
if you have something "irreducible" you will never be able to say that is "uncaused". You will always have to say that you were "lucky" that this "thing" was present and caused your existence , and the one of the universe.
@@visancosmin8991 You aren't explaining yourself properly nor are you convincing me that you have anything worth paying attention to.
@@francesco5581 I know that I and everything in the observable universe is reducible. That which is irreducible and noncontingent upon anything else (i.e., that which is at the ground floor of being) is, I submit, uncaused by definition.
he was so scared, then suddenly remembered !
Would there be any space if there were no time? I think, not. Possibly then space is created out of time? But if there is no beginning and no end, what then is time?
Time is biggest enigma. When we know what it really is then we know the Universe secrets...maybe.
"There's no such thing as there being nothing".
Precisely. Hence why the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is malformed in the first place, since it ponders an impossibility as an alternative prospect.
The reformulated question, 'why is there anything at all?' fares better in the sense that it questions Existence itself without evidently assuming the possibility of Non-existence.
That being said, embedded in its formulation 'why is there' is the use of the very thing it questions: existence, thus it is doomed to assume, not explain, Existence.
Can such traps be avoided in our question? Maybe, maybe not. For what it's worth, here's my possibly futile attempt: how does Existence occurs? Or to be even more neutral: what fundamental principle(s) govern(s) occurrences?
This might sound like the pitfalls have been avoided, yet upon closer inspection I quickly realise that I am in fact presuming Existence to have some condition of actualisation, that events must have reasons for occurring, that occurrences are necessarily contingent.
But what dictates these parameters for occurrence? How is Existence itself fundamental if it depends on a 'law of Existence' in the first place? And what would it mean for Existence to have no such law, condition, or parameters?
Would it be some brute fact as Russell said, or some spontaneous instantiation, making Existence fundamentally random? Perhaps it would be some fundamental necessity even deeper than the mere notion of logical necessity? Some proposition such that it entails itself, some kind of... ontological tautology? Or maybe it is all explained by the deepest, thinnest particular possible, some kind of substance of possibilities?
In order to avoid more esoteric verbiage, let's consider one last concept: true randomness as the fundamental substance of everything. Here the idea is that, not unlike the host's remark that 'but at bottom there has to be at the very least possibilities!', a case can be made that the deepest possible idea one can propose is fundamental randomness: the quality or state of lacking any pattern or principle of organisation, including having a state of affairs, as it's something that would imply some kind of situation stable enough to be characterised as distinct from any other.
This speculative fundamental randomness is the only proposal that can account for just about anything, seemingly without requiring any explanation itself. Under this view, any actualised state of affairs becomes a grounding situation from which things evolve, since there necessarily is no prior state of affairs, given the fundamentally random acting as the unwitting substrate of existence.
What makes you think there's something?
There are mental experiences which are something, not nothing.
What do you mean by saying something is "existing"?. Existing where ? Existing when? We cannot imagine existence not in space and time. And existing for whom.
It seems to me that conceptually the biggest gap is between nothing and something. Still, the conceptual gap between mere existence and conscious existence is way up there!
But why do we think that the gap between intelligent life on earth and advanced life elsewhere is so mind boggling?
@@visancosmin8991 if everybody believed that, then the world would be a much better place ... little boys would not smash rocks just for the heck of it, let alone step on bugs. People would not say proudly that they did something dangerous and got away with it, believing that their Shroedinger twin would not have dodged the bullet. People would not waste time or energy. They would not unnecessarily increase disorder by mixing hot and cold, etc. They would have a much more mindful and reverent walk through their days on earth. They would be more careful about harming anybody or anything.
It's a good example of the wisdom of what Joseph Smith, Jr. said ... "It is better to believe too much than too little."
I find puzzling that "nothing" is an imposibility. Is imposible to remove physical laws and possibilities from a space, therefore. Nothing does not exist.
It can exist. If this is a computer simulation the simulation can just stop. If god made everything why can’t he just take it all away. If all life everywhere die there will be nobody to know if anything exists and the question becomes irrelevant.
@@Sophie-and-Ken But the computer, or god, still exist and count as something.
@@Sophie-and-Ken if all life were to die, observers will appear again, again and again because is impossible to get rid of possibilities.
@@jonathanchalmers7844 from the perspective of the observer there is nothing after there is nothing there is no more observer to see the god or computer. What you are saying is that something has to create the nothing and the existing of something means there can never be nothing. But I’m saying relative to our perspective nothing can exist. That doesn’t mean “nothing” will ever exist, it’s all some stupid mind exercise to justify out existence and give meaning to life. If nothing can’t exist there must be a supernatural entity beyond all the something we can see.
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
A Thermodynamic System is a Function and originates from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space,time, laws .. & .. intelligence to exist & to function.
The Universe is an isolated Thermodynamic System.
There was always something: a very powerful intelligence.
"If there were nothing you'd still be complaining!" - Sidney Morgenbesser
What an awesome mountain of irresolvable speculation and pointless verbal activity. Just an opinion, of course. A hamster wheel does at least benefit the creature's health, even if it doesn't get anywhere. Maybe I'm missing the poetry :)
Gosh, I am pleased there is something. Imagine being conscious in nothingness.
nothingness is nothingness. No consciousness present either.
@@francesco5581 A sassy, unprovable reply.
Yet a conscious energy can probably project itself into nothingness, to fill the gap.
@@chyfields the conscious energy is then something that was always existing. What must be clear is that nothing comes our from nothingness ... So something always existed.
@@francesco5581 Like an author who writes a book beginning part way through the story and then fills in the backstory later on in the book?
@@chyfields i prefer to think that outside that "chapter in the middle" there is a "no time" environment, that always existed and always in the "now" moment.
Subscribed to this channel this morning and then I get notified of a video with the biggest question of all. The one question I keep coming back to in this search for meaning we are all on. Thanks.
you will never regret to have signed to this channel :)
"meaning"is what you make of it
@@visancosmin8991 well, can you point me to it?
Try to read why does the world exist I say try as I have only been able to read 25 pages
This channel & commenters routinely ignore the obvious because they are fixated on their firm beliefs & opinions.
Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes Functions.
A Function is a system that processes inputs into outputs and has clear purpose, form, design & properties which are INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & to function.
Only an intelligence makes Functions which possesses INFORMATION.
Only an intelligence extracts INFORMATION from a Function.
The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION that Man (an intelligence) has extracted from various Functions made by an Intelligence.
The Universe is a Thermodynamic Systems with finite matter & energy and increasing entropy.
All Thermodynamic Systems are Functions and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the mater & energy ... & ... time, space, laws of nature ... and ... Intelligence to exist and to Function.
Man is the only known intelligence .. in a Universe that is a Function ... made by an intelligence.
And Intelligence .. has a Mind ... and free will, nature, & consciousness to think, believe, say & do whatever he wants ... with existence & reality.
Man has known for over 120 years that the Universe is a Thermodynamic System ... and yet there is not one origin theory of a Natural System originating from an UNNATURAL System? Why is this?
I don't take nothing to be a thing, but simply the negation of all things. It's easier to conceptualize like that.
As far as space goes, what if it exists merely as a potential, but not a thing that actually exists, unless the properties of actual things fill it.
Imagine one thing was created, and nothing else, and it couldn't move. Then there was essentially no reality to the space outside of itself, because the one existing thing could not even move into that space. It would be truly empty. Or if it could move, the space might gain a sense of reality merely by an object that could move through it.
A potential definition of space would be a mere potential for things that do not exist but could exist. The space could become real through things that fill it. This truly empty space may be a thing arising necessarily out of a necessary being with powers of creation, as far as anything was possible to that necessary being.
Thanks. Now I'm scared too Kuhn!😡.🧐.🙂
Instead of asking “why” is there something rather than nothing, we should ask how is the universe coming into being. If we run the universe backward in time to where time cease to exist, then there is no more time to run the universe back. At that point, the universe will just cease to exist due to no time.
On other notion of nothingness or void, imagine if you can slice the entire universe into thin slices like a film wheel. Each slice is a universe at that moment in time. Now make that slice small enough to fit into Planck time, now you have a static 3d universe where everything is motionless. The nothingness or void you are seeking for is between these movies slices. In a sense, both nothing and something exists together to make up the universe. Without that in between slices, you don’t have a movie.
Yep, you definitely have snakes in your skull.
@@visancosmin8991 Whatever you call it, without time, there is no animated matter. Entropy can’t exist without time. Time is real.
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy .. & .. space, time, laws ... & ... Intelligence to exist and to Function.
Man is the only known intelligence ... in a Universe that is a Thermodynamic Function.
There was always something; a very powerful intelligence called God.
Sat Chit Ananda. Also - Form is emptiness, Emptiness is form. Much farther back than Leibniz.
There's ample indication that superposition is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs.
Maybe reality is just a case of everything and nothing at the same time.
started off with leibnz !
Oh... finally...a poetic discution about the true reality...🙂👍
In empty energy are existing.
Energy expand and contract but empty nither expand nor contract.
To make empty is vast than to travel speed of light or anything else.
I saw an interview with Lawrence M. Krauss recently. He got pissed because people were upset over not buying into his definition of 'nothing'. He was claiming physicists had identified 'nothing', and that it has weight even (Sic!). By definitiion, that already makes his 'nothing' something. Whatever he was on about (like some undefined 'goo' (for lack of a better term), with presumably virtual particles popping in and out of existence), the truth is very simple: if it has weight, it's something. Period.
Thomas Aquinas once famously said there is no way to define God, but that we can define what God is not. Similarly, I don't think our brains can truly grasp full nothingness, but we can say that 'nothing is the absence of something.' Yeah, that is a bit lame, I know, but I don't think anything else fits.
You are right. Physicists weirdly have problems with certain concepts... there is a great article about 'Nothing' online, published, I believe, in The Atlantic, of all places. The point of the article is to chastise modern physicists for fudging the idea of nothing.
How do i know that its me and as we all made of same matter than why does i feel only myself not anyotherself because if the composition and processes are same in all of us than why i am only bound to feel myself or it might be i feel everyone but there is some restriction that prevents my unlimited myselves to feel or communicate themselves
Yes, maybe we've been looking at it the wrong way, we need to ask "what is this nothing, and could it ever have existed?". Just because we can describe something (that is... nothing), it doesn't mean it ever could have existed, if that's not a contradiction. I can describe many things that don't exist, but that doesn't mean they ever could.
We take this existence as something but this something itself is nothing. So there wasn't anything, isn't and wouldn't.
Why is the idea that their might have been nothing....frightening? What's what I wonder the most.
The question should be "Why isn't there Nothing rather than Something?". Because something is, and nothing isn't. It's hard to understand because we are created, so we think everything else must be, but it only applies to phisical dimension.
But I can go a bit further than that and ask you "how do you know there is something?" If you were a mathematical abstraction that was not physically realized as something, perhaps you would still have that one moment of consciousness that corresponds to that state as it would be if it was physically realized. Like pi exists, but as a number on the number line though not as a physical entity. But what if pi or a similar number was some sort of abstruse representation of an assemblage of atoms, a blueprint for you in your moment as you are thinking right now, thinking what you're thinking, seeing what you're seeing, remembering what you're remembering about a life that isn't actually yours because they are memories that are just part of the state which represents one moment in time, and it doesn't need to be physically realized in order to "exist" in that sense. Then there could very well actually be nothing. Unfortunately no experiment you can perform can discern this, because the "you" which corresponds to what you would be in the next moment of time after the experiment if it was physically realized will be similarly deceived into thinking it had just performed the experiment and verified with empirical evidence that there is something and not nothing and so there is simply a series of mathematical abstractions that none of which are physically realized and all think they are a continuum of actually physically realized states of a conscious agent having performed an experiment that convinced it that there is something.
Taking a step back, here's another perspective. Why ask the question in the first place? I suspect "consciousness" is closely related to the question of "existence".
Specifically, in the history of evolution, consciousness has evolved to a very specific form, known as "self awareness". Suddenly the "lights are on". it starts looking around, wondering "what is it all about"? It can entertain counterfactuals, such as "nothingness". And it can contemplate its own mortality, which might be the fear around "nothingness".
Yes all evolution - perhaps even the construct of god
old ladies'' tales are entertaining, especially when they never end
Ever night 🌙 you go to sleep you enter a state of total nothingness. Then you enter another state if dreaming, and then you enter the wake state. Nothing is a timeless state between moments. It nothing exists everywhere as an ereaser. We need nothing to understand something.
The way I think of this question is in this way:
A crow lands on a coconut tree and at the same time a coconut falls.
Now this event might seem related but we know that there is no relation between these events.
I think of the universe this way. The universe just is. There doesn't need to be a reason for the existence of a universe.
It seems hopeless to avoid that whatever the model, there must be an antecedent explanation. " There is no such thing as there being nothing."
What is 2 objects touching? The two on the same point? That would make it the same thing or a superposition, is that touching? Or 2 object close to each other? Cos you could always divide their distance by two and never came to an end...so what is 2 objects touching?
Why isn't there a lot more stuff? Why is the speed of light so fast. Why do the y call tuna , chicken of the sea but never call chicken tuna of the land? How come when I look into a mirror my right side is on my left but my feet aren't over my head?
This Is 2009. Bede died In 2011 hopefully he knows the answers wherever he is,. I hope to know one day
I know this feeling when I first thought about those things, why not nothing, etc...scary, like loosing the ground under your feet. Surprising that this is a common reaction. Now I feel quite comfortable with this thoughts. To be honest, I think of it nearly every day, so I got used to it. My conclusion so far is....... no this would go to far here. Read Platon, his world of forms comes closest to my conclusion.
Nothing is always something, something we can define as nothing.
I totally agree. As soon as there is absolutely nothing then it is the definition of that state. Once defined then nothing becomes something. This is the first step.
This is just semantics. It is how we see those words that is critical. For example, space can be perceived as nothing and it contains infinite mentation and from it, as the background, we see all manner of things. You cannot not have mind at large IMHO. It is forever thinking up scenarios. It is not the ultimate question at all.
@@visancosmin8991 Yes, it's called experience ;)
@@visancosmin8991 Well, I have my own experiential take. I don't need him to use my own states to see how nothing and something are mutually inclusive and implicit.
It is hard, or impossible, to imagine Being which Is.
It is outside of Space and Time and our minds are conditioned by Space and Time.
It simply is, is timeless, is awareness and is the only ''thing'' which is.
It is Awareness, and out of it was born, imagined our universe of time and space.
@@visancosmin8991 I agree, One Self being all selves, Being everything.
Take a shot every time the word 'nothing' is said.
In other words, nobody has any damn idea how the universe came to be ! A logical explanation cannot even be imagined, let alone be put forward as a theory. As for "nothing" .. science cannot even define what that means. At the end of the video, Bede Rundle says there is no such thing as nothing .. how does he know ?
@@visancosmin8991 So would you say "space" is nothing ?
@@visancosmin8991 That's an interesting answer ! I have heard it before though. You are saying then, if space does not exist - it is nothing.
@@visancosmin8991 If only consciousness exists, does it not require space and time to be aware of itself ?
@@visancosmin8991 So you are saying there are no planets orbiting the sun, no stars in the sky, or anything else anywhere .. just consciousness.
@@visancosmin8991 Interesting theory .. why do you believe it ?
Jordan Petersons answer would probably go something like: first we have to establish what does “something” mean? what does “nothing” mean?
I don't believe the panic and sweating story, and neither does Rundle as you can see. He's too kind and genuine to challenge.
It could be that the concept of even less than nothing (what's left when even nothing is taken away) is simply beyond our ability to contemplate.
Also "why" presupposes a reason or cause but in a state of even less than nothingness neither cause nor reason could have existed.
Perhaps we can't think of or imagine anything truly new, the best we can do is put our experiences together in a myriad of novel ways.
For example people in the middle ages would have pictured gravity in terms of invisible ropes because they were familiar with ropes, would it have been physically possible for them to suddenly think of curved space and time? Chilling that there may be a ceiling on our minds and that it's not up to us how long or hard we think.
The notion of "even less than nothing" is a symptom of our conflation of the range of positive numbers with the range of unsigned numbers. This habit is so ingrained, we typically don't even notice when we speculate on invalid negative values of quantities that are inherently unsigned. Similar to how there is nothing on the surface of the Earth that can be farther north than the North Pole, there is no such thing as negative mass, negative energy, negative temperature, or negative gravity. These physical properties are inherently unsigned rather than positive, and it is at best science fiction to speculate on what sort of universe might result if they were to transform into bipolar quantities.
My pass friend asked sometimes this question?
Nothing is where there is
nothing: Stuff, mass, energy four constants.
No one knows where this "stuff"(atoms)originally is from!?
So always in the Universe much be something and that something is eternal.
What it is? No idea🤔.
What makes you think that every question can have an answer?
Trying to explain and pinpoint 'nothing' with ideas and words which are something is not going to work. You cannot explain 'nothing' with something, because the general idea is that nothing is not something. Maybe there is just not an opposite counterpart of 'something'.
Am I odd in finding comfort in the thought of total nothingness? It's everything rather than nothing that gives me cause for alarm.
Yes, it makes sense. Fortunately, it seems that both the source and reality of everything is actually _no-thing._
@@noi000 I understand where you’re coming from, but if there were truly absolute nothingness wouldn’t there be no “you” in which to find anything alarming? Just a thought. Be well.
@@mikefoster5277 true. Without a “something” there can’t be a “nothing” to juxtapose itself against.
@@kevinlowercase Yes, the very fact that something (what ever its actual nature) is here now, means that the concept of 'nothing' is simply nonsensical. As soon as you have 'something', you can't possibly - ever - have 'nothing'. But then the flip side of that is that the 'something' you appear to experience can't ultimately be 'a thing' in its own right either - it must have a deeper, eternal non physical reality. Hence why I used the term _no-thing_ (above) as opposed to nothing.
I find the possibility of nothingness frightening but also the actuality of something. Why is there something if there could have been nothing?
Fascinating subject. Imagining an empty universe would be a contradiction because you'd have to imagine yourself existing in order to imagine nothing existing.
As Mr T would say "You're already existing ,FOOL" , why are you existing and imagining yourself existing?
if THERE MUST BE something rather than nothingness (0) that "something" must be a 1 (god ?) because all other alternatives would require a peculiar starting set ... would have been like options that were chosen from a list of possibilities ...even more because without a God, then you have to follow a very deterministic universe that totally rely on the initial conditions.
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
Cont...
If it is something that "must be" then it doesn't require anything, it's unconditional.
@@johnyharris but a specific "something" would need an explanation for it's own features. "all or nothing" seems more reasonable.
@@francesco5581 We seem to be compelled to demand an explanation of origins. But this is only part of being human. Matter seems to be an overwhelmingly abundant part of what we call reality. Maybe it existed for ever. Objective reality exist's regardless of any human's demand for an explanation.
@@johnyharris in an universe in which everything have an explanation would seems strange the the universe itself have not one :)
we could say that there is something rather than nothing, because as you and I or we exist,but I think if we don't exist at all we would never bother of anything even nothing
"There's no such thing as there being nothing". Indeed, but that doesn't mean that there might not have been anything at all. All it shows is that nothingness cannot just be merely some mysteriously vacant state of affairs.
What a gentle and patient consideration, though. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The gentle old-fashioned scholar is certainly something, though in our tedious, head-banging, fast-talking world it seems rapidly to be going out of existence itself.
@@visancosmin8991 If you mean that the subject is quite mind-boggling, I agree. However, we need to remain forever cautious about saying things that come dangerously close to turning nothing into a something - even an utterly mysterious something. Only _something_ can be 'an ocean of mystery'.
@@visancosmin8991 I don't know what that means but you appear to be attributing some sort of property (being non-localised) to nothingness. Nothingness would mean the complete absence of properties. Indeed, it is the complete absence of anything whatsoever.
Anything that is a Function can only be made by an intelligence.
All thermodynamic Systems are Functions .. and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space, time, laws ... & ... intelligence to exist & to function.
There was always something: a very, very powerful intelligence.
Is the glass half empty or half full? This is not a correct question, because the glass is always full (e.g. water and air, water or air).
The glass is simply full of what constitutes glass. The air and water can be located within its "geometric structure". Take a glass and melt it down to a flat disc or into a ball, now tell me how much air or water it can "hold".(aside from surface tension and molecular structure).
As far as generalizations go though I can totally agree with your statement
@@xenphoton5833 In this case, the disk or ball is full of glass.
In Infinity something was bound to happen
This conversation is above my pay grade. 🤓
They don't put the theme tune on these videos as much
Time doesn’t exist as in length. It exists in a single point. All experience passes through this point. So forget about a start and an end. Think about time as a screen. Everything passes over the screen but the screen itself is static.
So we have experience but no time. Time is illusory.
But isn't time relative, if someone was to go through space at a very fast pace they could travel forward in time, so it's more like a layer of moments/screens rather than the one static screen.
ja the only thing in itself (contradictio in absentia) that is impossible is nothing...
nothing is nothing, its divide by 0. Its irrational, infinite. Time and space is infinite in both directions.
But some people say that if you can describe it - it's not nothing 😊
I think of it like this: if you're asking that question('Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?') then you're implicitly accepting that there are two possibilities:
1. something
2. nothing
But since nothing is *really* nothing, ie. 'what rocks dream of', all you're really saying when you claim that 'nothing is an alternative to something', is that there *is* no alternative to something. Nothing is not an alternative - it is the *absence of an alternative.*
To say that nothing is an alternative to something is, quite literally, to say that there is no alternative to something - the two statements are epistemically identical. And therefore 'something'(however that's defined, whether it's all of reality or an eternal inflationary multiverse, or whatever) has to exist, necessarily. Because its alternative is conceptually self-negating. As soon as you start to talk about nothing, you've started talking about something instead.
'Nothing' is the only concept in human culture where the simple act of conceiving of it involves a category error. To conceive of something...well the clue's in the grammar. There has to be something there to conceive of. Which means you've already made a mistake as soon as you start trying to conceive 'nothing'.
When you realise this, the question suddenly changes from being one of the most profound and mysterious questions a human has ever asked...into a question that is fundamentally incoherent and nonsensical.
The absence of time, space and energy is an idea. The human concept of 'nothingness" is not just the absence of light or darkness, time or space and everything else it is something that we can not conceive or find a proper analogy for, it is something unknowable. If you believe impermanence rules everything, that nothing is permanent then nothingness can't last forever..... problem solved.
Nothing is a measure of awareness of something.
Hmm? If nothing really, really is nothing? Then what is “around” that Nothing And Why is it necessary to encapsulate Nothing! Because something wants to get in that space of Nothing! Why would Anything want to Go Nowhere? The real answer “because Nothing makes sense!?” Until we change our conception of division between Something and Nothing, then Nothing will continue to make sense!?
Perhaps truth is Self evident? 💛
@@visancosmin8991 Yes.
he still terrified !
I had the same dilemma as the questionaire
Less talkie, more workie.
A great read on this age old philosophical question is the book, "Why Does the World Exist?" by Jim Holt.
Nothing is something. Isn't it? Eliminate everything and what's left? Nothing. No space, no time, np energy, no temperature. The nothing state. As valid as the something state.
but again we ask how or why is there something from the state of nothing.
Nothing is techinically anything that isn't everything
How could you possibly know that there is nothing left if you aren't there to see it? Without an observer, it is impossible to make the distinction between something and nothing.
Nothing with absence of everything is likely like a blank piece of paper with possibility to write on it. It is advanced stuff really not something we can understand at this time in our evolution.
It's complete BS.
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
A Thermodynamic System is a Function and originates from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space,time, laws .. & .. intelligence to exist & to function.
The Universe is an isolated Thermodynamic System.
There was always something: a very powerful intelligence.
Nothingness is just a concept, it doesn't and cannot exist and will never exist because it is by definition nothingness.
It cannot be positioned in space or time or anything else and to repeat it can only be understood as an abstract concept in our minds.
Something and nothing or these concepts reveal the tendency of the typical habitual mind to create, Something from nothing.
As far as an experience, of nothing being frightening goes, it's actually your soul you are experiencing.
Hardly a constructive thought.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 yes, construction is "actually" hard! My comments don't translate to keyboard warrior!
@@visancosmin8991 no, that's the world. You missed the mark again. "Nothing" has no properties to experience! But the person contemplating nothing is subject to their soul. Soul, as in character, it responds to everything just as the mind does.
Anything that is a Function is made by an intelligence.
There was always something. A very very powerful Intelligence.
@@visancosmin8991 yes, you could say that it's absolutely infinity! But again it's you saying it. So it's really you seeing nothing and appreciating it.
I understood nothing, thanks a lot for explaining to me nothing
How do you prove there isn't nothing or that there is something? I'm not convinced there exists an observed without an observer. Prove me wrong.
Quite simply there is nothing more beyond the the possibility of existing than nothing.
there is something instead of nothing because nothing needs nothing to exist. and if theres nothing then there's something that nothing needed to exist. this makes something the only possible outcome 🤔
thats exactly what i believe that there is no such thing as there being nothing.
Matter is energy, and anti-matter must exist apart from matter to make 1+-1 = 0
Mr. Rundle sounds uncannily like Richard Feynman when explaining