Why Anything At All II? | Episode 1907 | Closer To Truth
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 03. 2020
- Why is there anything at all? It’s the ultimate puzzle. It’s the haunting question. Why is there “something” rather than “nothing”? It seems impenetrable, uncrackable, unfathomable. But are there ways? Featuring interviews with Tim Maudlin, Mario Livio, George F. R. Ellis, and David Bentley Hart.
Season 19, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Existence #Reality
It's a difficult question: why is there something rather than nothing? Thoughts? Did any of the contributors sway you to their way of thinking?
If you enjoyed this episode, give our excellent contributors a thumbs up! If you'd like to further explore the cosmos, consciousness, and meaning, please consider becoming a subscriber. For more episodes from Season 19, see our Season 19 playlist: bit.ly/38ZCxq9
I have been watching your videos for a while now. Some guys say nothing inspiring, some overcomplicate things, some are interesting story tellers. But here is one story that will explain many of questions you addressed... The book has been edited and challenges many concepts and theories in contemporary science. www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0851MWT7S/ref=cm_sw_r_wa_apa_i_ZVeDEbJR0HW5W
I think you have exhausted the question with theoretical physicist and theologians. I would suggest moving your sights to computer scientists and futurists like Ray Kurzweil and Ben Gertzel. Paradoxically, looking towards the future might give us insights to the past Ouroboros
Perhaps the answer lies with digital physics?
This question has bothered me since I was a child, and it wasn't until a few years ago that I realized there is a logical answer.
It's this:
Our laws of causality, cause and effect, mandate there is a LOGICAL cause to everything. However, you can't get something from nothing. So how could something arise from nothingness?
You CANNOT answer this question using logical cause, and effect because it breaks it. HOWEVER, we exist so we KNOW that there must have been something that arose from nothingness, or somethingness must have always been. These are the ONLY two logical answers.
In the same way that time is a property of the universe, perhaps logic, and causality is as well. We could throw endless computing at the problem, but as computing is a property of the universe, you cannot use it to compute higher types of answers. It's not just our ancient monkey brains, any computing device wouldn't be able to give the answer using the laws of our universe.
I like it. You're proving mind to materialist.
Anyone who clicks this video to get a definitive answer to this question, and gets angry, insulting the show and Robert etc when you don't.
Is a fool already. There is NO answer. But it sure is interesting and fun to talk and debate about. This series is fantastic. Makes your brain truly work. None of us will truly know, until we take our final breathe in this body.
I didn't really expect a viable answer so I upvoted for the effort.
This question has been bugging me for most of my 94 years.
94, wow
HM
@@captainhd9741 Lets be real here, an uncaused cause and infinite causal regression are both just as likely. In fact, they might not even be the only two options.
QG
@@captainhd9741 It's meaningless to analyze or even ponder the question given our current body of knowledge. It is practically a free-for-all that ends with 'we don't know'. You cannot even ascribe potential probability to any of the options you mentioned. I would be interested to hear as to why you think they are impossible.
This question is the greatest gift that we are given as humans. Love how it brings joy and dizziness at the same time. It makes life worth living above all things
You should definitely check out the novel of Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha. It was an amazing journey for me reading that book. I hope so too for you.
It's mind boggling that there is actually something here. It doesn't seem possible, yet here we are living in a universe that seemingly has absolutely no right to exist.
I like how this starts out so dramatic and serious and then the first dude was like "It's a stupid question, bye."
:D
And then he attempted to answer it 😅
SpiritualOpportunism
Was thinking the EXACT same thing......glad I'm not alone on this. 👍
That's not what he said. That's just what you heard.
Very interesting interviews. And surprisingly (to an agnostic), the theologian impressed me the most.
That argument comes from Neo-Platonic philosophy (the Absolute or One) and Aristotle (the necessary first cause). Keep in mind both these views are on a timescale and assume there must be an ultimate beginning.
That was worst explanation..he was just putting his point of absolute being...bt wasn't ready to answer other probability, which was the main question
@@devekhande9204 in YOUR opinion. Ugh.
@@sheenaalexis8710 of course, in MY opinion.
@@devekhande9204 :)
Excellent episode.
I'm really enjoying so many of the Closer to Truth episodes.
Thank you for making them available.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn, very smart and good man.
I have watched SO many of these and I have to say that, from start to finish, this is the deepest one I’ve come across and perhaps most purely philosophical episode - especially with regard to terminology, jargon and FORMAL logic.
One you have to watch a couple of times to soak it all in…
Love it!
I have the same exact question burning me from inside for years now! Glad to know that folks like you exist who take it equally seriously or more!
Me too!
Check out Sarvapriyananda on CZcams. The Upanishads solved this problem centuries ago. Only consciousness exists and the rest merely appears to be.
- Robert: why there is an universe?
- Old physicist: it came from absolute nothing because quantum tunneling!
- Robert: but, then you need the laws of physics in place, thats a lot of stuff.
- Old scientist: yep you caught me there, mate.
@ΨMathematics still exists. Things in so called platonic spaces. These necessarily exist. What he is talking about is that the big bang causes the laws of physics to arise. Like how we would say different pocket universes have different laws of physics and fundamental constants. What is not meant by nothing is the framework for this mechanism to give rise to the laws. That is certainly not nothing and I don't think Krauss would argue with that. It's just always taken as a given.
My 2 cents.
My reading of Krauss’s book is that he is talking about a universe (something) arising from a quantum foam “nothingness”; specifically the dynamics of quantum fluctuation which he thinks is an inexorable inevitability.
I have his book here and have heard him speak on numerous video interviews about his book. He specifically rejects the Philosopher’s absolute nothingness (no laws, no space, no matter, no potential for existence).
He says such an absolute nothingness only exists in the philosopher’s mind and not in our space-time reality.
Yes, he says that the Big Bang created the laws of physics and particular fundamental constants.
But he is referring to the “creation” of physical laws and constants of physics in the nature of different formulations in the various pocket or local universes generated by eternal chaotic inflation theory - not QM at the micro-level or Platonic abstractions or Hilbert mathematical space.
Pages 171 to 180 go on to explain that his theory just “piggy backs” onto the cosmological “eternal inflationary” Multiverse, accounting for our particular universe of laws and constants since that’s the one we happen to be in. (Of course, like everyone else, he offers no clue as to where the mechanism generating the Multiverse came from.)
I am not a big fan of Krauss. I feel his theories and offerings just copy the ideas of Hawking, Vilenkin, Guth and others. His book was rushed to print to capitalize on his CZcams video lecture “A Universe from Nothing” which went viral and skyrocketed to over a million views.
I felt that the title itself was misleading to the typical layman. It caused some to think that this fellow figured out why there’s no God and everything came out of nothing, like a rabbit out of a magician’s hat.
The word “nothing” in his book title should have had an Asterisk after it and been marked “quantum nothing”.
My comments are directed to readers and viewers here, if any.
You will have to make you own judgment about this book and its thesis, and the post-book video comments.
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing", by Lawrence D. Krauss (New York, NY: Free Press 2012)(203 Pages)(Updated in 2013 with new preface about the Higgs-Boson discovery)(Preface, 11 Chapters, Epilogue, Afterward, Index, About the Author)
1. This Book is 8 years old (with one updated preface on the Higgs-Boson discovery) and has been the subject of numerous reviews - some early ones have indeed, admittedly, been favorable; however I suggest that some of these reviews were intended to market the book to the purchasing public and encourage more book sales. At least some subsequent reviews were much less favorable. Some reviews questioned even the book's title, arguing that Krauss' "nothing" was not really "nothing" because it included quantum laws, and that the question "Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" was not answered but rather the question "how there is something rather then nothing."
2. One well-known and scathing review was published in the NY Times ("On the Origin of Everything", 03/25/2012) and authored by Prof. David Albert (physicist, philosopher, author of several books on quantum mechanics). Albert's central criticism is that the definition of "nothing" in the book is woefully inadequate, and appears to assume quantum laws and thus cannot be simply "nothing."
"Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted."
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
(If you cannot see the entire book review because you do not have a digital subscription to the NY Times, you can Google Albert's book review and find that there are many sites that quote large parts of Albert's book review.)
3. My own book review on Amazon.com is found below, captioned "Does not really explain how a universe came from nothing."
My basic criticism is that the book fails to explain, especially in the last Chapter 11 captioned "Brave New Worlds" (10 pages) (or thereafter), exactly what the mechanism is that "creates" a universe from "nothing" -- if "nothing" is defined as "no space", "no matter" and "no time". What is worse is that this is right after Krauss makes a grandiose promise to do just that: "Now the requirement of space has been removed. . . . But, remarkably, as we shall next discuss, even the laws of physics may not be necessary or required.")(Chapter 10, "Nothing is Unstable, page 170, last 2 sentences). A promise disappointingly broken.
In reality, Krauss' "nothing" seems to actually include quantum laws to generate a Big Bang expansion, and such laws, in my view, necessarily imply the existence of mathematical equations and abstractions. (In some post-book interviews, Krauss suddenly and flippantly throws in "no laws" as part of his "nothing". But I saw nothing in Chapter 11 "Brave New Worlds" or the "Epilogue" to support that his "nothing" meant "no laws". Indeed, just the opposite - Krauss advocates the standard current version of Multiverse theory which posits multiple universes with each universe including ours containing its own set of particular laws and constants.) The reader can read Chapters 10 "Nothing is Unstable" and Chapter 11 "Brave New Worlds" and "Epilogue" and decide for themselves.
And then for Krauss, in some post-book interviews, to claim that somehow no quantum laws are now part of his "nothing" because the Big Bang expansion generated and brought into being those laws, and thus his "nothing" is truly "nothing", begs the question and is sophistry at its height. Then what caused the Big Bang expansion? There are no laws, no space, no mechanism to do a Big Bang. It just "popped" into existence? That requires a quantum law of fluctuation or quantum law of tunneling. No, Professor Krauss, you have to be called out on that.
www.amazon.com/review/R14MXMGUU3JRVP/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
4. For those who prefer an Audio Book, here is the CZcams Audio Book version with Krauss himself reading his entire book in his voice. (Time 5:31:32)
czcams.com/video/vHYQxhj2ndk/video.html
5. The viewer is invited to closely review this video of the Nobel Conference in 2013. Krauss was questioned vigorously by his peers about his book and theory. I suggest that his explanatory comments were defense and indecisive. You the viewer can make your own judgment.
czcams.com/video/wjV0dQwTlDU/video.html
Krauss is pressed by his peers, and has to admit that in his theory he assumes the laws of quantum mechanics and it’s consequent fluctuation dynamic as part of his “nothing”.
Check Apx. 12:30 mark.
Relevant part:
Physicist Wilczek: And you definitely invoke quantum mechanics, you invoke relativity . . .
Krauss: Absolutely . . .
A few seconds later he backtracks and says “we don’t know.” But he had just said his theory assumes it (which it obviously does). So his explanation, I submit, is self-contradictory and unsure, at best. In short, Krauss' "nothing" is not "nothing", thus making his book title misleading to the layman or non-scientific reader.
Thank you for reading.
@Frances Snowflake so his book should really be renamed "a universe from a jolly small amount, all things considered"
@garybalatennis
Thanks for your comments on Krauss' book. Theoretical physicist Don Page and cosmologist George Ellis also reviewed his book and model. The conclusion is the same: his model entails a philosophical mess and it's scientifically unimpressive.
It seems to me that everyone believes something that is illogical. Either something came from nothing or something existed forever. Since my Leukemia diagnosis, I am plagued with thoughts of "Why or how" everyday.
@verillyan delon alive and kicking. My leukemia is very slow growing. I was tested in 2016 and it came back 2019
@verillyan delon none. Why do you ask?
@verillyan delon Leukemia is blood cancer so no scans needed. I developed many issues with fatigue, memory, short of breath. My blood work came back highly irregular. I went for a bone marrow biopsy and it confirmed Hairy Cell Leukemia. I had chemo in 2016 but it came back in 2019. Still holding off on treatment. Having zero immunity during COVID is something to be avoided.
Really, are you seriously suggesting that you have canvassed every single one of several million beings?
Neither are illogical, once you realize the extent logic is a perspectival, limited product of the miniscule human mind.
"Why " can never be understood objectively but only subjectively because interpretations take place in our consciousness not in matter.
What is matter? A table feels solid but it's almost completely empty space, if physics is true. Maybe matter is nothing but a projection of consciousness.
@@davidjohnzenocollins the way i see it, reality is a complete whole just as you have a conscious energy you have a unconscious energy. The conscious energy represents absoluteness because it needs nothing other then itself to know itself it is self-illumined and can therefore act upon it's nature of also being a love energy thus it is a active energy. The unconscious energy is a complementary counterpart to the conscious energy because it is something the conscious energy can act upon. Being that the unconscious energy is a complementary energy it's just a aspect of the complete whole reality that is both sentient and insentient and conscious and unconscious.
@@williamburts5495 OK. So, if I read your comment correctly, you're not really a physicalist; i.e., one who believes there are real physical things that exist even when we aren't there to perceive them.
@@davidjohnzenocollins I thought a physicalist was someone who believed that there is nothing but matter, and that matter explains everything about reality. To me it explains nothing, the how, the why, the what, the when, are all interpretations that take place in consciousness. You could study every chemical in the body for as long as you want but they won't tell you what it is like being a human being because that knowledge is purely subjective.
@@davidjohnzenocollins a table is not almost empty space. That space has metaphysocal properties that can't be registered by human perception.
David Bentley Hart should be the "Designer" in the next Matrix movie.
Damn, you beat me that same comment! He would “the architect” to be specific. Concordantly. lol
@@BuddyLee23 I was hoping I wasn't the only one who got lost in the word salad LOL
@@darioinfini nope!! Haha
15:30 Ellis: "a lot of my physics colleagues are doing philosophy whether they think they are doing philosophy or not." The conversation with Bentley Hart is the deepest philosophical chain of logic I have ever laid the claim to having understood, even in part.
Yeah that guy was riding a line of logic/reason so dizzyingly lofty and on the edge of a razor, that I was almost subconsciously holding my breath when he was speaking. The fact that these great minds grapple with these things like everyone else does actually gives me some odd type of hope.
As an Atheist studying Astrophysics this channel is a "blessing".
@bailey c We can talk about "miracles" by your " preferred version of an invisible creator" when you or anyone else can provide a mechanism to provide evidence that is testable...but history shows that methodological naturalism hasn't been overthrown by any metaphysical claim. It's been consistently the other way....
I think religions need to concentrate first on historical EVIDENCE that isn't based on " my middle eastern Holy book told me so "...then we can start talking about the cosmos being part of a anthropogenic superbeing.
Kind off funny...it took humanity generations...decades to come up with theories like Evolution, Quantum physics, Nuclear physics, Newtonian physics etc....but our very first hypothesis concerning an explanation of literally everything....was right....intetesting 😆.. but hey, let's trust people that believed thunders were mad God's, the plague was a punishment by God, the earth is flat and other superstitious claims...
Im sorry I can't look at the world like that....it not only takes the beauty of nature away but it also isn't science. I was not trying to debate your zero evidence claim and when you think philosophical mumbo jumbo is enough to convince an Atheist or scientists then I'm sorry to tell you....nope.
And next time please be an individual not a copy and paste philosopher.
As a curious human being i find it fascinating too ❤
@bailey c you talked a lot but said none.
@bailey c What dilemma are you speaking of? That you dont like not living forever?
Sorry, you making a claim unfalsifiable is not a dilemma, there is absolutely no burden of proof on "our" side.
And how the hell Astrophysics have anything to do with life after death is beyond me.
@Chris Eggleton You don't " know " God either. You only know a man made anthropocentric definition of a invisible supernatural fable that you claim to exist without being able to give me one repeatable mechanism so I can test your claim. I could literally say "You don't know Santa Claus/Big Foot so to reject him/it in the first place'.
You claim to have a mechanism superior to the other 4000 something Religions because THEY make the claim that your view of God is incorrect...maybe even blasphemous. I don't reject God - I would have to believe in a invisible super being that resides on the outside of the material world to reject it/him/her. I do not have one single reason or piece of convincing evidence to believe there is a supernatural world surrounding the natural material world. Nether do you...but indoctrination, cultural pressure and fear of death make you think you know better. And I'm not sure if your a Christian, but I wouldn't want to know a God that loves spontaneous natural abortions, earthquakes, pandemics, starving children, religious wars and cancer in suffering children...God, Allah or Yaweh - doesn't matter...they all are pitiful fables with the moral code of that make the Joker form the Batman movies look like a Angel in comparison.
So glad I discovered this channel! The interviewer asks such great questions!
Keep ‘em coming! 👍
Yup, me to!
beautifully filmed interviews and such curious questions!
You asked the questions I have always wanted to ask scientists. Thanks so much for yet another amazing video. I love how you got Tim Maudlin to become uncomfortable. I don't know why some scientists have to be so defensive. love this episode.
One of the BEST channels on youtube
I paused the video after the conversation with Mario Livio and began writing some comments here, detailing over several paragraphs what I thought were profound philosophical points. Then I resumed the video with George Ellis. A couple of minutes later I paused the video again so I could erase my sophomoric comments. He said it all, but much simpler. Bravo.
Another great episode, Mr. Kuhn. Thank you.
It's a terrible thing to realize the subjective limitations of my intelligence. To have enough self awareness to ask big questions but to know that I will never have the mental scaffolding in place to even recognize, or if recognized, understand the answers to those questions.
Bell Curves suck.
Robert, u do a great job with these deep questions and even if I disagree with your interlocutors I find them interesting. It is so difficult, if not impossible, for us to remove our cognitive biases that the pursuit of these questions is a seemingly impossible endeavor. I do, however, love these topics! The theologians claims regarding the physicaly irreducible nature of conciousness is currently following the same trends as past closely held religious beliefs. The more deeply we probe into the physical functionality of the mind the more apparent it becomes that conciousness is in fact just an extremely complex physical process. Determinism can never b fully realized due to the properties quantum physics, uncertainty being foremost.
Does "us" ever have a headache?
It is so refreshing to find such a thoroughly engaging agnostic voice on youtube. Everyone seems to lurch to one extreme to the other, their only mutual agreement being that a hesitance in choosing one side as opposed to the other is intrinsically weak, however I personally find the opposite to be true.
In any case, I, too, have always been haunted by this most fundamental of questions. I can't explain the emotion that wells up in me is whenever it is that I try to make sense of why there would be something instead of nothing - it's something that is intensely perplexing, and yet undamentally unsafisfying, profoundly mysterious, and yet existentially horrifying. The matter being so, I think, because for whatever reason, I have always personally tended to find both the thought of there having always been something, as well as the thought of there having never been anything at all as - perhaps in equal measure - mutually terrifying (and almost inexplicably
grotesque) propositions to behold.
In any case, I thank you for the work you do in exploring the various possibilities of this, reality's most powerful and unbelievable mystery: reality itself. I will continue to watch!
David Bentley Hart here was scaringly flawless. George Ellis also very honest.
This was seriously intense. Love it!
Because experience is the "food" for consciousness. To be conscious is to experience, and to experience is to be conscious, and you cannot experience anything from nothing.
A rarely intelligent remark, Bravo
The first interview makes the most sense to me, I’ve wondered at earth, stars and life, never once has it occurred to me to wonder why but who to thank.
i am not any closer to truth but I love this chanel
The problem with positing an infinite series of causes is that the entre causal chain is simply one giant contingency. This means that it requires an Absolute upon which to hang its contingent hat.
Is it not even occur to you to change the premises of the question?
Is a state of 'nothing' even possible? If not, then that answers the question. It wouldn't answer why things are the way they are, but it would answer why there are things, as there would simply be no alternative.
And what would true 'nothing' be. No things, no field theory fields, no space itself for things to even be in or not be in, no dimensions, no time, no possibility clouds, no interactions, no laws (laws describe how things interact and there are no things), no thing at all, not even empty space or unexcited fields or time w/out events for those would themselves be things, but rather no thing at all. And true nothing would necessitate no change either, for there would be no thing to have its state altered in the first place. Perhaps such a state is simply not possible.
Along the same lines, what does it mean to say that something is "possible"?
@@zenbum2654 I believe that was the argument, you can't have a state of something without an absolute state of nothing, the states are logically implied. If you try to describe a state of something, and that state is inherently contingent on something else, you end up with an infinite regress which is logically nonsense. Something implies nothing just like black implies white, life implies death, and so on, ultimately you cannot have one without the other.
We know you can have an infinite state of something, but just one absolute state of truly nothing. It is in that perfect absolute state of nothing that one could consider god. So the fact that something exists, this other absolute state is inherently implied. At least that is the argument as I understand it, makes sense to me, although it says nothing about any particular religious theology.
@@ericmichel3857 See I don't agree with that. Black for example implies that there are shades of blackness, ie. shades of light, but it does not guarantee that there is a white. We know there is white, not because there is black, but because we also have white. There are many things in which one thing does not imply the existence of it's opposite. There is for example various states of disorder or entropy, and within finite boundaries perfect order such as a perfect crystal, but only within very small finite boundaries, so we can't presume a state of nothingness that pervades all, but only an area with finite boundaries. Consider temperature ... you can have absolute zero ... is there then a state of it's opposite? No, thermal energy is unbounded ... and really all energy is that way. So the existence of something does not necessarily imply that there is nothing. You might liken it to absolute zero though, with the something being likened unto some temperature above that point, but even with absolute zero, you never really reach it (there's an asymptotic relationship with the energy required to get something there, we approximate something is close enough to zero that we call it such).
@@davidaustin6962 I think you are getting hung up on semantics, the difference between white and black or hot and cold is just arbitrary relative values. The point I was making has nothing to do with particular shades or degrees because that is all relative. You can’t have black unless there is some lighter shade of black that we could consider white, the actual variation in shade is irrelevant. For example if there was no light (at all) then there could not be black or white, because we can only know that white is white and black is black when we have a frame of reference from one to the other, they literally define each other. Perhaps I should have said something like up implies down or left implies right, the actual absolute degree of up or down, or white or black is relative, the point is you cannot have one without the other.
“you can have absolute zero” Actually in space time no you can’t, even in the furthest reaches of interstellar space there still exists space time, and we know that even there we see quantum fluctuations where particles of matter and antimatter appear and then quickly annihilate. So while it is extremely cold there is energy and by definition heat, albeit very very very little, but it is not “absolute zero” within space-time.
“is there then a state of it's opposite? No, thermal energy is unbounded” Sure there is, how do think black holes are formed? Matter is just energy, and when enough of it is concentrated to near infinite levels, it collapses space-time. It literally tears a hole in the fabric of our space time reality creating a singularity. Why do you think it’s called a singularity? It is literally a point where relativity ceases to exist, all becomes one, infinite energy in an infinitely small space literally collapse into nothing. There is no space or time, no up or down, light or dark, not even before or after because there is no space time. In fact the only reason we consider it a “black hole” is because it appears black relative to the energetic space time around it. Sure there is all sorts of activity at the corona and as things are falling into it, but at the very heart of the singularity there is singularity which by definition is literally nothing. This is where our physics breaks down, because we can only define a thing relative to something else. You can only have a white thing when there is something else that is black, or up if there is a down or a front if there is a back. In a place where there is no space or time all is one, there is no difference so literally there is nothing.
Some theory's that perhaps you will find interesting:
czcams.com/video/ll7UlxAVpgs/video.html
czcams.com/video/-GrKC7Tey8E/video.html
This shows how we can have an infinite universe arise from literally nothing, the relationship of zero and infinity. In this state where nothing exists time space and energy levels are meaningless. It is the ultimate singularity where zero and infinity are derived, if this state becomes unstable a dissociation can produce unlimited variations providing what appears to be an infinite universe. All from nothing.
Bravo! And the knot in the pit of my stomach twists tighter LOL. I thoroughly enjoyed this.
Contingent causes = turtles all the way down, lol. Thanks for not shying away from asking the same question which has threatened to melt my brain for 54 years (so far). I am a devout believer and really enjoyed this, Mr. Kuhn--thank you for putting it out there!
Robert, you are looking for meaning, your stomach aches with the question. How can you look for meaning in a Universe that you suppose has no meaning at all?
12:35 "...all of that stuff... which would have to exist in some platonic sense before it could do anything."
Not if the universe is just a *theoretical structure,* which is so complex that it has become self aware. After all, the reason anything "exists" really is because we are aware of it. Before we are aware of it, there is just *a set of rules.* Existence really means "that which I perceive to exist". And perception itself creates a certain type of reality, a slanted reality, if you will, that is more a reflection of the *structure of perception* than of the stuff being perceived (if "stuff" even really means anything). So the real question is, *would it be any more realistic if it were "stuff" rather than merely a theoretical geometry?*
Is a theoretical design of a universe any more "real" than an actual universe? Not if all we observe is that which is explained by theories. That's a *theoretical universe.* By definition. Indeed we require that everything *must* have an adequate theory behind it before it exists, so in a sense *our definition of existence is "that to which theories can be applied".* Theories can be applied to a theoretical model. *Can't they?*
Science actually puts a hold on the "existence" of anything that a theory can't explain.
So there is *absolutely no reason* why the universe cannot simply be *theoretical.* (at least I know no argument)
That theoretical universe would have no existence but for the fact that it has reached a level of complexity where it has become *self aware,* and because it is self aware, it believes itself to be a "thing" and is asking questions *about itself.* But that does not in and of itself prove that there is even such a thing as existence, beyond the existence of a theory.
Just as the human mind itself is in a sense a set of rules with no stuff, and yet it constructs a compelling version of reality, *it too is merely a theory,* and *a theory is enough* for the "stuff" (in this case the mind) to seem to be "real". But these words "theory" "stuff" and "real" are actually a *misguided hierarchy* of words that quite literally come out of our heads.
[My ideas come in great part from my studies of Zen Buddhism]
Something rather than nothing? We may never know...but I'm thankful that I'm here to feel thankful.
I really enjoy your great documentaries that try to tackle mind bending problems. I have a feeling that the answer of the question of why is there "something" rather than "nothing" lies in the deeper understanding of the concept of infinity!
I would like to ask, why can someone ask “why there is something instead of nothing”. When we ask “why” we imply causation. Causation is not something true or real I think, it is an evolutionary mechanism, a model or thinking pattern that structure the everyday experience and help us survive. We have developed super abstract theories that possibly explain the universe and are consistent with causation but all those theories live in the human mind, a structure that favors causality.
Our minds have this amazing ability that allows us to extrapolate properties of the ordinary experience to abstract concepts. An answer to that question or any abstract question would require a route to relatable common thinking patterns that we make in our everyday lives. Such a route could be possible I think, if we better understand the processes of abstraction and instantization that occurs in the brain.
Each "Why" question would have an infinitely long answer or there is a long chain of cause-effect back in time until one stops due to lack of knowledge.
once again the interviewer has somehow avoided interviewing Donald Hoffman
Causality is an inherent property of the universe. It's not a human construct, bud.
Kosmas. Accurate and well said.
Why don't you challenge the premise of the question
I appreciate that this is a year old now, but; although I appreciate the work of your contemporaries, I am left to wonder about why they refuse to acknowledge your question. After all, it is a relatively simple question. Profound; yes, but simple none the less. Simple enough not to invoke causalities that only confuse the issue.
You obviously have yet to learn the basic technique of always challenging the premises of the question.
Never just accept the premise of questions
@@vhawk1951kl I didn’t realise that these discussions were being held in a court of law.
This question nagged at me for decades beginning when I was around 13. I feel your puzzlement and existential angst! It was much more than just an abstract philosophical question for me too. Here's my own resolution to the question; Something & nothing are relative terms and concepts. Q: "What is behind that rock?" A:" Nothing." These concepts have immense practical value for survival. However, when we try to project those relative concepts onto reality as a whole, they don't really fit or apply. It's rather like saying; 'There's salty & unsalty food, therefore there must be an absolutely salty food.' Well, no. It's just an abstraction. Absolute nothing is an invention of the mind (and theology). It has never been observed in reality. ..only relative nothing. Nothing has never or could ever exist...by definition. It's a category mistake. Concepts within a set are not necessarily applicable to the set itself. Only if you assume there was or even could have been Nothing, does this question arise. The parts ( which are also a creation of the conceptual mind) of reality are contingent, this need not apply to existence as a whole. Some confusion also seems to arise when we assume this physical universe necessarily equates with existence itself. The same applies to time itself. It consists of change + our mind's measurement and interpretation of that change. Change exists, but not time as we normally conceive of it. (Similar to Julian Barbour's view, I think.) Good luck!
Sounds a lot to me like saying "because there is".
(A copy and paste comment) You most likely haven't watched the interview with Seyyed Hossein Nasr then that Closer To Truth have on their channel. He mentions an argument about a necessary existent but doesn't go into details of it understandably as it is only a short video for a wide audience but in any case the answer to what you're looking for is there. Before you call this thing which is a necessary existent God you have to first acknowledge that it must exist in order for anything at all to exist and it cannot also have a cause as an infinite regression of causes is impossible without an uncaused cause that is exempted from having a cause as it is not contingent on anything. To not be contingent on anything and existing is to have existence as part of that "thing's" substance/essence as opposed to having existence added to it's quiddity. You see light in a room and you will enquire about the source knowing that the objects within that room are not luminous in of themselves but only luminous in an acquired sense which is the example Seyyed Hossein Nasr gave in the video. This argument is very deep and goes not only as far as proving it must be simple (not composed of any parts) and unique (not more than one as it is not divisible into parts/beings/persons). You then go further by proving what attributes it has by looking at the effect as the cause cannot be absent of what the effect has and since it is simple, these attributes are unlike features through unicity and being the same thing. For example saying it is all-powerful just means there is no influence on it by the creation. I want an object to move means I have to firstly will for it to happen which doesn't necessitate action by me. Secondly I would have to physically interact with it being limited and physical myself and hence there is effort exerted whereas a necessary existent doesn't "exert" a force if he for example wanted a box to move from point A to point B nor can he be human or physical due to his simplicity (not being composed of parts). [search up the argument to see the proof of each point but remember philosopher who understand this might still hold beliefs which are contradictory such as God being an all-powerful man with a long beard somewhere in heaven]
Thank you so much for this great channel! The question why there is something rather than nothing, is also my favorite question! I've been thinking about it for such a long time and its fascinating me every time again. So interesting to hear answers from those great minds! I really love listening to these discussions! I do not really expect a fast answer to that, I simply enjoy the process of thinking about it and hearing different approaches. Let's see which one convinces me the most. :)
it seems like a simple question thats easily answered, in my opinion, and the whole question is being overthought. obviously beyond scientific observation and data, were left to assume some things, but without assumptions, taking a look at some things we know, and applying it to this question, here is what i understand. laws of thermo dynamics , show us energy cant be created or destroyed, and both energy and information, are always preserved. in simplest terms, you can never reduce any energy system to a zero value. ive never heard it addressed, but it seems obvious to me that energy is something so exotic in nature, that according to math and physics, if the universe could have ever preexisted in zero time, and zero space , energy would still be present. in other words, energy does not require space time. take away space and time ( to the best of what we can use our imaginations, before the big bang, which technically using the word "before" infers a time, which if there was ever a time, when there was no time, there would have not have been a "before" , at least its not a correct way to address a zero time zero space environment ) the assumptions i mentioned earlier, is the assumption that there was ever "nothing" . there is no empirical evidence to this. and even beyond that fact, how could anyone who knows physics, knowing you cant reduce an energy system to a zero value, ever even entertain the thought that there was once , ever a time, or outside a time, "nothing" to say there was once "nothing" , means reducing our cosmos to a complete zero value. a complete nothing. no energy, no space, no time. i mean even for the sakes of entertainment, if were going to hypothesize such a state, we should have at least some physics to base our thoughts on. in other words, if suddenly scientist successfully reduce an energy system to a zero value, then we would have some evidence , to say its possible, and the universe may have its self once been in this zero value state. but since thats never been done, and the current understanding of physics, is that no energy system can ever be reduced to a zero value, than it makes no sense to have such a question " why something and not nothing?" . its completely stupid, as physics would seem to indicate there was always something, even in zero time / space. show me this nothing, find nothing in the universe and show it to me. no one, has ever found "nothing" . its a concept. like, there is nothing in the fridge, there is nothing in my gas tank, nothing in my wallet, nothing in the bank etc. but in physics, we have never found " nothing" so it makes no sense to even entertain the question, as if your really dumb enough to assume there was once nothing, despite physics showing there can never be such a thing,. despite science never finding "nothing" , were still going to have this conversation , teasing our minds and less educated people, with the notion " why something rather than nothing" when the simplest answer that needs no discussion is, there is always something. they once pointed the hubble telescope at the most " nothing" part of the sky, a region so dark and void of everything, and later on it returned an image that is still profound and hard to understand this day. we looked for nothing on the big scales, and found something incredible. we continue looking for nothing, now on the small scales, and again, we always find something. going into quantum mechanics, the whole basis for the cashmere effect, is that even in a most perfect vacuum, a complete scientific nothing, void of everything we know, there is this quantum foam, virtual particles popping in and out of existence - put two plates close to one another in this "nothing " controlled environment, and the plates are drawn together. well the answer in physics is no mystery anymore, the particles outside the plates , ( the virtual ones that pop in and out of existence ) represent whole waves. the particles that come and go between the plates are half waves. this is what makes the pressure zones, and motivates the plates to move closer. point is here, even in the most perfect nothing, we have never found nothing. nothing cant be quantized, there is no such thing as nothing, its never been found, its a concept , and its a flaw if you try to include that concept in physics. just like postulating the universe was ever nothing. its completely ridiculous.
ben hager
For a question that is "completely stupid", you sure had a lot to say about it.....🙄
Just because ‘nothing’ hasn’t been yet found doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t exists as we discover everyday things that we did not know of yesterday. To say ‘nothing’ doesn’t and we will certainly not find proof of it without citing a credible source for me to check is not a serious argument, no matter how long you write it out.
If there are thermodynamics laws, maths, everything that we discovered that seems to have ‘always’ existed, how did thermodynamics came to be? There are very and I mean very few things that could be categorized as ‘always’ existing.
You will be better advised to challenge the premise of the question but you don't for some reason
Thank you, Robert... you always ask all the right questions.
When a physicist says nothing he means the lowest possible state of energy. I am quoting a physicist here. But when a philosopher says nothing he means nothing in the absolute sense. Which means that the physicist approaches the conundrum of Leibnitz with his dice loaded. Thank you Dr Kuhn for dealing with this question. My faith as a philosopher in the existence of God is more affirmed now...
Wow the philosophical discussion at the end does really cause you to think , great video
"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters."
- Christoper Hitchens.
The delicious irony here is that originally this thought was formulated by St. Teresa of Avila.
As the third guy said, with thinking we can't answer the question. There's a point where we have to say ' I can't go any further'. Thought is like a car. It can drive us to the shore, but we need another vehicle to get into the sea. This is the limit of western knowledge. We conquered the world with thinking, but we can't answer those most fundamental questions. It's like a castle built on sand.
Now why not go there. Into nothingness. Darkness. Absolute nothing. As my beloved Lao Tze called it: " The subtle wander in the mysterious darkness". Stay there. Let it fill your being. Let it nourish you. How long do you need to stay there? One day? One year? One million years? Until an urge will come, a force, a desire to create something. Everything starts from there, "the subtle wander in the mysterious darkness". And this state is not in the past, is not in the future, it IS, beyond all creation.
You might well wonder why none of them Challenged the premises of the question.
Why don't you Challengethe purposes of the question?
At 10:12 -> I finally get an answer that seems “Closer To Truth” but almost instantly beggars the question - why oh why “it could” and who made it so that “it could”?
There’s a brilliant notion put forward here stating that the universe might simply be an artifact that has “tunneled out of nothing - quantum tunneling itself” and emerging into something (that which we see as the universe) for absolutely no reason other than the reason that it could. But then again -> the why question remains. Was nothing searching for something that existed beyond the tunnel on to the other side and it’s that quest of nothing that brought it here?
Robert Lawrence sir -> you’re such a Fantastic human being! Your quest keeps me alive for I - even though I’m not even a fraction worth as qualified as you - do nevertheless relate with every possible emotion of yours on display in your episodes and it’s so fulfilling and satisfying to see you keep up with your end of the bargain in this almost futile search!
Please keep it up! 😊
The Italian guy was brilliant! Beautiful point about conservation laws as well.
I asked the same question when I was young and they said I was crazy
Existence is an absolute reality. Life is an absolute reality. The source of this is an absolute reality.
You definitely have a gift for choosing excellently posed questions. Nice.
While you don't even challenge the premise of the question.
Is a pretty standard academic technique: always challenge the premises of questions never just accept the purposes of a question, for example if you ask the question and you stopped beating your wife?
I’m really hoping that once quantum computing reaches a certain level it will lift the vale to our quantum universe and show us the inner workings which hopefully will provide the answer.
If you read the comments, you'll only be wondering "why any comments at all?"
True, but the same could be said about the nature of this segment itself, and the fact we are here watching , means we still have this unquenchable thirst for the ever flowing stream of why, that pervades all life and threads through the moving now of time....maybe do_0b
I was about to comment a similar comment , but then , I was thought ' whats the point ". Heraclitus said it all , and no one understood a word he said . so stating a coincidentia oppositorum is doing little more than saying " hey man , I know what coincidentia oppositorum means ." Counter Space is unknowable . It's an assumption , but an assumption that is a pretty safe bet . I mean the lights , the LED screen you read this on are all attributes of counter space ( the unknowable ) . I will take this pragmatically understood electrical engineering 1.01 theory one step further to explain consciousness as an attribute of a a counterspace or Aether of my mind . this reality , consciousness , memories , low band width brain functions are too confining to understand , or know my true nature of my mind , the amount of information is too much , and would destroy the gray mush in my skull bucket . Matter is seperate , and maybe comes from Earth's counter space or Aether . maybe there is a cosmic Aether too , and ehere the Earth Aether moves through the cosmic aether , this is the cause of time , history , and duality (beginning , end ).
History is a wake caused from Earth either moving through the cosmic either , or the cosmic aether flowing over the earth , and me being partly earth , and my mind's aether , there is a similar 'History' egffect on myself that binds my mind to memories that are bound to a certain period in History . History has no cause to exist other than this aetherical flow , and immulsification . It's a fractal theory , and can use the same formulas to explain electricity , or consciousness , and everything in between. This also via reduction leads to me being comfortable that counter spacial existence is required to be much more 'real ', or atleast more of a , 'pure' rreality than this one of mixed attributes . This is never the less still based on on at least one assumption except for the first statement of my logic which is that my mind is existing as aware , and confused , and is all I can say I'm sure exists without needing an assumption to say that you exist as a seperate mind from my own . and This is when I stop because why would I waste time on trying to know what's unknowable ? Knowledge is not worth much more than delusion , if knowledge does not become Wisdom , knowledge will become a delusion , and one that seems fun to entertain. Na, meen ?
What the hell are you guys talking about? Comments are for the viewers to express their opinions or just make jokes, simple yet you make it complicated.
Right ha
Well done. Thank you for another challenging episode on that eternal question of “something from nothing”, offering thoughtful interviews.
In my case, I have never been too bothered with the question “why something rather than nothing” because I always felt a state of infinite or eternal nothingness was not possible.
Of course, I have at times contemplated my own individual “nothingness”: what if I had not been born, my parents never met, etc.
But on the macro level, I have been persuaded by Greek philosopher Parmenides’ admonition “out of nothing, nothing comes.” In other words, true nothing can only produce nothing - not ever something.
Consider: Lets say that we postulate the theoretical possibility of the philosopher’s eternal Absolute Nothingness with no matter, no energy, no particles, no fields, no laws, no QM, no abstractions, no mathematics, no potential at all for existence - an Ultimate, primordial, perfect Nothingness forever.
Well to me, no something would or could ever come from it (because among other reasons that reality-option has been specifically excluded, by definition, as a projected possibility).
Since we and everything are here, there exists either “Something” or the “Appearance of Something”. But this world could not be if there was beforehand, as a choice, this Perfect Nothing. Thus, I conclude that “nothing”, as defined here, cannot exist or “be”.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks again for the video.
As an atheist seemingly suffering from existential depression, this channel's approach is exactly what I needed.
Why are you an atheist?
iamblackgambit it’s the only stance backed by reason? Choosing not to hold the only viable stance derived from logic and reason requires you creating reasons based on feelings, faith, or foibles.
@@bitharne I was asking the other person...
@@iamBlackGambit Well, I should have said "agnostic atheist" to be more accurate. However, despite the fact that I cannot 100% prove that there is no God, based on all the information I currently have from philosophy & science, if I had to bet right now whether a God - as defined in the monotheistic traditions - exists or not, I would bet that it doesn't. I can't, however, say it's a position I particularly enjoy holding psychologically, as suggested in the original comment: while I was religious growing up, I had mostly positive experiences with it, and, as a result, I can sometimes miss the sense of security it provided. It's just that I can't analytically persuade myself otherwise; and I really do value analytical logic since, despite its limitations, its application has had the best results in my life and seems to me that it is one of the better tools for practically enhancing the human experience and generally getting "closer to truth" as it were, even in the more abstract sense. I am always open to different perspectives of course, but that's where I currently stand.
@@disproportionateprogressio8415 you just see no evidence to the existence of God? One who created the universe etc..?
11:20 "Yes Mario. Why are there some laws." 😂🤦♂️
To me this is obvious. Laws satisfy conditions that come about even in nothingness (due to the wave function that Mario describes). ie. Laws results in a lower energy state than no laws at all, therefore they are inevitable.
I learnt much from you but nothing from those you interviewed.
Thinking/asking the question, why anything? is likened to thinking outside the 'fishbowl'. The question should be: Why You?
My meditations led me to the understanding that it isn't truly about "something vs nothing" but instead "presence vs absence". This reframe fine-tunned the meditation. "Why is presence rather than absence?"
17:20 Matrix's The Architect detected.
If you define nothing as an absolutely, perfect nothing, the absence of everything, than it cannot exist. Because nothing needs a framework to exist. There has to be something, so that we can point out that the specific "something" is not there. But if there's a framework of what's missing, than the framework is a "something".
Nothing does not exist by definition. It nothing can exist then it is NOT nothing. It is something.
This is the best discussion of nothing I have ever witnessed. I even need to upgrade my dictionary to understand all the words to describe nothingness. You can't answer this without some form of God at the end of the trail. That is why Robert loves this question.
this is a great show thanks.
There is no "nothing" so the question is mute. Zero just gives one endless possibilities in all possible states.
Exactly as expected, I learned absolutely nothing from this video. I'm not disappointed. I feel vindicated because physicists can't answer the question any better than I can. The discussion was interestingly comical.
Yes it was really funny the first few minutes
Did it not cross your mind to change the premises of the question?
Well said Mario Livio! It's a philosophical question first, physical second.
Best episode I've seen so far. Thanks for pointing out to the first interviewee that his "nothing" was actually something. The absoluteness of nothing hands down destroys Hawking's thesis in this regard. As the one interviewee said in so many words, science alone is not the arbiter here; philosophy has a say.
If there was nothing there would be no question. It's a liar's paradox kind of question. Once you utter those words, you have just falsified any claims that can commit to the existence of nothing. Even when you say there is "nothing that exists", you make something out of that nothing. Maybe "nothing" does exist, but the world is illusory just because we are asking that question.
Nothing doesn't last forever, obviously.
this is pretty much like one arguing with own wife
Amazing episode, I watched it with Mari Kieff.
This question when asked really exposes how deep the mind of the person questioned can go. The first guy .. nope
I can't believe that in this day in age were still asking religious "authority" these deep questions. A few thousand years religion has had to figure it out and they are still going in circles.
The Vatican knows quite a bit more than they let on.
@Al Garnier I wouldn't say they created it but I suppose they may be perpetuating it. But what I really meant was they are keeping more of the ancient knowledge and history of the world hidden.
@Al Garnier You totally didn't get what Steven said. There's nothing wrong with disdain of religion. Willful ignorance is another matter entirely.
@Al Garnier "Gravity is the flow of electrons attracted to the neucli of atoms, dragging other atomic neucli with them." Dude, that's not gravity. Gravity is a force that is independent from electrical charge. It's based on mass.
'God' could put all this to rest with one word, gesture, anything to indicate His existence, but She chooses to remain silent and be amused (?) by our questions and befuddlement.
"I do not know" is the only honest answer to this question at this time. To posit a god or any other gnostic explanation is premature based on all known evidence. We must learn to be comfortable with not knowing yet. It is likely that knowing may take much longer than any one human lifetime. In fact it might take many, many more millennia to know the answer if ever. Those who say they have enough evidence strictly through deduction to know based on philosophy or our current scientific understanding are fundamentally dishonest. I am an agnostic atheist for this reason.
I'm glad to see so many other people ponder this question as I have since I was 5 or 6. Years old
We need to ask this question because it keeps us in touch with our World, the other. It is the basic question we need to ask in order not to go crazy to keep our self integrated and in peace with our surrounding and be able to love and be empathic.
12:40 ish "all of that physics depends on the underlying mathematics". Here's an Apologist dissing what pays his mortgage and feeds his kids. He's just plain dumb wrong. The physics doesn't depend on the maths. The physics is what the world does: maths is how you describe it.
So you'd say there are no laws? Maths describe the laws, like e=mc^2, yes? But can't you say that e=mc^2 is a law too, the Conservation of Mass and Energy - that's a law. In many case they can and are used interchangeably. It's easy to be an armchair expert ... nit picking at colloquialisms and such... hey, makes you feel important, I get it.
@@davidaustin6962 If you were replying to me: no, I'm not. Physicists work out what the laws are from observation (conservation of mass, momentum and other such stuff) and use maths to formalise them. Yes, I was being a Grumpy Old Man, for which I'm sorry. I'm not so sure about "nit-picking": my assertion was that the maths depends on the physics (well, the bits of maths that physicists choose to use, at any rate), which is exactly the opposite of what I quoted. I suspect it quickly turns into a question of philosophy and there's no right answer in any case, so I withdraw my objection. :-)
But why daddy? Answer,,,,,, "But Why?" answer,,,,,,,,, "But why?" answer,,,,, But Why? Its a STUPID QUESTION !!
🤣
Dear closer to truth friends, I hope to help:
The question could be no so difficult indeed:
The existence is an absolute logical necessity because the nothingness is an absolute logical impossibilty. Nothingness is just a concept for the absence and, itself, can not exist, by definition. Nothingness has not ever existed, does not exist and can not ever exist. Same with the concept of infinite (never-end regression).
Thus, we can realize that the question "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" is a non-sense question and perfectly equivalent to "Why is there anything rather than unicorns?".
In fact, there is only one singular possibility: the existence of something. So there is not a causal explanation, a "why?", for the existence. And this must be because In the deepest level the existence there should be THE simplest way of existence. So far, it can not "not to be" and can not be other way. We should say it autoexist.
We can deduce that the only thing that technically "exists" is a singular and present entity that it is itself, or generates inside itself, all the space, time (relative speed between particles) and all the physical matter and energy (wich are properly events, not beings).
The physical laws are due to the properties of this singular, zero-energy, permanent, but dinamic and potential entity.
Lomont Gisburch del Rincón
You say "nothingness has not ever existed...." How do you know this?
@@dr.jamesolack8504 he doesn’t, nobody does and that is precisely why this question is so big. Even our factual science discoveries that we have (implying what fact really means) are 99.9995 or simmilar to that number of percentage.
Did it not cross your mind to change the premises on the question?
The better question, given what we know of quantum mechanics, might be, "Why would anyone think that 'nothing' would even be an option?"
The first physicist is pretty crappy. He cling on to whatever he's been taught like a religion. My bet is that doesn't go far in the field and will probably never discover anything new and worth while.
The last conversation was really good!
Love your videos!
This question makes me cry on many levels. Does it make me cry because there is no answer or because there is an answer but no one will know?
So many deep questions Mr. Kuhn... Why is there something rather than nothing? Oh! and even if there was nothing rather than something, you still wouldn't be satisfied.
if there were nothing rather than something he would not exist to ask the question.
@@williamburts5495 Duhhh... obviously. If I expected any replies at all, they would be along the lines of "LOL" or "hilarious". My friend, you need to work on your sense of humor.
@@JesusMartinez-mk6fc The reply was in relation to Mr. Kuhn. LOL
@@williamburts5495 Sorry man, I missed that detail. He makes good videos though...
the profound thoughts and discoveries by quantum physics seems to be more appealing to a rational and logical mind. But the most rational and logical minds in this world make me feel more confident of the importance of these kind of philosophical questions. These questions about the universe, life, and being human. Those questions show us how intriguing is our existence in this beautiful biological machine that is so incredible capable of creating consciousness.
Great talk.
Nothing does not exist.
By definition.
Beautiful!
I found the answer to Why Anything At All in the comment section of a CZcams video. What a time to be alive.
Great discussion, i am equally impressed with quality of the Video, simply Hollywood level
It's simple to understand why there is something rather than nothing: nothing isn't _anything_ therefore that's not an option leaving only *something* as the only option.
Obviously, David Bentley Hart is logically correct. Any attempt to answer the question must begin with a precise definition of "existence." What does it mean for logical relationships to exist? If A is C and B is A, then B is C. Have they always existed? They are contingent on other things existing. What of mathematics? What of physical laws? What does "to exist" mean, precisely? Is "existence" a property or a state, or something else?
We know reasonable well how the observable universe came into existence (using the common understanding of 'existence'), our solar system, life, and us, and therefore the question, "Why is there anything at all?" can be asked. There must have been (or still is) an ultimate ground that did or does not depend on anything else and from which the next thing(s) came into existence.
So, we are only concerned with the ultimate ground. Must the ground be some thing? That is, material? If not material, then immaterial. Could the ground be a "law" or "logic" or "math"? If so, why did or does it exist? I see no way to get to a satisfactory answer to that question.
Even better to challenge the premises of the question is it not?
This discussion made me think about the nature of nothingness. To answer the question "why does anything exist" we should probably understand what "nothing" means. So I wonder: What is nothing? Could nothingness exist at all? If it could exist, wouldn't it be something as well?
Exactly how much experience have you of nothing or nothingness?
@@vhawk1951kl none, you?
“Something must exist”: I think this is a truth we can only see with our intuition, with an inner illumination. We can think a lot about it, try to find the arguments that take us closer to this truth, but the last step can be done only by intuition, not by reasoning
I always thought of the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", not as a real question but as a coy sort of meditative question. That's because the answer is singular and obvious. The only way we can have something now is if there ALWAYS WAS something. There never was nothing. Nothing never got a chance. Thinking about what kind of thing always was leads you to the idea of God. To me, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a rock solid logical proof for the existence of God. But, as life would have it, this proof only works if you already believe in the existence of God because the key point involved in the proof is a particular IDEA of God. For most people, "God" is a huge but ultimately finite thing. If this is your idea of God, then this proof won't work because, as it was for no less than Bertrand Russell, there still remains the question of what came before God. (Check out his recorded lecture, "Why I am not a Christian.") If you're able to entertain the idea of an infinite God (Russell wasn't), then you're gonna believe already and the "Why is there something.." question serves basically to just stoke the "spiritual flame" when you feel a need for it. On a different note, Kuhn and others, including me, may have been brought to this question as the result of a terrifying experience of the POSSIBILITY of nothing. Kuhn said he had this experience as a youth, and I know I did once. The idea the there never was anything (and so there never would be anything) is horrible. Alas, that's not the way things turned out...
any time anyone says that something is a bad question or a nonsensical question, it just means they don't have an answer for it, and/or don't know how to answer it. there is no such thing as a bad question.
Somehow, I get the feeling that our level of knowledge about the universe is not that far removed from the knowledge that Pythagoras had about the universe. I.e. we still are nowhere nearer understanding the nature of the universe.
This is a very deep question, it's not easy to answer it in a satisfactory way..
What really, really REALLY makes this more complicated is the fact that we now know that the universe as we know it in its current form had a beginning, and an end.
If it at least appeared to be eternal then really that would give a better explanation for the ontological argument.. one could say there is no need for an uncreated infinite and outside time state... Because we have evidence that the universe meets that criteria....
What is more perplexing, the only evidence we do have (the big bang) point to the opposite direction....
Even more recent evidence regarding the curvature show that it's not flat and therefore limited in its size...
If only you had the faintest idea what you mean by "universe", but you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea what you mean by universe by signally failing to define your terms
I offer a solution that reality is neither nothing or something, but only potential. And this is why change is the only constant, because potential is constantly changing. The universe never settles nor concludes into anything, it only keeps trying.
Because of Human's conciousness。 when I say: If no conciousness( of human), there is NOTHING.
people would say: even without conciousness, the outside world(the whole universe) still there. If you think further, (this is very profound ), you will realize: that is because when you say so , you are still using your conciousness (thinking) . All the sight ,hearing ,smelling, tasting, feeling, conprehention belong to conciousness.
I think this question is an ultimate question and the ultimate answer should still back to CONCIOUSNESS
Fundamentally I agree with you. Everything is nothing without a consciousness with which to appreciate it. What is the point of matter, laws, energy, anything, without such a thing. There might as well be nothing.