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.

Senescent Cosmos

Most of us know that the universe is old…very old. In fact, only in the last few years has science been able to nail down the birth date of the universe with any accuracy. We now know it all began 13.7 billion years ago. In fact, cosmologists are certain enough that they’re confident it wasn't 13.6 or 13.8 billion years ago, but quite exactly 13.7. Just a few years ago, cosmologists weren't sure but what the Big Bang's birthday could have been as little as eight billion years or more than 20 billion years ago. Progress occurs. Isn't it comforting to know just how long this universe has been around? Don't we all want to know our true age?

Science is always refining its knowledge. That's why it appeals to me. We humans think that we are the smartest kid on the planetary block—and maybe we are, but we need to stay humble enough to acknowledge that's there's always room for improvement in our understanding. That's what science is all about: constantly working to improve our limited understanding...realizing that if we keep our minds open and our questioning active, our knowledge will certainly grow.

A British team of cosmologists recently expanded our knowledge of star birth across the universe—and the news can be a little depressing, if we let it. Their bottom-line result: as of this date in the life of our universe, 95% of all the stars that will ever come alive have already been born. Forget how old the cosmos is or how much longer it has to go, it'll only see another measly 5% of its stars come into existence.

Just think if we were to say the same for the human race. We've been around as a unique species for only about 200,000 years. Of all the billions of people who have existed, if we were to have only another 5% to go, that's frightening! Terrifying! It says that we only have just another couple of hundred years to go, and that's the end of humans. Senescence has caught up with us and we are done!

Well, the same is true of the cosmos. What can ease our propensity to panic is that the stars live so incredibly much longer than we do. While Homo sapiens might last a few score years, your average star will hang around for billions of years. Time is relative.

Although cosmologists have nailed down the birth date of the universe, they have yet to get a handle on how long before it winks out. They are sure we have at least 100 billion years to go, and maybe trillions, before that last star dies. Well, that's a time span we flash-in-the-pan humans cannot begin to comprehend—let alone fret about.

Still, it's a sobering thought. Those British cosmologists determined that peak star formation in the universe was about 10 billion years ago, when the cosmos was just a 3.7 billion-year-old baby. At that point, half of all the stars that would ever be formed were burning. It's been downhill ever since. Go out and take a gander at the starry sky soon. In a few billion years it'll be a lot more sparse.