The Notion of Nothingness—Part 5: A Personal Viewpoint

So far, I have explored a range of responses to the question: Why is there something rather than nothing? It's been an examination of how the quandary has perturbed scientists and philosophers, along with a tour of various responses they have. It's obvious that no one has yet offered a decisive answer... and maybe never will. I find it fascinating, because the range of responses touches on some of the many interesting aspects of theories of the cosmos.

But there's another dimension to the question—a very personal one, that many of us may have contemplated. Bringing the big question on this fifth and last blog down to the individual level, one might ask: What about me? Why do I exist? Could I just as easily not have existed? What is meant by my nonexistence? Could I have been nothing?

If we think about it, it is quite astonishing that each of us exists at all. Am I not incredibly lucky simply to exist? Certainly it's not inevitable that I was born. There is an unimaginably long line of coincidences that led to my being here. Since Homo sapiens has been a separate species (for some 200,000 years or so), some 7,000 generations of parents have successfully brought forth babies... all the way down the line to me. It's all about me! Had any pair of them failed to procreate, I would not be here. Had any one of another of the millions of my dad's sperms united with Mom's available egg on that romantic night long ago, I'd not be here.

But I am here, and it's quite impossible for me to imagine my not existing. What does that even mean? On the one hand I know that the world could have managed just fine without me... and will, after I'm gone. Yet for each one of us, we naturally feel that we are the center of the world. This is my world, and to imagine what it means for me not to have existed, is rather like trying to imagine that the universe might never have existed. This life is all I know! I'm all I know!

We humans are probably the only critters on the planet who are aware that death is inevitable. Someday each of us will die... be gone... essentially becoming nothing. I was nothing before I was born and might well become nothing after my demise. We humans most likely originated the belief in an afterlife, because we can't bear the thought of becoming nothing.

While alive, I can be quite confident that I exist. Here I am! In fact, Descartes felt he solved the riddle of existence through sheer contemplation: “I think, therefore I am.” Yet why am I me? Could I have been a dog or a mosquito? These questions appear to be meaningless, or at the least utterly unanswerable. How many of these questions about our personal nothingness stem from our being uncomfortable with death? Death can seem to be the ultimate loss of beingness.

Buddhism claims that the universe is neither something nor nothing... it's empty. This is another conundrum that people struggle with. Empty of what? Without a lengthy dive here into Buddhist teachings, it pretty much means empty or void of any fixed, permanent nature. We tend to view the fluid and flowing happenings in our world and try to create something solid and fixed from them. I am the same person I was many years ago, right?

But Buddhism says it's an illusion that something (at least something unchanging and stable) exists. So could nothingness just be the other side of the coin; the negative of that something? Am I back to Descartes' declaration that my existence simply depends on my thinking? So, when I'm not thinking, do I not exist? When I'm asleep, I'm unconscious. Do I exist then? When I am dead, do I become nobody? Endless questions. Nothing for answers.

[Note: A number of ideas in these five blogs stem from a fascinating book by Jim Holt: Why Does the World Exist? (2012)]

The Notion of Nothingness—Part 4: Some Additional Responses (12/21/19)

The responses I will describe in this post to the question Why is there something, rather than nothing? delve a little deeper into the issue, in the context of the previous posting's consideration of the definition of nothing. Now that we're potentially on the same page, we might better critically analyze some of these replies. I will attempt to present them from a common perspective.

These responses may also be thought of as the kind of answer or conclusion that a philosopher or scientist may settle upon, after listening to the earlier, immediate reactions... after further pondering the various alternative explanations offered by others.

One argument in this area of questioning of why anything exists—rather than a simpler nothing—is that the question actually rests upon certain hidden presuppositions. For example, our question presupposes that there must be an explanation, and even that we need an explanation. Why are we concerned at all about why the world exists? Why do we posit nothingness as the opposite of existence… the opposite of somethingness?

Furthermore, the question presupposes that nothingness even could exist. But how do we know that? We saw in the previous posting that it's hard to define nothingness, let alone demonstrate that it exists. This response also presupposes that nothingness could be the natural state of affairs of the cosmos. Why would anyone think that? There are those who argue that the existence of the universe is very much to be expected. Why would a nothingness state even be considered? In fact, there are some physicists who claim that the laws of Nature—which we humans been relentlessly discovering the last few centuries (but have yet much further to go)—might dictate that there has to be something. Nothing may simply not be allowed!

One appealing theory of some cosmologists is the possibility that the universe we know may be only one of countless others. Some mathematical derivations in quantum mechanics seem to suggest that a “multiverse” exists. String theory also leans in this direction—despite the fact that, to date, we have no evidence to support the reality of jillions of other universes… they just are a byproduct of the equations. If they do exist (maybe we'll find out some day), the answer to our question of why there is something rather than nothing becomes even more baffling and difficult, because if we are struggling to explain the existence of the one universe we know, isn't the problem ever so much harder, when we consider all those jillions of additional universes? Why do they exist?

Some scholars argue that the task is not to try to explain why the cosmos exists, but, more fundamentally, to describe what we mean by matter—that solid “something” that we're convinced is real. Here's another definition conundrum, it seems. Over 150 years ago the English practical physicist Michael Faraday argued that the only reason we have to suppose that matter truly exists, is because we can detect and measure the forces acting on it. If he’s right, we're compelled to describe reality by describing the forces and reactions on material things—not the things themselves. So what does this tell us about defining or detecting nothingness? Can nothing act on nothing? Isn't this getting overly complicated? My head is hurting.

Finally, some philosophers answer our question by saying it's not an either/or question of something or nothing... it's both. Is that a case of having your cake and also wanting to eat it? Doesn’t it maybe just raise another question: How can we have something in the presence of nothing? Yikes!

Will we have an answer some day, as science progresses? Maybe, maybe not. It may simply remain beyond us, kind of like the true nature of a television to a dog.

Next time (the last entry) we'll look at the question from a personal perspective...

The Notion of Nothingness—Part 3: What is Nothing?

Any analysis of a question such as: Why is there something, rather than nothing? must be clear about the definition it’s using. So, turning to the dictionary for some clarity, the definition of nothing has a variety of meanings. It is, for example: “Not anything; no single thing; a thing that does not exist; something of no importance; and something of no amount—zero.”

From these definitions we get several interesting expressions: “Nothing could be further from the truth.” “Nothing is simple.” “Nothing is easy.” “Working for nothing.” “Nothing but the best will do.” “Nothing doing!” “Nothing of importance.” “Whispering sweet nothings in her ear.” “You ain't seen nothing yet!” Nothing is certainly a far-flung concept, so we must be careful how we use it.

The mathematical definition of nothing is another interesting angle to consider. The concept of zero was conceived of by mathematicians in India, well over a millennium ago. Up to that time many cultures struggled with counting beyond just a few items. The Sanskrit word for zero (or void) is sunya. Arab scholars introduced the concept of zero to the West, calling it sifr, from which we get “zero.”

Zero is nothing, no quantity. In contrast, “one” (or any other number such as “seven”) is something. So consider the equation 0 = 1 – 1. It says that the addition of something (some number, in this case “one”) with its negative is zero... or nothing. Or, we could consider the equation from a different perspective: telling us that zero (nothing) splits in two identical “somethings,” one positive and one negative.

In fact, another reason that many astronomers wonder why the universe contains anything at all, is because theory suggests that, in the immediate wake of the Big Bang, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created. Had this been so, those opposites would have met and annihilated each other... resulting in zero… nothing. (Such as in the equation above.) Yet our universe has something. Another puzzle.

In a similar vein, some people suggest that we can point to an example of nothing right here in our universe. The vast spaces between galaxies and stars consist of close to nothing, which we call a vacuum. It's space, which by definition is “entirely devoid of matter.” The root of the word vacuum is the Latin vacuus, “empty.” So the universe—which is almost entirely space—is essentially nothing, right? Well, not quite. Quantum mechanics tells us that even a perfect vacuum is not nothing. Subatomic particles are constantly popping into and out of existence there. Thus empty space—which some of us might consider to be nothing—is replete with matter and antimatter, dancing in and out and around each other. The most vacuous space is something!

This little adventure into the definition of nothing has probably not shed much light on the question of, Why is there something, rather than nothing? If anything, it has demonstrated the difficulty of understanding how different people conceive of nothing, and thus it illustrates the challenge of answering our question. Can we even comprehend what nothing is? Living in a universe of “somethings,” nothing may simply be unimaginable for us.

Next time: Some deeper responses to the question.

The Notion of Nothingness—Part 2: Some Initial Responses

The ancients rarely asked the question Why is there something, rather than nothing?, because their view of the world was different. Most of them were theists—usually polytheists—so they simply assumed that the world as they knew it was created by the gods. Most ancient cultures also had their creation stories, which focused more on how the world came about, rather than why.

Many ancient people—being of prescientific cultures—simply accepted the creation, without worrying about what “nothing” was like. It is modern science that has come to understand that Nature prefers simplicity, and hence wonders why the simplest situation of all—nothing—is not the order of the day. Many ancient cultures—the Greeks and those in the Far East—viewed the world as eternal; even cyclical. There was no beginning, no “before”, no Big Bang. It has always been. Nothing never existed!

There generally are three types of responses to this question of why there is something: (1) optimists feel that there must be a reason why the universe exists, and feel certain that we'll someday discover it, (2) pessimists feel that there might be a reason and we might discover it, but why worry about it, and (3) rejectionists maintain that there can't be a reason, so the question is meaningless. Philosophers love this kind of quandary, and they fall into all three categories, so they find fertile ground for debate.

Some scholars are inclined to argue straightforwardly that the universe exists because existence is better than nothing. They say that existence is essentially goodness, while nothingness is insipid, even lifeless. So here we are—existing in a world that is fitting and pleasurable. End of argument!

Other scholars say that the universe exists due to blind chance, thus there may be no explanation for it. A similar assertion is that there most likely could be many ways for there to be something, but only one way for there to be nothing; so something is just more likely than nothing. Others fear that the universe popped into existence when the Big Bang occurred, is possibly tenuous, and could pop back into nothingness at any moment. Enjoy it while you can!

Taking yet another look at the Big Bang: some scholars describe nothing as what existed before the Big Bang. But what does “before” even mean, if time began at that moment? It could be argued that there was no “before.” Our current model of the beginning of the universe is an extrapolation from the present expanding universe, back to its opening explosion. Many of the properties of the cosmos are neatly explained by that model, yet the model is unable to describe the very instant of origin. Maybe someday we'll have a better model that will define that beginning instant and hence what “before” might therefore mean, if anything. But we’re currently stuck in our ignorance.

Next time: Probing the definition of nothing.

The Notion of Nothingness—Part 1: The Question

A question that has provoked philosophers and scientists for millennia, as they've pondered the nature of our cosmos is: Why is there something, rather than nothing? For many people, that question can appear to be a senseless puzzle. After all, the universe is something, so why should anyone ever think that there could be nothing? Others might say, however, that although it all came out of nothing (before God brought it into being), here it is. It was meant to be. God ordered it to be, so why question its existence? It's a brute fact. Get over it.

Yet many theists—and certainly most nontheists—have continued to wrestle with the conundrum. The source of many people's wonderment on this issue is the fact that science has taught us that Nature leans toward simplicity. This means that, when we question how Nature behaves in a given situation, and we posit alternative possibilities, time and again we find that Nature has selected the simplest of them; the most straightforward path. Nature is pure. Nature is elegant. Nature is to the point.

So, knowing this propensity of Nature for choosing simplicity, scientists and philosophers—who readily understand that nothing is indeed simpler than something—have posed this perplexing question. Why is there anything, since something is more complicated than nothing? Wouldn't it have been more likely for God not to have worked so hard to create the universe, when it would have been easier to let it stay nothing?

Many philosophers also dislike the response that God—or any other outside cause—brought about the existence of the cosmos, because arguments like this can be circular and unsatisfying. Any such explanation simply invokes a previous something (or some being) to have created it; but where did that something come from? What's the first cause?

The Big Bang theory posits that the universe came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago. Did it bang from nothing? What was it that banged? What was going on before it banged? Was there a before? Are these even sensible questions? Science currently is grappling for answers, so we don't yet know. Maybe we never will know. Maybe we're asking the wrong questions. As a result of all this uncertainty, philosophers feel compelled to enter the quandary, and offer their two cents on the issue.

Today many scientists wrestle with this question of the universe’s existence, because science has gradually moved in the direction of demonstrating that the universe was not created just for the pleasure and use of us humans. Earth is not at the center of the universe, and in fact, may be only one of countless inhabited worlds. For many people this displacement of humans from the center of it all is disturbing, if not downright nihilistic. They feel that it robs meaning and purpose from the cosmos.

Many other people, however, accept the fact that we're not the pinnacle of creation, yet we can still revel in the wonder and beauty of it all, and the fantastic good fortune to be possessed with the cognitive ability to be in awe of it. Even if we're not disturbed by the fact that the ancient reasons for purpose and meaning may be no longer relevant (and thus that we can find new reasons for celebrating being alive), one can still be perplexed that we seem to have no explanation for existence.

Next time: Some tentative responses.