Why is there only something?

Something instead of nothing?

"IN MY OPINION"

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 physicists 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. 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.

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 can simply never ever comprehend the mind of the infinite

To me God Exists and inescapable fact of logic

But is not true that there is only something. For instance, at the moment I have just cleaned out my sock drawer, and my sock drawer is completely empty. So, there is nothing in my sock drawer.

Ken,
"But is not true that there is only something. For instance, at the moment I have just cleaned out my sock drawer, and my sock drawer is completely empty. So, there is nothing in my sock drawer."

There is no drawer that contains nothing.
There are no socks in the drawer, and there are no elephants in the drawer either, but,
there cannot be 'nothing' in the drawer.
Nothing, does not exist. There is no property that nothing has.

Nothing exists <-> ~(something exists), but, something exists is an axiom/theorem of logic.

Ex(x=x) is a theorem of second order predicate logic.

Of course there is nothing in the drawer. I completely emptied it. Of course, I never denied that something exists. My socks exist, only not in the drawer. That, I assure you, has nothing in it.

Your assurance is not sensible.
Surely the drawer contains air, or wood molecules, etc.

First of all, as I have asked another poster, please don't call me Shirley.

Second of all, the drawer is completely empty of socks. And that is what I was talking about. What "nothing" or what "something" are suppose to mean, devoid of any context, I have no idea. How can it be not sensible for me to assure you that my drawer is empty. Do you mean that you think I am lying?

Your assurance is not sensible.
Surely the drawer contains air, or wood molecules, etc.

But is not true that there is only something. For instance, at the moment I have just cleaned out my sock drawer, and my sock drawer is completely empty. So, there is nothing in my sock drawer.

5.241 An operation is not the mark of a form, but only of a difference
between forms.


5.242 The operation that produces 'q' from 'p' also produces 'r' from
'q', and so on. There is only one way of expressing this: 'p', 'q',
'r', etc. have to be variables that give expression in a general way to
certain formal relations.

5.25 The occurrence of an operation does not characterize the sense of
a proposition. Indeed, no statement is made by an operation, but only by
its result, and this depends on the bases of the operation.

The absolute absence of all of existence is an negation that cannot be described in words. We can, however, descibe -?- mathematically

O = all existence

o o o o o . . . . ?

it contains three dimension of realty

3.01 The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.

5.632 The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of
the world.

It's not three dimensions until we can count to three....and pretty soon we can redefine "dimensions." But it does seem to be continuous, however unthinkable that is.

6.4312 Not only is there no guarantee of the temporal immortality of the
human soul, that is to say of its eternal survival after death; but, in
any case, this assumption completely fails to accomplish the purpose
for which it has always been intended. Or is some riddle solved by my
surviving for ever? Is not this eternal life itself as much of a riddle
as our present life? The solution of the riddle of life in space and
time lies outside space and time. (It is certainly not the solution of
any problems of natural science that is required.)