Why not nothing?

[shnarkle]

It's an old question. One that Heidegger and others have puzzled over for centuries. We can ask these why questions about anything and everything, but when it comes to "why No-thing" there is no possible answer to the question. So why is it still a meaningful question? If there is nothing to ask about, then what is the meaning of why?

Perhaps we could say it is a contradictory question. How can there be a why to ask a why when the why asks nothing? After all, nothing has no reason to be what it isn't. An empty thought is not an answer. If nothingness were the answer, there would be no question and no one to ask the question in the first place.

However, when the question is put to Being, Nothingness can be assumed as a real possibility. These formal extrapolations need not be sustained by a real state of affairs. This suggests a further inquiry into why or how there can be thoughts independant of any content of thought. The question itself relegates being to the sidelines in favor of "pure" thought, or as Thomas asserts:

"If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness" - de aeternitate mundi

[Divine Insight]

It is true that the question of why there exists anything at all is a mind-blowing question that our brains simply cannot make any sense of. This question has "bothered" me since I first began to post it.

And it doesn't even need to be a "Why?" question. In other words, I'm quite content with simply asking "How?". How is it that anything could possible exist? From whence did it come?

When it comes to theological ideas, I see no comfort in those answers. The answer, "There must exist a God" is as meaningless to me as simply saying, "There must exist something".

In fact, if the question is, "How is it that anything can exist at all?", saying that some "God" created everything doesn't even begin to address the question because the proposed "God" itself would be included in the "all". The question would still remain, "How can this God exist? From whence did it come?"

To claim that it is eternal and has always exists seems to me to be an insult to the original question. It hasn't answered the original question, all it has done is belittle the original question to being meaningless in the face of theology. I personally don't see any value in that kind of "answer" at all. In fact, as far as I'm concerned it's not an answer at all. If we can't explain why there exists a God, then we're still stuck with the original unanswered question.

On a secular scientific front, a potential "answer" appears to be that the physical world did actually spring from "nothing". And by this I simply mean that, from a physics perspective, it is possible the the sum total energy (and therefore also the mass) of the universe ultimately sums to zero. In other words, the universe is made of basically "nothing".

Just for those who are interested in the math and physics, the idea is that gravity is the opposite of energy. And since gravity is the stretching of the fabric of spacetime (a "fabric" that we don't really understand at all itself), the sum total gravity of the universe is precisely equal to (and of opposite value) to the sum total energy of the universe. So in this sense the entire universe sums to zero (i.e. nothing)

Of course, this still doesn't answer the question of "How?". How is it that "nothing" can fluctuate to create energy and gravity? There must be something to this "nothing". In other words, it must be "something" that is capable of fluctuating to produce these results.

So we end up with an unexplained stuff that can fluctuate and give rise to the physical world we experience, see all around us, and are even a part of, obviously.

If we want to get "theological" about it and call that unexplained stuff "God", that's fine. And this would be the basis of something like Taoism. You can't "know" what the Tao is. All you can know is that the Tao is what gives rise to all that exits. It's a "theology" that doesn't even attempt to try to define what the Tao is. If you want to call the Tao "God" no one will stop you. But if you want go further to claim to know something about the Tao, everyone will just laugh at all.

Where theologies go awry is when they proclaim that there exists some personified God who makes all manner of directives, commandments, and demands upon how humans should behave, etc. At that point, not only do we have no explanation for the exist of this mysterious "God", but then it also becomes a social division between those who claim to know something about this "God" versus others who claim to know different things about the same God, and so on. Never mind the neutral people who don't even claim to know anything about any Gods.

I have since come to embrace the scientific explanation of a fluctuating "field" that simply creates something from nothing via the physics I had previously explained above. It's anyone's guess why or how that original field exists.

If I were going to embrace a theological perspective it would need to be along the lines of "Taoism", at least in the primal sense that no one can know what causes the Tao to exist or exactly what it is.

As far as I can see the Taoists are basically taking the same position as the scientists. Something obviously exists, but apparently we can't know anything about it.

I've come to accept this "answer". The answer simply being that it's a question we will never know the answer to.

Life is a mystery. Que sera sera, whatever will be will be.

That's the best we can do. That's our reality.

Worrying about questions that cannot be answered is a fool's journey. Learning to accept that there are some things that just cannot be known brings everlasting peace.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

It is true that the question of why there exists anything at all is a mind-blowing question that our brains simply cannot make any sense of.

This isn't the question of the OP.

This question has "bothered" me since I first began to post it.

I must admit that I find it a bit bothersome as well given that it has nothing to do with the OP.

How is it that anything could possible exist? From whence did it come?

Now we're getting somewhere, or perhaps (depending on how you want to look at it) nowhere. Now you're asking about the origin which indicates that what is, could not have always been, or it would necessarily lead to an infinite regression which means there is no origin. In other words, your question collapses in on itself, or as they say: 'It's turtles all the way down".

When it comes to theological ideas, I see no comfort in those answers.

Perhaps because they're only ideas. What comfort can an idea actually provide? After all, it's just an idea, right? One must not be in all that much discomfort to begin with if all that is necessary to provide comfort is an idea presented to them.

The answer, "There must exist a God" is as meaningless to me as simply saying, "There must exist something".

What is so meaningless about pointing out that what does exist, must exist? It's quite coherant actually. There must exist something is a bit redundant as something does exist. It may not be true, but it certainly isn't meaningless. It simply means that what exists must exist. The fact is that it probably is true that what exists, must exist. While it's a bit redundant to point out that what exists must exist, it is nonetheless coherent and therefore meaningful.

In fact, if the question is, "How is it that anything can exist at all?", saying that some "God" created everything doesn't even begin to address the question because the proposed "God" itself would be included in the "all".

It does address the question which is more than I can say for your reply to this OP. God may be included in the "all", but this in and of itself doesn't preclude the answer from addressing the question. Everything doesn't necessarily include the "all" due to the fact that the "all" includes more than just things. Likewise, the "all" can't be included in "everything" as most definitions of God are synonymous with transcendence, and omniscience which necessarily excludes God from everything, and especially everything that can be known.

One could also point out that the reality of the whole is not the whole of reality.

The question would still remain,

I doubt it.

"How can this God exist? From whence did it come?"

Most religious texts quickly move on to the idea that God is the origin; the "whence" from which everything comes rather than the things themselves.

To claim that it is eternal and has always exists seems to me to be an insult to the original question.

My original question? Now that you mention it, I suppose it is.

as far as I'm concerned it's not an answer at all.

I've noticed this is somewhat of a common pattern in this post.

If we can't explain why there exists a God, then we're still stuck with the original unanswered question.

Actually even if one were to come up with an answer, we're still stuck with the original unanswered as well as unaddressed question of "'why not nothing"?.

The question of why God exists, isn't really all that difficult if we look at the fact that there is such a thing as existence. There's no explanation for existence coming into existence. What exists can only exist because there is such a thing as existence in the first place, and the origin of existence cannot be without producing yet again, "turtles all the way down".

Again, the ancient texts all indicate that "God" is the origin or source of existence, and there simply is no need to prove that nothing exists as it is a contradiction in terms. So the problem isn't in proving God exists, but in understanding that what exists isn't God. Asking for proof or an explanation is pointless, and borders on bewildering.

On a secular scientific front, a potential "answer" appears to be that the physical world did actually spring from "nothing".

You're using an aweful lot of quotation marks. More to the point, if we simply substitute God for nothing, we're really not coming up with anything new at all. Same old tired idea, different name.

And by this I simply mean that, from a physics perspective, it is possible the the sum total energy (and therefore also the mass) of the universe ultimately sums to zero. In other words, the universe is made of basically "nothing".

No, it's not possible. Why not? Because you can't add nothing to something, nor can you add anything to nothing. There's quite simply nothing to add to.

Just for those who are interested in the math and physics, the idea is that gravity is the opposite of energy. And since gravity is the stretching of the fabric of spacetime (a "fabric" that we don't really understand at all itself), the sum total gravity of the universe is precisely equal to (and of opposite value) to the sum total energy of the universe. So in this sense the entire universe sums to zero (i.e. nothing)

That doesn't even seem mildly compelling. Given that it has practically nothing to do with this OP, it is even less so. Then again, perhaps it is nothing. The more I look at it, I can't help but see that you've just posted nothing. I don't know how this is even possible, but it appears that you've just answered one of the most existentially disturbing questions of the last three millennia by actually posting what was once thought impossible to even exist outside the realm of thought; namely nothing.

Of course, this still doesn't answer the question of "How?".

More importantly, it doesn't even address this OP.

How is it that "nothing" can fluctuate to create energy and gravity?

Even more interesting, how does that have anything to do with this OP?

To say, "How is it that "God" can fluctuate to create energy and gravity?" isn't really any different than using a different word for nothing.

There must be something to this "nothing".

No, there is nothing to nothing. When one adds nothing to something they don't get something more than what they started out with. More to the point, one could just as easily say,"There must be something to this 'God'", and come to the same conclusions.

In other words, it must be "something" that is capable of fluctuating to produce these results.

No, one could just as easily say, "It must be "God" that is capable of fluctuating to produce these results". Substituting "something" for God doesn't explain anything. Moreover, what you're claiming now doesn't really square with what you just posted:

The answer, "There must exist a God" is as meaningless to me as simply saying, "There must exist something".

To say "it must be something" is no different than saying "There must exist something" so according to your own logic, you aren't saying anything that is meaningful to you. I would only add that it isn't meaningful to this OP either.

I doubt any physicist would suggest that physics is necessary to point out that an effect requires a cause. Simple logic will suffice. They would also point out that "something" has no explanatory power whatsoever, and is not going to be all that relavent in any theories. Here again, I would only add that "something" is about as useful as "God".

So we end up with an unexplained stuff that can fluctuate and give rise to the physical world we experience, see all around us, and are even a part of, obviously.

Obviuosly? What's obviuosly? God? The biblical texts offer more in the way of explanation than whatever that was supposed to be.

If we want to get "theological" about it and call that unexplained stuff "God", that's fine. And this would be the basis of something like Taoism.

Despite this obsession with God, the fact is that Taoism has nothing to do with God. When you introduce God into the equation, which seems to be something you are insisting on for some unknown reason; you are then entering into areas like Judaism, Christianity, the religion of Islam, Hinduism, monotheism, polytheisim, pantheism, panentheism, etc. There are no gods in Taoism. As soon as you start talking about gods, you're not talking about Taoism.

You can't "know" what the Tao is. All you can know is that the Tao is what gives rise to all that exits.

You seem to have your own personal definition of Taoism. There is no "what" to the Tao.

It's a "theology" that doesn't even attempt to try to define what the Tao is.

No, with or without quotation marks, it is not a theology. One of the most pertinent reasons being that the Tao has nothing to do with any gods; at the very least none that can be articulated.

If you want to call the Tao "God" no one will stop you. But if you want go further to claim to know something about the Tao, everyone will just laugh at all.

No one will stop you because no one cares. Correct me if I'm wrong, but now that you've clarified that you know nothing about the Tao, we can safely assume you weren't inviting us all to laugh at you.

Where theologies go awry is when they proclaim that there exists some personified God

Personification in itself isn't the problem, but ignorance of just what personification is attempting to do which is to jump outside the laws of language to get an idea across. Science does it all the time, and with similar results. There are actually people who believe that genes are selfish, or that there is such a thing as "junk DNA".

we have no explanation for the exist of this mysterious "God", but then it also becomes a social division between those who claim to know something about this "God" versus others who claim to know different things about the same God, and so on.

Sort of like scientists who disagree over contested theories, right? Look at how scientists are struggling to control the narrative for their theories to be blessed with acceptance. Once that happens they're then the "authorities" on the subject. They get the funding. They get to determine what must be done to save the planet from flatulent cattle, or dangerously high waves that only surfers could truly enjoy.

I have since come to embrace the scientific explanation of a fluctuating "field" that simply creates something from nothing via the physics I had previously explained above.

It sounds more like a myth especially due to the fact that myths must be embraced, but even that's giving it more credit than it deserves. Myths have some explanatory power. They make sense. They give context to what is observed rather than just some arbitrary guessing game. As your next comment seems to affirm:

It's anyone's guess why or how that original field exists.

Put another way, "It's anyone's guess why or how God exists". Here again, a more pertinent question would be "why not nothing?" As it turns out, this is actually the question asked in the OP.

If I were going to embrace a theological perspective it would need to be along the lines of "Taoism",

Why? Taoism isn't theological. What you've posted so far seems to indicate a more direct interest with God due to your embracing origins that create what exists from nothing. Change a few words, and you've got the first chapter of Genesis. There's no essential or effective difference; just insignificant differences in nomenclature.

at least in the primal sense that no one can know what causes the Tao to exist or exactly what it is.

There is no "what" to cause the Tao to exist. It isn't about knowledge either.

As far as I can see the Taoists are basically taking the same position as the scientists. Something obviously exists, but apparently we can't know anything about it.

No, it isn't that we can't know, but that we can't articulate reality. Knowledge is a reflective faculty, and therefore derived from reality, and derivitives are not what they are derived from. We can know plenty about it. The problem is in conflating what we know with what is. In other words, knowledge is not reality. Knowledge of being is not being.

More to the point of this OP, knowledge of nothing is not nothing. As I pointed out before, the thought of nothing is something; it's a thought. Thoughts exist as thoughts, even when the thought concerns nothing. In other words, just because nothing doesn't exist, doesn't mean we can't think or talk about nothing. Empty concepts are still concepts.

I've come to accept this "answer". The answer simply being that it's a question we will never know the answer to.

The Tao doesn't speak for anyone else, and using the plural "we" will not prevent others from coming up with answers, even answers they know to the questions they actually asked.

Life is a mystery. Que sera sera, whatever will be will be.

And the ancients said the same thing with "I will be what I will be". Notice that what will be is not what is, and that what is becoming exists. It just isn't what it will become. The only exception being (pun intended) the origin of being.

That's the best we can do. That's our reality.

It does seem to be the best you can do, and it does seem to be your reality, but it certainly isn't our reality.

Worrying about questions that cannot be answered is a fool's journey. Learning to accept that there are some things that just cannot be known brings everlasting peace.

Accepting that some can respond to a question without ever addressing it will not bring everlasting peace, but it is certainly more acceptable and entertaining when the person replying admits that they can't possibly know what they're talking about.

[Divine Insight]

This isn't the question of the OP.

Well, if the question of the OP is, "So why is it still a meaningful question?"

Then the answer is simply that it's not a meaningful question.

I'm pretty sure I had already answered that question as well.

[shnarkle]

This isn't the question of the OP.

Well, if the question of the OP is, "So why is it still a meaningful question?"

Then the answer is simply that it's not a meaningful question.

Non sequitur. It is a meaningful question, and I pointed out why it was not only meaningful, but necessary.

I'm pretty sure I had already answered that question as well.

I'm pretty sure you didn't, but I admire your ability to post so much in response to what you believed to be meaningless.

[Divine Insight]

This isn't the question of the OP.

Well, if the question of the OP is, "So why is it still a meaningful question?"

Then the answer is simply that it's not a meaningful question.

Non sequitur. It is a meaningful question, and I pointed out why it was not only meaningful, but necessary.

I'm pretty sure I had already answered that question as well.

I'm pretty sure you didn't, but I admire your ability to post so much in response to what you believed to be meaningless.

The answer to the question is indeed that it's a meaningless question. Apparently you aren't understanding this.

This is a question of pure philosophy. Right?

But the problem is that pure philosophy is dead.

Why? Because it has been historically demonstrated on many occasions that trying to answer questions using pure thought along will produce meaningless results.

What do we mean by meaningless? Well, the answered provided by pure philosophy have nothing at all to do with any known reality. And many of the answers have been demonstrated to be complete false with respect to known reality.

Therefore questions of pure philosophy are meaningless in that they cannot produce answer that have any meaning or value with respect to realistic truths.

This is why science has broken off from pure philosophy. In fact, what is actually true is that science has become "philosophy matured". Science is the ultimate end game of philosophy. Why? Because science has recognized that the only meaningful questions are questions that we can indeed answer. And not just with frivolous guesses, but answers that can be shown to be factually true.

So the question, "Why not nothing?", is a meaningless question unless you can demonstrate an concrete fact-based answer based upon known reality.

Clearly you cannot do this.

Therefore the question is meaningless.

It may not be "meaningless" to you in terms of any personal emotional feelings. In other words, you may feel that it's a meaningful question to ask. But the problem with this is that it's really only a meaningful question to ask if, and only if, you can answer it. Or at least demonstrate how it could be answered by known facts of reality.

Since you cannot do the latter, the question is meaningless, even if it might seem to be emotionally meaningful to you. Emotionally wanting to have an answer to a question does not make the question meaningful in any practical sense.

Hopefully, this clears things up for you.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

The answer to the question is indeed that it's a meaningless question.

This would seem to be your answer, but this doesn't actually answer the question. If the question were: "Is this a meaningless question?", then your response would be an answer to that question. The answer to "So why is it still a meaningful question? is not "It's a meaningless question".

Apparently you aren't understanding this.

I understand that you have answered a question that wasn't asked.

This is a question of pure philosophy. Right?

Not necessarily. It's a question of ontology, and the fact that being presupposes the possibility of nothingness. Ontology has cosmology as one of it's metaphysical siblings. Metaphysics is only a branch of philosophy, but given that it includes the structure of the universe, I don't see how one would then conclude it should be ignored by science.

The idea presents itself to the mind, even though the content of the idea is in itself, nothing. As I pointed out before, it needn't be real, especially when we're talking about nothing. Perhaps you believe nothing is real, and you're perfectly within your rights to believe whatever you please, but for the sake of argument, or if you prefer science; perhaps it may be more enlightening to confine our arguments to some of the more obvious facts.

But the problem is that pure philosophy is dead.

Well, I can see how there are definitely people who are not on friendly terms with wisdom, but I don't see how this necessarily demonstrates the mortality of philosophy.

Why? Because it has been historically demonstrated on many occasions that trying to answer questions using pure thought along will produce meaningless results.

Many more often than not, or just many as in more than one? I guess we can toss out theoretical science then, right? I don't see how you come to these conclusions when theories which are basicaly hunches turn out to be proven correct years, perhaps even decades later.

What do we mean by meaningless?

Meaningless means that there is no meaning. The problem is that it necessarily requires meaning in order to comprehend that it is meaningless. A better question would be the meaning of "why not nothing?"

Well, the answered provided by pure philosophy have nothing at all to do with any known reality.

They do have something to do with what is known though, and from that standpoint, they are just as valid as science, reason, etc. Things may be known, and things may be real, but reality isn't a known thing. Reality may also be relative to what is known, but it is never known. Reality that is mediated by the intellect is not reality. It is derived from reality, and derivitives of reality are not reality.

And many of the answers have been demonstrated to be complete false with respect to known reality.

Many? Perhaps you meant to say, "all"? I could say the same thing with regards to science. Many of science's answers have proven to be false, and the fact is that whenever science comes to any conclusion, scientists tend to get a bit uncomfortable due to the fact that science prides itself on not coming to any conclusions because the best scientists know that they really don't know everything. Some might even go so far as to suggest that we don't know anything. With respect to this topic some might accurately say, we don't know nothing.

The assumption here is that reality is known. The intellect is not a fundamental facet of reality, but only reflects upon reality. The fact is that there is plenty that simply can't be known in the fist place. I'm not referring to the unknown, but to the fact that not everything is knowable. Coincidently, nothing is also unknowable. Science probably has no clue how to proceed due to the fact that science needs to rely upon observation, reproducible results, and falsification. None of those will be of any use in coming to any conclusions about nothing.

So, far from a maturation process of philosophy, science is an immediate and useless dead end.

Therefore questions of pure philosophy are meaningless in that they cannot produce answer that have any meaning or value with respect to realistic truths.

This would seem to be your tautological conclusion, but given that there is no proof of these assertions, and doesn't seem to be any meaning to them either. It makes no sense to come to any conclusions based upon these assumptions.

science has recognized that the only meaningful questions are questions that we can indeed answer. And not just with frivolous guesses, but answers that can be shown to be factually true.

Sounds more like mythology now. As soon as science ventures into truth claims, they're basically the new religion on the block. It is no wonder we have so many people comparing science to religion.

"Why not nothing?", is a meaningless question unless you can demonstrate an concrete fact-based answer based upon known reality.

Not all that is real can be known. The opposite of something is nothing, and nothing can't exist. You can't get more concrete than what exists, and yet it naturally follows that nothing can't exist. Can you provide any concrete facts that demonstrate that nothing exists? You're more than welcome to use science if you think it will help.

Why not nothing? is a question that asks two things:

1. Why isn't it the case that there is nothing? Because if it were the case, then there would be no one to ask the question.
and
2. Are being and nothingness necessarily mutually exclusive?

The answer to the second iteration is that nothingness automaticaly presents itself as a counterweight or in opposition to being. As you have already pointed out, there are some indications that the observable world is composed of nothing. So, once again, science has not ecclipsed philosophy, but simply affirmed the questions are valid and meaningful.

Clearly you cannot do this.

I just did, and I did it with logic, and science.

Therefore the question is meaningless.

It's logical, and quite meaningful given the definition of words.

It may not be "meaningless" to you in terms of any personal emotional feelings. In other words, you may feel that it's a meaningful question to ask. But the problem with this is that it's really only a meaningful question to ask if, and only if, you can answer it.

I just did, but frankly there are plenty of meaningful questions people have asked over the centuries that they simply had no answer to begin with. People tend to ask questions they don't know the answers to, especially when they're interested in learning something. When people ask questions they already know the answers to, they tend to be rhetorical or pointless. Suggesting that this is where science is heading only spotlights that science is heading down the same road most religions go.

I have no emotional investment in the question. It's just an interesting question because of the fact that on some level, nothingness presents itself as a counterweight to being. The fact is that we have a definition for a word with a meaning that points out that it doesn't exist.

Or at least demonstrate how it could be answered by known facts of reality.

The problem is not just that what is known isn't reality, but that reality can't be demonstrated. Reality can't be comprehended because reality is not confined to what the mind may objectively observe. If reality were confined to what is meaningfully and intelligently comprehended or known, it would ultimately point to pure intelligence. While the Intelligent Design crowd may find this satisfactory, I'm not convinced by these somewhat limiting dogmatic claims.

[Divine Insight]

Well, I can see how there are definitely people who are not on friendly terms with wisdom, but I don't see how this necessarily demonstrates the mortality of philosophy.

True wisdom is gained when we recognize the futility of systems of reasoning that have already been shown to be faulty and unproductive. Efforts to defend a failed system of reasoning do not represent wisdom. It's far better to recognize what has already been shown to be true.

[The Tanager]

I'm having some trouble grasping the OP. What do you mean "thoughts independent of any content of thought"? Also, where in De aeternitate mundi is the Aquinas quote from?

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

"If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness"

We know that some thing is what the physical universe is made of. That is what we call it. We do not know if no thing exists.

We do not know that GOD created things from no thing.

I think of the physical universe we are experiencing as a reality, as being a creation of the mind of GOD in the mind of GOD. Thus the mind of GOD might be said to be the same thing as quantum particles.

The shaping of those particles into 'things' is like saying 'all things were created from one thing' rather than from no thing.