Why is there not nothing?

[Switchy]

Why is there not nothing? Surely in the beginning there should have been nothing? Yet there is a universe. Some say God created the universe but where did he come from? Surely there should be no universe and no God? Yet there is something!

 

Switchy:shrug:

[DougF]

if you have nothing no problem you won't miss it.

But when you finally get it, then nothing becomes a big problem. :shrug: :xx:

[InfiniteNow]

I'm no philosopher, but...

 

Why is there not nothing?

Because there's something.

Surely in the beginning there should have been nothing?

I question this maxim. Why? Surely? Not quite. :angel:

Yet there is a universe. Some say God created the universe but where did he come from?

From the minds of these evolved lifeforms called humans (perhaps other social organisms with language, but humans seems the more acceptable response).

Surely there should be no universe and no God? Yet there is something!

It sounds like you are marvelling at the concept of chance. When considered over the vastness of time (we live on average 70 years... what created life as we know it now on Earth happened over 4,600,000,000 years...), it's much more ordinary than it may (at first glance) appear.

 

 

:xx: :epizza::shrug:

[CraigD]

Why is there not nothing?

One answer to this many-answer-admitting question is the statement of the anthropic principle – in other words, “there is not nothing because if there were, we wouldn’t be here talking about it.”

 

This answer is complemented by another one offered by Edward Tryon in the statement "Our Universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time" (discussed at greater length here). Under this explanation, for the litterally immesurably vast majority of the universe’s history there was nothing – we just weren’t around to experience it.

[Victor_Wrath]

Perhaps a better question is, if there is something, than how could there ever have been nothing, yet how could there not have been? Everything about this “cause and effect” based universe insists that all things come from somewhere, that all effects are proceeded by causes. Does that not insist that at some point, many theological “big bangs” ago, there came the first something, and if there was a first something, did that not have to proceeded by nothing. Yet if there was nothing, from wince came something, when something must always be proceeded by something else.

 

Even a cyclic system must first be established, even a repetitive existence must have at some point become repetitive and prior to the cycle was not.

 

Is it not possible that beyond the boarders of the known and the knowable, exists that which defies order and balance? A thriving eternal and infinite expanse where one equals two and yet it doesn’t? That from chaos springs all without explanation? And this time, from it, this pocket of coincidence that we mistake for order and balance and we know of as our universe sprang up? That our search for meaning, purpose and answers will go forever without fulfillment because in its origins there are no explanations, only chaos?

 

Victor Wrath

____________________________________

 

-To see the unseen

-To know the unknown

-To find the unfound

 

-All absolutes are lies.

[DarkColoredLight]

To me nothing is merely the absences of something. Which makes it something with infinite potential. So nothing is something but really, at face value it's actually nothing.

 

 

Sort of like thoughts are nothing, but we seem to have a butt ton of them. Then, a small percentage of them manifest themselves through the actions of the thinker.

[Pyrotex]

In the Beginning, there was Nothing. Well, maybe not Nothing exactly, but certainly not much. There was some litter and debris left over from the Beginning Party which had been held the eon before, but that was about it. You know, confetti, candy wrappers, funny paper hats, drinking straws, that sort of thing. Well actually, not that many drinking straws, as half of them had consisted of antimatter, and by the Beginning, nearly all of them had annihilated with their matter counterparts. This had set some of the confetti on fire, so there was also some ash at the Beginning, but not much because... this is going badly. Let me start over.

 

In the Beginning, for all practical purposes, there was next to Nothing. I mean, yeah, the debris left over from a really big blow-out party might amount to trillions of tons, but it was spread over so vastly, vastly, vastly vast a volume that the average density was... was... well... was like a single dust bunny in Hugh Hefner's mansion.

 

Wait! I know, you're thinking of Bunnies. A dust bunny is different, let me tell you. Now, to be precise, there were a butt load of gorgeous, skantily clad female beings at the Beginning Party (as you would expect!!!), but they weren't made of dust, and... oh, never mind. I'm getting off track again.

 

In the Beginning, there was a LOT of Nothing, especially around the edges. (There, that's better!) Please ignore the occassional dust bunny, as they are not really representative of the state of the Universe at the Beginning. Mostly, the Universe was Nothing--pure Nothing, with no additives. Except for the tiny amount of confetti ash that was left over. And a few (very, very, very few, like not even enough to count, so I don't even know why I mention it) bikini tops. God damn, that was one fine party! They don't call it the "Big Bang" for Nothing! ...uhhh...

 

[coff! coff!] Where was I? Nothing! Yes! In the Beginning, there was a predominate essence of Nothing that prevailed. Of course, the actual moment that we define as "the Beginning" is a little hard to pin down, because there wasn't a whole freakin' lot going on at the time, you know what I mean? The hooch was all drunk up, the babes were either all passed out, or had sneaked off behind the other Universes to indulge in a little... you know, and all the antimatter straws had annihilated with the...

 

Did I say "other Universes"? Sorry, I didn't mean that. My mistake. Mea culpa. Forget I ever said that. There was Nothing at the Beginning, you hear me? Nothing at all. The underwear laying about doesn't count worth a damn, and I don't want it mentioned again, you understand? Sheesh, the flak I have to put up with from you zombies. All you ever think about is sex, sex, sex. It's enough to make me wanna...

 

Okay, listen. This is the LAST time I'm gonna tell you. There was the Beginning, okay? That was like, you know, the START. Of everything. Except the party. Scratch that! Forget the party. The Beginning was Nothing. I mean it was the start of Nothing. [crap] It was the START. And there was Nothing there! I mean, like, there it was: Nothing. And it was good.

 

Any questions?

 

...uhh... you're not gonna start a religion with this, are you?

[freeztar]

In the Beginning, there was Nothing. Well, maybe not Nothing exactly, but certainly not much. There was some litter and debris left over from the Beginning Party which had been held the eon before, but that was about it. You know, confetti, candy wrappers, funny paper hats, drinking straws, that sort of thing. Well actually, not that many drinking straws, as half of them had consisted of antimatter, and by the Beginning, nearly all of them had annihilated with their matter counterparts. This had set some of the confetti on fire, so there was also some ash at the Beginning, but not much because... this is going badly. Let me start over.

 

In the Beginning, for all practical purposes, there was next to Nothing. I mean, yeah, the debris left over from a really big blow-out party might amount to trillions of tons, but it was spread over so vastly, vastly, vastly vast a volume that the average density was... was... well... was like a single dust bunny in Hugh Hefner's mansion.

 

Wait! I know, you're thinking of Bunnies. A dust bunny is different, let me tell you. Now, to be precise, there were a butt load of gorgeous, skantily clad female beings at the Beginning Party (as you would expect!!!), but they weren't made of dust, and... oh, never mind. I'm getting off track again.

 

In the Beginning, there was a LOT of Nothing, especially around the edges. (There, that's better!) Please ignore the occassional dust bunny, as they are not really representative of the state of the Universe at the Beginning. Mostly, the Universe was Nothing--pure Nothing, with no additives. Except for the tiny amount of confetti ash that was left over. And a few (very, very, very few, like not even enough to count, so I don't even know why I mention it) bikini tops. God damn, that was one fine party! They don't call it the "Big Bang" for Nothing! ...uhhh...

 

[coff! coff!] Where was I? Nothing! Yes! In the Beginning, there was a predominate essence of Nothing that prevailed. Of course, the actual moment that we define as "the Beginning" is a little hard to pin down, because there wasn't a whole freakin' lot going on at the time, you know what I mean? The hooch was all drunk up, the babes were either all passed out, or had sneaked off behind the other Universes to indulge in a little... you know, and all the antimatter straws had annihilated with the...

 

Did I say "other Universes"? Sorry, I didn't mean that. My mistake. Mea culpa. Forget I ever said that. There was Nothing at the Beginning, you hear me? Nothing at all. The underwear laying about doesn't count worth a damn, and I don't want it mentioned again, you understand? Sheesh, the flak I have to put up with from you zombies. All you ever think about is sex, sex, sex. It's enough to make me wanna...

 

Okay, listen. This is the LAST time I'm gonna tell you. There was the Beginning, okay? That was like, you know, the START. Of everything. Except the party. Scratch that! Forget the party. The Beginning was Nothing. I mean it was the start of Nothing. [crap] It was the START. And there was Nothing there! I mean, like, there it was: Nothing. And it was good.

 

Any questions?

 

...uhh... you're not gonna start a religion with this, are you?

 

That was the best post I've ever read...period...hands down!!! :lol:

[Tormod]

So. Will the nothing at the end be better than the nothing at the beginning? Is one nothing different than another?

[Pyrotex]

That was the best post I've ever read...period...hands down!!! :lol:

I'm just sittin' here, smilin' :lol::):hihi:

 

With Nothing on my mind,

 

Basking in the radiance of my own glow.

 

Thanks, freezy! :hihi::):hihi:

[Tarantism]

the Universe as we know it was picked out of the ear of an being in the higher dimensions by a que tip, and the end will come when the trash in the bathroom is finally taken out by that damn worthless lazy upper dimension teenager.

[CraigD]

1. Why is there something?
2. Why is the sky blue?
3. What is the essential difference between these two questions?

The second question is easy to answer, as much so as one that been answered incorrectly for all but the last century or so can be said to be. Gas molecules are dipoles, most of Earth’s atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen, which scatters blue more strongly than red … search “why is the sky blue” if you can’t already recite this answer when half asleep. Though it took a couple of centuries to get this answer just right, once Newton popularized the idea that sunlight consisted of light of many different frequencies, a pretty-close-to-correct answer to “why is the sky blue” popped out at most folk who gave this idea and this question much thought.

 

The essential difference between the first two questions? As with any question containing the modifier “essential”, it’s a bit subjective. One might answer that the first question consists all of weird parts of speech, “there” and “something”, while the second has nice, concrete (at least if you have modern science to define them) noun-ish parts, “sky” and “blue”. Or one might answer empirically, based on the current state of human knowledge, that the second question has a fairly simple answer understandable to even young children, while the first does not. Or one might answer that the second’s answer stays close to the same when answered by many people or many times, while the first’s varies wildly. Or that, with the occasional exception, answering the second doesn’t seem to lead to deep cosmological/theological/ontological contemplation, confusion, and debate.

 

Why is there something? (which is, I think, essentially the same question as “why is there not nothing?”) An intuition only, but I suspect this question will become similar to “why is the sky blue?” – that is, have a widely accepted, conclusive answer - only when our reductionistic, scientific understanding of material existence reaches roughly the same level of utility as the 18th century and later understanding of optics. When – and if – we gain a nuts-and-bolts explanation of the underlying nature of matter and space – the goal of folk like string theorists – the reason this underlying nature favors existence over non-existence – and if it actually does – should resemble in kind if not in complexity the reason nitrogen-oxygen atmospheres favor the scattering of blue light to red.

 

Until then, the question is, I think, more of a meditative focus than a rational inquiry. Meditation is healthy, enjoyable, rewarding, but doesn’t lend itself to producing definite answers.

[TZK]

We don't know what there was in the beginning because we are ill equipped to conceive of any such beginning. There is only infinite regression. Without any knowledge or concept of the beginning of everything there is no reason to believe that there should or should not have been a beginning.

 

In other word, we cannot speculate on something so far from anything we have ever experienced. But for the same reason we have no need to.

[C1ay]

Surely in the beginning there should have been nothing?

 

Who said there was a beginning? We don't know if there was a beginning or not. I don't personally belief that the universe as we know it came from nothing though.

[modest]

The Hartle-Hawking model tried to answer this very question.

 

If I remember right - it came to the conclusion that there was 100% probability that the universe came from nothing and would end up the way it has. The theory also tried to answer: “who is this god person anyway?” (thank you douglas adams). Steven Hawking’s answer: Nobody, that’s who!

 

In any case, the model didn’t really convince anybody of anything - and I figure: If Steven Hawking does his best to figure something out and comes up short….

 

I shouldn’t loose any sleep over it.

 

- modest

[Pyrotex]

...If Steven Hawking does his best to figure something out and comes up short….I shouldn’t loose any sleep over it.

Rat own.

[purposelife]

the answer to that question can be explained by the expression: 0/0

its undefined, thus we don't understand it

but 0/0=1, and 0/0=0, or rather, it could be either, both, or neither

existence is the same way: all that is is a singularity, it's only the mind that separates anything; it does so as a simplification to more easily understand things

yet nothing exists, because all that is has been or ever will be believed or known is simply an extension of another reality, like a memory, a current perception, or a thought; and any of these, when traced back forever, have no origin

existence is

nothing is

existence is nothing

nothing is existence

1=0, 0=1, both are true simultaneously, neither is true

I do not know if anyone understands this, but that is how I explain it: 0/0