Denys Turner, the Cambridge theologian whose inaugural lecture for taking up the chair of theology was How to Be an Atheist, said that in order to be a “proper, card-carrying atheist,” one has to be good at avoiding a certain kind of question. That question is, Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
To dwelve deeper into this mystery, I’d like to refer to a post of the same name by Sean Caroll at Cosmic Variance.
The first assignment on the agenda is to look into the possibilities of “nothing” and “something,” and what makes them special. (Some have argued that true nothingness is an impossibility – to which I ask, how do you know? Perfect nothingness is self-evident and easy to conceive of; there is nothing incoherent about it.) Nothingness appears more plain and simple than something. It has the absence of any character and detail, therefore making it the sort of “default” that contrasts against something with attributes. Even though this metaphysical “zero” universe about which all others are conceived is simpler than all else, the question is, why is simpler better? Occam’s razor applies to competing explanations, not possible worlds. On the one hand, this seems a fair question to ask. The question is being begged for. Yet, our intuition wonders how we could just settle for accepting that our universe is an arbitrary one instead of a more “natural,” “spontaneous” option. Quoting Caroll:
But our experience with the world in which we actually live tells us nothing whatsoever about whether certain possible universes are “natural” or not. In particular, nothing in science, logic, or philosophy provides any evidence for the claim that simple universes are “preferred” (whatever that could possibly mean). We only have experience with one universe; there is no ensemble from which it is chosen, on which we could define a measure to quantify degrees of probability. Who is to say whether a universe described by the non-perturbative completion of superstring theory is likelier or less likely than, for example, a universe described by a Rule 110 cellular automaton?
As much as we hate to admit it, our intuitions on this matter are unfounded, unreliable, and unauthoritative. And since this is so, we have nothing more to look towards in search of an answer. We cannot hope to find one. We don’t have to be good at avoiding the question: there is no way to confront it.
Now, I’ll back myself up on that. I’ll prove it. Reductio ad absurdum style.
Suppose this question had an answer. That means there is a deciding factor that chose between nothingness and something. This deciding factor is itself something, which means it chose itself into existence. This is illogical. There is no answer to the question. There is nothing outside of the possibilities of nothingness and something. We just exist. That is all.
* This isn’t to say that no god(s) exist. If god(s) exist, then they are counted as something too.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 16, 2008 at 1:48 am
Scott Erb
This question — why is there something rather than nothing — is the question I ponder whenever I want to think about something I know I can’t answer. I end up concluding that for a question like this, we are like ants. Our lack of knowledge about the nature of reality is such that we simply don’t have the tools to even approach the question — just as a common ant cannot explain why Russia attacked Georgia. Of course, Bishop Berkeley would respond that there really isn’t any “thing” except ideas, dreams in God’s mind. (I guess theories that the universe is holographic could be a secular counter part to Berkeley’s religious perspective).
Anything outside our space-time world is incomprehensible to us. Even the notion of ‘outside’ or ‘before the universe began’ uses space-time language to try to describe something possibly outside the scope of that language. And if our world comes from outside space-time, then we really can’t comprehend or even rationally speculate on what that could be.
August 18, 2008 at 5:36 pm
CarlN
But this is no proof: “Suppose this question had an answer. That means there is a deciding factor that chose between nothingness and something. This deciding factor is itself something, which means it chose itself into existence. This is illogical. There is no answer to the question. There is nothing outside of the possibilities of nothingness and something. We just exist. That is all.”
There is logically no need for a “deciding factor”.
“When” there is nothing there is no need for anything (like a deciding factor) for something to be “created” from nothing.
There is no need for a cause for something (like a universe) to be created from nothing. Proof: “When” there is nothing there cannot exist any such “need ” (since we suppose there is nothing).
We cannot suppose anything “when” there is nothing. You break the logic by supposing a “deciding factor”.
Also note that there are no conservation laws “when” there is nothing. By logic “nothing” is simply “unstable”. This explains why there is something rather than nothing.
August 25, 2008 at 6:09 am
Brad
“Anything outside our space-time world is incomprehensible to us.” How do we know that for sure, Scott? Could we not at least sort out incoherent ideas of external “things”?
CarlN, I’m not sure what you’re arguing against. My “proof” was a reductio ad absurdum that proves exactly the point you agree with me on: you break the logic by supposing a deciding factor.
Basically I said, “let’s suppose there was a deciding factor.” Then I showed that that was absurd. Finally, I said there could be no such deciding factor. (Like God.)
August 26, 2008 at 11:00 pm
CarlN
Maybe I read you completely wrong?
You said you proved there is no answer to the question “why is there something etc.” I say there is an answer to the question.
By supposing a deciding factor (when there by definition cannot be one) your
proof is wrong (or irrelevant). And it must be as I proved we can in fact understand why there is something rather than nothing.
September 1, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Brad
You mean my proof is invalid. We both agree on the conclusion: there is no deciding factor. My proof was that supposing there was a deciding factor is absurd. On the other hand, you said the same thing, but “by definition.”
Also, I see a contradiction in your answer to the question. First you say, “We cannot suppose anything ‘when’ there is nothing.” Then you say, “By logic ‘nothing’ is simply ‘unstable’. This explains why there is something rather than nothing.”
I don’t agree that nothingness is unstable. Nothingness is just nothingness.
September 7, 2008 at 10:40 pm
CarlN
Agreed, nothing is truly nothing. When I say “it” is “unstable”, it is simply based on the observation that there is not anything that could prevent
something from starting to exist “from” nothing. Like a big bang for example.
“When” nothing exists there are no conservation laws, no need for causation etc. that could prevent the “creation” of something from absolute nothing.
So we can in fact understand why there is something rather than nothing.