Why is there something rather than nothing?

April 4, 2006 2:23 PM

Why is there something rather than nothing? Just wondering... Especially interested in answers that go beyond "the question is meaningless."
posted by shivohum to Religion & Philosophy (37 answers total)

Because, for some reason that isn't fully understood (but may involve neutrinos), the Big Bang produced slightly more matter than antimatter.

At least that's what they tell me.
posted by COBRA! at 2:25 PM on April 4, 2006

There are entire books dedicated to this and every philosopher I can think of off the top of my head has tried to answer, or at least addressed the question. Have you googled "Why is there something rather than nothing?" it's a relatively common way of putting the question you are asking.
posted by geoff. at 2:29 PM on April 4, 2006

Well, the fact that you're here to ask the question puts some pretty sharp limitations on what the Universe can be like. It has to be made of matter, pi probably has to be irrational, gravity probably has to have the exact strength it does, and so on.

If it had come out different, then at best, some other being would be asking the question, and at worst, there would be nobody to do any asking.
posted by Malor at 2:29 PM on April 4, 2006

Malor's answer is called anthropic reasoning.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:33 PM on April 4, 2006

True, malor, but that doesn't answer his question. Unless you're seriously saying that there's something BECAUSE if there wasn't, we wouldn't be here.

However, we could conduct a thought experiment in which there are many, many universes (an infinite number of them?), each different -- some with something, some with nothing. Only in the one's with something -- and very specific things (i.e gravity) -- could we exist.

That still pretty much avoids the question.

(We could also be anti-Cartesian and ask, "How do you know there IS something instead of nothing?")
posted by grumblebee at 2:36 PM on April 4, 2006

Because there's never nothing. If we can name it ("nothing"), and if we can define it ("the absence of something"), then even nothing is something.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 2:37 PM on April 4, 2006

As far as I can see, the only way to answer this question -- since we can't go back in time and see how/why the universe got created -- is to imagine a universe filled with nothing (if can be said to "fill"). We could then try to prove that the Universe MUST contain something by showing that "containing nothing" and "a Universe" are somehow contradictory. I doubt that's doable.

If we can't do that, we can try to create a Universe in the lab (how) and show that if it's not filled with something, it can't exist.
posted by grumblebee at 2:39 PM on April 4, 2006

TBoneMcCool, that's a tautology. You can reduce your statement to "There's something because there's something." Which is meaningless.

You say there's never nothing. WHY is there never nothing.

Yes, if we can name something, then something exists. But that doesn't explain WHY something exists.
posted by grumblebee at 2:41 PM on April 4, 2006

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

There has been lots of nothing in the past. Just no one was around to observe it.
posted by malp at 2:41 PM on April 4, 2006

The question is not meaningless, but it is unanswerable. Some people call that the same thing, but I don't think so. It's a genuine eternal mystery, and if there is a God then He must wonder about it too.

At the same time, of course, the question is meaningless. The difference between something and nothing isn't real. Why should one take any priority over the other? Perhaps this *is* nothing, or as close to it as can ever be imagined, if your imagination is sufficiently precise.

in which there are many, many universes

That doesn't work. In this context, "universe" should be thought of as everything there is, indivisible and inclusive of all the many worlds.
posted by sfenders at 2:46 PM on April 4, 2006

This post will be nothing once God mathowie shows up.
posted by Gyan at 2:47 PM on April 4, 2006

That doesn't work.

I agree, which is why I said it avoids the question.
posted by grumblebee at 2:47 PM on April 4, 2006

Is there a specific name for this question/problem?

"The problem of existence", maybe? something like that?
posted by empath at 2:49 PM on April 4, 2006

prove that the Universe MUST contain something

I dont think the questioner is asking about "contain" that already presumes there is a container. I interpret the question to not be: Why is there Matter in the Universe but rather, Why is there a Universe, or....anything??

The main problem with this question may be that it contains too many default assumptions already. That is, the question is presuming many things already.

Its like when the ancients asked "what lies at the end of the world?" Is it fire, dragons, hell? Well, as you can see, since the world is round - there is no end of the world. The question contained an invalid assumption.

The invalid assumption in this question may be in the "why" part - this presumes a very orderly set of things, a linear global time and a universal consistent cause-and-effect. It presumes purpose. Things like order and cause/effect may be very local phenomenon, particular to our little corner of the Universe or Universes.

Another way of stating what Malor said is that if some hyper-universal "reader" were to hear us asking that question, they might respond "Oh, just by that question I can tell what kind of Universe they came from. Its amazing how myopic they are. Once they discover XYZ theory, they'll get a better understanding of the whole notion of contingency and consciousness. Until then they'll just have to keep asking "what lies at the end of the world"
posted by vacapinta at 2:50 PM on April 4, 2006

COBRA! writes "Because, for some reason that isn't fully understood (but may involve neutrinos), the Big Bang produced slightly more matter than antimatter. "

Yeah, it's matter-antimatter symmetry breaking, which is related to CP violation. Active fields of research.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:50 PM on April 4, 2006

The question doesn't make sense. A better question might be "why should there be nothing rather than something?"

BTW, Malor's argument is BS. It's also really not scientific. That's what happens basically when you let cosmologists into the club.
posted by nixerman at 2:55 PM on April 4, 2006

The question isn't answerable by physics. After all, "Why do physical laws exist?" is simply a more specific form of the original question.
posted by malp at 2:57 PM on April 4, 2006

As I said above, I dont think symmetry-breaking is what the OP was after but I do agree its fascinating. What fascinates me most is why the Universe as a whole, with regard to physical laws, is only slightly asymmetrical. I guess one could argue, and not just with regards to CP violation, that if the Universe was perfectly symmetrical - it wouldnt exist.

It also means there's an end-run possible against most conservation laws, since conservation laws rely on perfect symmetry to be valid.
posted by vacapinta at 2:58 PM on April 4, 2006

Because 'nothing' implies 'something'? You can't know what 'nothing' is unless you know 'something', as you can't know what darkness is unless you know light.
posted by koenie at 2:59 PM on April 4, 2006

koenie : "You can't know what 'nothing' is unless you know 'something'"

That doesn't explain why anything exists.
posted by Gyan at 3:02 PM on April 4, 2006

You won't get the answer you're looking for here, shivohum. The problem is that you're asking one of the great unanswered questions.

But, because that's not that helpful, let me tell you the only two answers that are available:

1. Because there's a God (or gods). Many people base their religious faith on the fact that it makes no *sense* for the world to exist otherwise. Something at one point came from nothing. That's God's work.

2. Because at one point, we had a big bang and the universe was created. Why was there a big bang? Scientists are working on it. They'll get back to you.
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 3:07 PM on April 4, 2006

Yes, if we can name something, then something exists. But that doesn't explain WHY something exists.

Sure it does. Why something instead of nothing? Because nothing is something, too. Therefore, even if you have nothing, you have something.

Case closed.

But please do keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 3:09 PM on April 4, 2006

It is easier to think about if you reify the question to include the asker, since the terms of the question are so debatable.

Why might we expect there to be something, rather than nothing? Or why do we speak as though there is something, rather than nothing? To what in our intuition do these words correspond?

Because nothing is something, too.

No, it's naught.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:10 PM on April 4, 2006

Gyan: That doesn't explain why anything exists.

Phrased differently: nothingness and existence aren't opposites as much as they belong together. They create each other. In other words: there is no alternative possibility.

Of course this is no explanation as such, it's just an interesting way of looking at things.
posted by koenie at 3:11 PM on April 4, 2006

kingjoeshmoe: Because there's a God (or gods).

Well, we all know where this ends (or fails to end for that matter).
posted by koenie at 3:14 PM on April 4, 2006

To the people saying 'nothing is something': since we are always 'something', all our expressions and concepts are represented as 'something', including the concept of 'nothing', but Nothing itself is not 'something'.
posted by Gyan at 3:16 PM on April 4, 2006

I think the problem here is that there is no value to "Nothing" Sort of like temperature, people think hot or cold but there is only heat or less heat. The value we give to cold is really lack of heat.
So "Why is there something rather than nothing?" the only way to detect nothing is to measure something but the moment we measure something (1) we no longer have nothing. I suspect finding true nothing will be very hard, perhaps impossible if your search area is bigger than? a pin head? A perfect example is "empty space" not really so empty if you have the tools/skills.
On preview what Gyan said, by its nature nothing is never something.
posted by blink_left at 3:23 PM on April 4, 2006

Sort of like temperature, people think hot or cold but there is only heat or less heat.

Unless you're at absolute zero.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:32 PM on April 4, 2006

I like Max Tegmark's theory which is essentially that mathematical existence and physical existence are one and the same. This means that you and I are real in exactly the same way that the number 5 is real. The neat thing about Tegmark's idea is that it does apparently make some testable predictions, but it's all a bit beyond me.
posted by teleskiving at 3:53 PM on April 4, 2006

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is similar to "Why is there light rather than darkness?" There is light as well as (and thanks to) darkness, just as there is existence as well as (and thanks to) nothingness. So, in the end, I'd say the question is ill-defined (false dichotomy).
posted by koenie at 3:57 PM on April 4, 2006

I think "something" is inexplicable, or would be if I didn't think that "nothing" was impossible (which makes something inevitable by default). That may be the limitations of the wiring of my brain, which, it must be said, can't comprehend infinity or eternity either. But I just don't think nothing is possible. The best I can do is picture an empty warehouse, pitch black, in which there could be something, but there is nothing. Yet there's still the warehouse, so what's that? And what's outside the warehouse? Can't imagine nothing. Could any higher being imagine nothing? Or does existence make it impossible?

It's almost like, if there were nothing, it would have to be nothing in some context, even if I weren't here to require a context. Maybe the concept of nothing is only possible to define in the context of something. Like if everything blinked out of existence tomorrow... well... well, I'm just not able to come up with how there could actually be nothing left, because what is nothing? It's like, wouldn't there still be a sort of container left over? What did the something exist in? I even look at the big bang and say, well, there had to be something for it to bang in the context of, or something for the bang to fill, though I'm sure some physicist could poke holes in that idea pretty easily. Maybe we need a word for this container or canvas or context. Instead of nothing we could call it "not really" or "not so much." Sort of like how lines and planes don't actually exist but only represent the intersection of other things, yet we know what they are. We need some aliens around here, STAT. Maybe we find out when we die.

Damn, you've got my brain all unhinged again. Fourteen years after my first philosophy class and I'm ruined again. Damn it! This is why it's OK to drink as much as you want.

Suddenly Bill Clinton's famous line, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" doesn't sound so stupid anymore.

Wait, wait, just had another thought. The reason I can't comprehend nothing must be tied to why I can't comprehend infinity or eternity. My mind wants to give the universe an end. It can't imagine infinite distance. But I can't picture the universe having a border either, because what would be on the other side of the border? Even if it were "nothing", that's still something because I could stand at the edge of something and reference what lay beyond it.

The universe and time must be a mobius strip and that's why you can never reach their beginnings or ends. But what is the mobius strip floating in? AAAAAGH! I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU!
posted by kookoobirdz at 4:02 PM on April 4, 2006

kookoobirdz: exactly!!
I'm done now :)
posted by koenie at 4:21 PM on April 4, 2006

Hm thanks teleskiving, I'd never heard of Tegmark or his theory before, but it also appeals to me.

Why is there something (rather than nothing)? Because there can be. Why can there be something? Because it can made from nothing.

See:

0 = 1 - 1

I even made two somethings out of nothing, but here, everything is still nothing, balance is preserved. Everything may be nothing in the 'real' world as well. Here's an interesting article on the subject.

One thing is for sure, you'll never run out of questions to ask.
posted by benign at 4:28 PM on April 4, 2006

Why is there something rather than nothing?

To exist is to be something. To be nothing is to not exist. Therefore nothing cannot exist; therefore something must exist.

[toke]
posted by davejay at 4:32 PM on April 4, 2006

You cannot go against nature. Because, when you do (go against nature) that's part of nature too.
posted by bingo at 4:37 PM on April 4, 2006

Because it is a necessary situation that what is, is, and that what is not, is not.
posted by Decani at 4:40 PM on April 4, 2006

I'm not the first in this thread to say it, but I think the problem with this question is that it hinges on an understanding of concept of nothing.

When I say nothing -- and generally, when I think of nothing -- I say it in the sense of, "There is nothing in the refrigerator." That is, I imagine some refrigerator that actually exists, and then I imagine it being empty. But when we talk about the existence (or nonexistence) of a universe, our human concept of nothing fails.

Consider a time before the invention of the refrigerator: while it was true that nothing was in a refrigerator, that was conceptually meaningless. There was simply no refrigerator, .

Similarly, before the universe, or outside the universe -- whatever -- we can't think of what was present as empty space waiting to be filled, or physical laws waiting to govern matter that would soon appear. As in the case of the non-existent refrigerator, there is simply no existence. Since we evolved in a setting where there is always something, this condition is essentially unfathomable.

So the only answer -- as unsatisfying as it might be -- is koenie's: there is no alternative possibility.
posted by dseaton at 4:42 PM on April 4, 2006