Why is there something rather than nothing?

I think the problem is with the basic question or more specifically the "why" bit of the question as you are looking for some kind of an answer that comes from the conscious ability of logical reasoning but the "something" does not have this ability. You can't ask "why" of a particle or a quantum fluctuation either it exists or it doesn't and it's existence or lack of has consequences for other things that exist.
It's like asking Why is an Orange?. There is no why behind it, it just is

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The thesis is nothing, the antithesis is being, but how can nothing turn into being? The answer is the synthesis, which is becoming. The One Infinite Creator with unlimited potential is waiting to 'become'.

I like to hear your answer.

Regards, Naeem

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

It's just a linguistic turn. Nothing = no thing. Quite literally.

my first language is french, and in french the word for nothing (rien) can't be turned to no thing. It's more like nil, maybe...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Take an example of Aristotle's logical square. There are four positions in it.

Let's take an example: All men are wise.

A: All men are wise
E: No man is wise
I: Some man is wise
O: Some man is not wise.

This is an E statement: No man is wise = All men are not wise. It's just linguistically tossing things around to make them sound nicer.

So "Nothing is" = Everything is not.

The phrase "Nothing is" = Everything is not
The phrase "Nothing isn't" = Nothing is not = Everything is not not = Everything is (the negatives cancel each other out)

I had heard the statement (something like this, can't remember): "everything and nothing can't both exists". Now you've articulated a way for me to understand that a little bit more. TY.

So are you saying that we have one of two possibilities:
1) something and nothing are
OR
2) everything is

Despite what our language leads us to believe, the word "nothing" can not be conceptualized as an absolute. Nothing is contextual only, as in, "There is nothing of yours in my pocket."

Nothing in the absolute universal sense, such as Hawking suggested is a meaningless concept. That's because if there is nothing at all, then you can't call it a universe, you can't call it anything at all, because there is no "it" to speak of.

Again, nothing is a relative, contextual concept only.

But to answer Hawking's ridiculous question: There is something rather than nothing, because if there was nothing, then we wouldn't be asking the question.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

thus we can argue why there is something rather than nothing

Well we don't know why there is something rather than nothing and, like you said, we only know nothing as a concept. True nothingness might not even exist outside of an abstract concept we have of it.

I really don't think there is a reason why there is something. Like I said my question isn't why, it's HOW. How is there something? Where did all the something originate from? What happened before the big bang? Is there a physical construct around the Universe or is what is beyond the expansion of our Universe NOTHING or perhaps is the physical construct expanding as the Universe does? There's a great many questions in the How category before we get to whether or not there's an underlying purpose to it all.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Why is there something rather than nothing?

There is No Thing.
There is No Something.
It is all Imagined.
There is No Other.
There is Only God.

I have been thinking about this recently. The conclusion I came to was that nothing and everything are one in the same. Seeing as things exist, to be no-thing, you (not you, it just helps with the wording) would have to be every-thing. True nothingness is infinite possibility because in nothingness there is an equal chance for the occurence of everything.

Thought or anything to add??

MT

You know, I think the best way to resolve this issue is to reexamine it:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why
is
there
something
rather
than
nothing
?

Well, now I see the problem. We're asking a question of meaning when regarding the state of the universe. There is no intent.

So Instead of saying 'why is there something rather than nothing?' We can just say 'there is something rather than nothing'

It's just a fact of life, innit?

well there is nothing also somthing to because theres a balance good and evil to fire and water theres a balance for everything and yet nothing lol its hard to explain

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

...well, if the universe were infinite you'd have a point. But the Universe is finite. It's about 14.5 trillionish light years across.

We are talking about the known universe...!!! My bad, I had not realized that the part outside what we know and are able to measure was left out of the equation.

How long (in feet) is a tape measure that can reliably measure 14.5 trillionish lightyears?? And do you begin measuring were the stars end and the darkness begins?? Or is it more of an estimate??

I am sorry, I am just talking silly...

Peace

If you wish to perceive nothing, then be patient.

When you die, you will find it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Simple enough question, but I have to flesh this out to prevent it from being a one line post.

The inherent question speaks to the very nature of the universe: Why is there something in a universe rather than nothing at all?

I have my own answer to this, but I'd like to see what others say about it.

Hmm, I was just wondering whether this could be answered by rationalizing it in this way:

For there to exists an absolute of nothing, would require its opposite as an idea, to be possible at all. So that, if there was nothing, it would require a perspective from which that nothing could be asserted.

And that in turn, would make it so, that there would be that something observing that nothing, as existing.

So, if nothingness existed, we would have to say that (..it for being the nonexistence of things, that even in such a scenario..) something existed. And for nothing to exist, would in that way be itself an impossible paradox - because if nothing existed, then nothingness would "be" and would be the only thing that could be asserted as existing.

Simply stating, that observing and determining the possibility of nothingness, would need someone, as an observer to determine its nonexistence - so that nonexistence could be considered to be possible at all - without the thought of "a nonexistence" being a self contradictory thought.

(?)

Forgive me if someone already posted the same thought, but think about this:

Why would there be nothing rather than something? Would that be more likely? Why would it be likely? From experience, there is definitely something out there, so why would we assume nothingness is the natural state? Wouldn't it be more likely that, given the existence of existence, something supersedes nothing in the hierarchy of being?

This means, to me, that the opening question "why is there something rather than nothing" should be immediately answered by "why would there be nothing rather than something?"

When one really thinks about it, we really have no idea what the original state of existence is. It all comes down to ones and zeros, yes and no, on and off, in or out, etc etc. The mere existence of the potential of duality likely ensures the existence of reality.

Years ago, I wrote a possible answer to the OP on my blog. The "answer" can be found here: noadvicehere.blogspot.com...

To understand it you'll want to have a basic high-school level understanding of math. A little bit of computer programming experience wouldn't hurt either.

For several reasons I don't really buy it anymore. But I'm just throwing it out there because it does address the OP's question in its entirety.