Or maybe matter/energy? If the Principle of Conservation of Energy is to be believed, and energy cannot be made or destroyed but merely transfered, does that make it necessary?
Something instead of nothing?
Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.
Many physists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is. (Ridiculous nonsense). I cannot believe that, indeed, I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions. Why is there something instead of nothing?
With nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius.
Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.) Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have "nothing", but definite and absolutely do indeed have 'something'. This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.
Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?
Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race.
There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man. You see the universe has a strange Goldie locks condition about it, i.e., it cannot be too hot or too cold etc, etc, erc, but it has to be just absolutely correct, precise and right or life would not have come into existence and we would not be around to contemplate, debate or dialogue on this ultimate enigma. We would not exist. Life hangs on and depends on this knife- edge of harmonies conditions that have to be sustained over countless billions of years, for us to have come into existence and continue to exist.
Makes one think, does it not?
why do we have a universe? my answer is that god created the universe. however, then, one can ask, who/what created god?
I believe god was not created and this 'fact' is beyond our understanding and must be accepted on faith. god is far and beyond our understanding, everlasting, without beginning or end, eternal and ever -existing, but was (and is, and will be) always existed. he/she is indeed the very author of all existence. indeed.
God is so mighty, omni-all that he/she exists, forever, far above our reasoning and above the ultimate reaches of our logic. something we and all the vain puffed up scientist, philosophers, etc, will just have to accept in time, we will, at the end of the day have to, relent and acknowledge that somewhere out there is a awesome, colossal, mighty, great infinite intelligence that in comparison that we are as a microbe is to a human or perhaps horrors even much further remote, from the omni-all power we call god. it will indeed be a most humbling experience for us to finally realize and acknowledge, that there are things and mysteries that will; remain forever, absolutely, totally beyond human comprehension understand and reside eternally in the mind of our creator god.
It is a fact the finite will simply never ever comprehend the mind of the infinite
It is not clear to me that energy is a candidate of being "necessary". What sense could this "necessity" be? Obviously, this cannot be logical, because
to say P is necessary is to say -P is logical impossible, or that P is true at all possible worlds. It is commonly that case that for p to be necessary, then either
1. p is a posteriori necessary, and
2. p is analytic.
For p to be true for 1 is for p to be some sort of identity. Energy does not seem to be it. Energy is a concept that is posited by physics to explain. It itself is not a subject. For example, it is show that if the laws of nature are time-symmetric in a physical system, then energy is conserved. As you can see, energy is a derived property of a system, and not a thing in itself. So, one maybe able to identify possible kinds of systems with the property of energy regulating it in all possible worlds, but it is not necessary for it seems just as likely to imagine other possible worlds with different systems given by say something close to the notion of energy in that world, but not exactly the same.
For p to be true from 2 is for p to be true in "virtue of meaning". It is hard to see how the concept of energy must be true just by understanding the meaning. It seems we need to do experiements to figure out the meaning, but that would make it number 1. If meaning of energy is extension, then it would only be true to all worlds in which the physics are some what similar to our own which uses the notion of "energy", but one could easily imagine a possible world of a different kind. So, i conclude it cannot be 2 .
---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 06:43 AM ----------
It is a mistake to say the universe come from nothing. The nothing of the physicisits are not nothing. You can probable figure this out by some research.
It is true that the reason for why the big bang happen is mysterious, but it is no less mysterious by positing a god to explain the universe. The moral is this: explanation will always come to be end. It depends on preference of where you want to end it.
You are referring to quantum foam the basis for all concrete matter in existence, it existed before the universe emerged in the even we call the big bang
True, but what is more mysterious is why are there any laws at all. Why this quantum foam is described by some particular mathematical model. So, the question really ought to be "why there are laws at all?", and "why there are these particular set of laws?"
True, but what is more mysterious is why are there any laws at all. Why this quantum foam is described by some particular mathematical model. So, the question really ought to be "why there are laws at all?", and "why there are these particular set of laws?"
If a law is a mathematical model, then it can either be derived from a more general law or it can not be generated other than as a match for the probabilities of observables. This means that all basic laws are mathematically random, by definition, so there are no answers to your "why" questions. Those questions are illegitimate and can be abandoned.
If a law is a mathematical model, then it can either be derived from a more general law
or it can not be generated other than as a match for the probabilities of observables. This means that all basic laws are mathematically random, by definition.
How exactly can a mathematical law be random?
If the laws under discussion are mathematical statements, then they are strings of symbols. There are two possibilities:
1) the relevant string can be generated from a different string, in this case the generating string is the law, the generated string a corollary
2) the relevant string can not be generated from a different string, such a string is random by definition.
So you are back to infinite regression and infinite regression must end and the end must be beyond human comprehension and that incomprehension is and must be God
Did you not contradict yourself? If string x generates string y. Clearly, y is not random, because x generates it!
If x is a string, then either there is a string x* that generates x, or that x is an axioms, or just brute fact. Non of the possibility entails that a mathematical law is random.
I am interested in the set of all logically possible laws that are completely independent, and why one of the options are picked.
"If there is no algorithm that generates the string, then it's random by definition. Calling it a brute fact is fine, regardless, there is no "why" which explains it unless that explanation is law which subsumes the original."
"What do you mean by "picked"? Laws of science, are minimal mathematical statements which allow scientists to generate the probabilities of expected observations over transformations of states of interest."
"why do we live in a world give governed by Laws S={X, Y, Z} and, not a world governed by laws F={Y, E, G, L}?"
So, you string-as-law don` t really make coherent sense.
Well, there is no "why". In other words, there is no true statement to answer such a question, if the laws are parsimonious
mathematical statements.Sure it does, convert all elements of the alphabet and operators to binary strings, then concatenate them.
Indeed.
For those impressed with there being something:
[INDENT]If there were nothing, why would there be nothing rather than something?[/INDENT]
...
Nice try, P! If there were nothing, no one could ask that.
I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non- existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.
It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being; and this necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by asserting, that if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should perceive it to be as impossible for him not to exist, as for twice two not to be four. But it is evident that this can never happen, while our faculties remain the same as at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist; nor can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain always in being; in the same manner as we lie under a necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, necessary existence, have no meaning; or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent.
[190]
But further, why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being, according to this pretended explication of necessity? We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter; and for aught we can determine, it may contain some qualities, which, were they known, would make its non- existence appear as great a contradiction as that twice two is five. I find only one argument employed to prove, that the material world is not the necessarily existent Being: and this argument is derived from the contingency both of the matter and the form of the world. "Any particle of matter," it is said, 7 "may be conceived to be annihilated; and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an annihilation or alteration, therefore, is not impossible." But it seems a great partiality not to perceive, that the same argument extends equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him; and that the mind can at least imagine him to be non-existent, or his attributes to be altered. It must be some unknown, inconceivable qualities, which can make his non-existence appear impossible, or his attributes unalterable: and no reason can be assigned, why these qualities may not belong to matter. As they are altogether unknown and inconceivable, they can never be proved incompatible with it.
Add to this, that in tracing an eternal succession of objects, it seems absurd to enquire for a general cause or first author. How can any thing, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time, and a beginning of existence?
In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the WHOLE, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I shew you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
how do we know we aren't nothing?
The question doesn't make sense. When you ask "why x", you're asking for a reason. However, a reason is something. Therefore a reason can't explain why there is something instead of nothing. If there were nothing there wouldn't even be reasons, so there could never be a reason why there is something.
That is beside the point. Imagine that there was nothing in the universe. If there were nothing, why would there be nothing rather than something? Of course, if there were nothing, we would not be typing messages on the internet, but that is irrelevant to the issue. It is very much like the question: If there were something, why would there be something rather than nothing? Which, since there evidently is something, is reduced to: Why is there something and not nothing?
The question is just silly. There is something now because of the preceding state of the universe, and this is so for any point in time we wish to examine. (Nor does it matter if time is relative to one's point of view; from every point of view, the reason why there is something at any point in time is because of the preceding state of the universe.) There is nothing more to it than that. As a cause precedes the effect, it is an absurdity to look for a cause of a chain of events that goes back for eternity.
Hume said it quite well:
Hume's Dialogues
The question is just silly. There is something now because of the preceding state of the universe, and this is so for any point in time we wish to examine. (Nor does it matter if time is relative to one's point of view; from every point of view, the reason why there is something at any point in time is because of the preceding state of the universe.) There is nothing more to it than that. As a cause precedes the effect, it is an absurdity to look for a cause of a chain of events that goes back for eternity.
Hume said it quite well:
Was it really that easy to refute? What is thought but the ephemeral nothing? If you are nothing isn't also your thought?
