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.
1 comment:
Hi. I stumbled on your blog tonight and found it kind of interesting. Thanks! I look forward to your later essays on Nothingness. My view on the question is below and is from the summary of my website at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
My view is that the thing we often think of as “nothing” (the lack of all
matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws of physics/math/logic, “possibilities” and the lack of all minds to consider this supposed lack of all) is, when thought of from another angle, a “something”. That is, asking how you go from “nothing” to “something” in the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is like saying that you start with a 0 (e.g., “nothing”) and end up with a 1 (e.g., “something”). Because there’s no mechanism in 0 to change it to a 1, the only way you can do this is if the 0 is really a 1 in disguise, and it just looks like a 0 from the one perspective we’ve always looked at it from.
How can “nothing” be seen as a “something”? To answer this, I think we first have to answer why does any “normal” thing, like a book, exist? That is, why is a book a “something”? I think that a thing exists if it is a grouping. Groupings unite things together into a single unit whole and define what is contained within the whole. This grouping together is visually seen and physically present as a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within and that gives “substance” and existence to the thing. Some examples are 1.) the definition of what elements are contained within a set groups those previously individual elements together into a new unit whole called the set, which is visualized as the curly braces surrounding the set and 2.) the grouping together of previously unrelated paper and ink atoms into a new unit whole called a book, which can be visually seen as the surface of the book.
Next, in regard to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, when we get rid of all existent entities including matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, we think what is left is the lack of all existent entities, or “absolute nothing” (here, I don’t mean our mind’s conception of this supposed “absolute nothing”, I mean the supposed “absolute nothing” itself, in which all minds would be gone). This situation is very hard to visualize because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn’t exist. But, once everything is gone, and the mind is gone, this situation, this “absolute lack-of-all”, would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. By its very nature, it defines exactly all that is present (e.g., nothing). Is there anything else besides that “absolute nothing”? No. It is “nothing”, and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or “the all” is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be “absolute nothing” is itself an existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, “absolute nothing”/”the all” is a grouping. It defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. Overall, I think that “something” is necessary because even what we previously considered to be “nothing” is a “something”.
Thanks for listening!
Post a Comment