The question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” is different from “What caused the Universe?”. The former question is not asking about causation in time.
Suppose that your interlocutor grants that some event didn’t need a cause, so that the Big Bang didn’t violate causality. Well, the occurrence of no event also doesn’t seem to need a cause. That is, causality would still have not been violated had nothing happened. So, it still seems reasonable to ask why something happened rather than nothing.
Although not a complete and satisfactory solution, my favorite answer is this one.
The question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” is different from “What caused the Universe?”. The former question is not asking about causation in time.
Yes, that’s true; I tried to distinguish them in my reply, because the point about time and causality doesn’t really apply to the something vs. nothing question.
Suppose that your interlocutor grants that some event didn’t need a cause, so that the Big Bang didn’t violate causality. Well, the occurrence of no event also doesn’t seem to need a cause. That is, causality would still have not been violated had nothing happened. So, it still seems reasonable to ask why something happened rather than nothing.
“Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” – Murray Gell-Mann (from T.H. White)
“Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” – Murray Gell-Mann (from T.H. White)
Suppose we grant this claim as an axiom. Then, from the fact that X happened, we may deduce that X was compulsory.
But that doesn’t tell us whyX was compulsory. It doesn’t provide us with an argument showing how the happening of X was a compulsory (or even probable) consequence of self-evident premises. Gell-Mann’s axiom doesn’t tell us whyX had to happen, or even just why X happened — never mind the “had to”. So it doesn’t answer the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”.
As I posted below, I’m not planning on continuing this specific discussion. However, if you’re interested in continuing to discuss the general topic, I recommend heading over to this discussion topic that I just started, which addresses some of the same issues in what I feel is a clearer way.
What I meant was, if there’s neither anything forbidden about there simply being… nothing, and there being something, what leads to the “something” winning out over the nothing?
ie, even given “everything not forbidden is compulsory”, there still seems to be stuff unexplained.
Erm… it’s harder for me to say this, because of the high-status thing where I’ve been turned into some kind of giant lumbering elephant who has to keep trying not to step on people, but nonetheless I beg you to stop, reflect, consider what you have just said, and realize that you don’t actually know anything about this problem.
I will say that at this point, I think we’re all talking past each other. That’s precisely why I dislike phrasing serious problems in the vague language of meaningless questions. Unfortunately, I seem to have gotten sucked into it anyway. Unless anyone is really interested in dissolving the issue, I’m probably not going to go any further with it here.
Update: I have started a discussion topic related to this issue. It’s based on a recent essay by Sean Carroll, who is certainly better versed in cosmology than I am.
The question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” is different from “What caused the Universe?”. The former question is not asking about causation in time.
The essay you cite is addressing “What caused the Universe?”, not the question we are concerned with.
The essay, in my opinion, dissolves that question as well. In any case, it’s a more relevant place to have the discussion than a tangent comment thread.
The essay, in my opinion, dissolves that question as well.
I don’t care about your opinion. The parts of the essay you quoted certainly do not dissolve the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”. If you think it does elsewhere, then quote that part.
In any case, it’s a more relevant place to have the discussion than a tangent comment thread.
Until your discussion post at least claims to address the question of “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”, I prefer the thread, however tangential, that provides the context of exploring that question.
The question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” is different from “What caused the Universe?”. The former question is not asking about causation in time.
Suppose that your interlocutor grants that some event didn’t need a cause, so that the Big Bang didn’t violate causality. Well, the occurrence of no event also doesn’t seem to need a cause. That is, causality would still have not been violated had nothing happened. So, it still seems reasonable to ask why something happened rather than nothing.
Although not a complete and satisfactory solution, my favorite answer is this one.
Yes, that’s true; I tried to distinguish them in my reply, because the point about time and causality doesn’t really apply to the something vs. nothing question.
“Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” – Murray Gell-Mann (from T.H. White)
Suppose we grant this claim as an axiom. Then, from the fact that X happened, we may deduce that X was compulsory.
But that doesn’t tell us why X was compulsory. It doesn’t provide us with an argument showing how the happening of X was a compulsory (or even probable) consequence of self-evident premises. Gell-Mann’s axiom doesn’t tell us why X had to happen, or even just why X happened — never mind the “had to”. So it doesn’t answer the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”.
As I posted below, I’m not planning on continuing this specific discussion. However, if you’re interested in continuing to discuss the general topic, I recommend heading over to this discussion topic that I just started, which addresses some of the same issues in what I feel is a clearer way.
What’s forbidden about there simply being… nothing? :)
No, the point is that there’s nothing forbidden about there being something.
What I meant was, if there’s neither anything forbidden about there simply being… nothing, and there being something, what leads to the “something” winning out over the nothing?
ie, even given “everything not forbidden is compulsory”, there still seems to be stuff unexplained.
Something by its nature wins out over nothing, if something is possible. Nothing is an absence, not just another thing.
Erm… it’s harder for me to say this, because of the high-status thing where I’ve been turned into some kind of giant lumbering elephant who has to keep trying not to step on people, but nonetheless I beg you to stop, reflect, consider what you have just said, and realize that you don’t actually know anything about this problem.
Yeah, that was not too helpful.
I will say that at this point, I think we’re all talking past each other. That’s precisely why I dislike phrasing serious problems in the vague language of meaningless questions. Unfortunately, I seem to have gotten sucked into it anyway. Unless anyone is really interested in dissolving the issue, I’m probably not going to go any further with it here.
Update: I have started a discussion topic related to this issue. It’s based on a recent essay by Sean Carroll, who is certainly better versed in cosmology than I am.
McAllister already explained:
The essay you cite is addressing “What caused the Universe?”, not the question we are concerned with.
The essay, in my opinion, dissolves that question as well. In any case, it’s a more relevant place to have the discussion than a tangent comment thread.
I don’t care about your opinion. The parts of the essay you quoted certainly do not dissolve the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”. If you think it does elsewhere, then quote that part.
Until your discussion post at least claims to address the question of “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”, I prefer the thread, however tangential, that provides the context of exploring that question.
I see the distinction you’re making. I have added a bullet point for the section of the essay which discusses “meta-explanatory accounts”
Is this a Tegmark IV thing where everything possible must exist?
What determines how much of each sort of everything exists?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/py/the_born_probabilities/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
Presumably it all exists in all mathematically possible amounts.
ETA: … whatever that means.