Hobbs

Why is there something as opposed to nothing?

Well, why not? What's there to stop it from existing?

joedad

It's like asking, "Why is there reality, and not unreality?" Obviously, nothingness constitutes unreality. What's that?

And as we all know from our Star Trek, "nothing unreal exists."

Liquidrage

Woah now people.

Lets not just brush off the question as something that science couldn't tackle. It is a real question and it doesn't just belong to philosophy. People are attempting and trying to get somewhere with this question scientifically. From what I mentioned above to Hawking's P-Branes. They're not there yet, but it doesn't mean the only answers will be semantic.

eh

Anyone who tries to explain a universe emerging from a prior 'nothing' clearly does not believe in logic. Why not then, just claim magic (outside the relam of logic) brought the universe into existence?

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

galiel

The question of the OP was not, "what was the origin of the universe?" The question was, "why is there something as opposed to nothing?"

It is a nonsensical question, because, as I said, if there were nothing there wouldn't be anyone to ask the question.

Autonemesis

But is there something? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, so to speak?

How can you tell if there is something? What do you compare something to, in order to determine that it is not nothing? Seriously, you have to answer the question "Is there something?" convincingly before you can ask "Why?" I'm not convinced, so your question is moot.

echidna

And yet if I were to ask why homo sapiens developed a brain structure to support consciousness (or more to the point, how !!), it is quite meaningful question which is being constructively researched.

Because without such a brain structure neither could we ask this question.

Until space-time and the TOE can be proven to be logical necessities, the question stands IMO.

Meek acceptance of the status quo is as good as Goddidit.

eh

Because to deny there is something, is self refuting. I think, therefore I am.

galiel

Sigh. Apples and oranges. No point in keeping repeating the same point over and over. You believe the question has meaning, I do not. Go ahead and do your best to give it a meaningful answer, then. I'd love to hear it--not a lecture about "how" the universe came about, but a rational answer to "why" it did.

You are confusing certainty with science, as clearly evident in your constant reference to other issues of legitimate scientific research.

Science is not about certainty or "truth", it is about developing useful, universal models of human experience. Stating that certain questions have no meaning or are formulated in such as way as to preclude answering them is not "meek acceptance of the status quo". It is a pragmatic judgement of utility.

echidna

So are you saying that nothing regarding the ontological nature of spacetime and the TOE is worth investigating whatsoever ? That ontology itself is also entirely meaningless ?

I don’t understand, you seem to be saying :

1. That if science can’t answer the question then the question has been worded badly. So can the question of the TOE’s existence be worded better, or do we just take it as a given (ie. TOE dunnit) ?
2. That there is absolutely no possible way that the TOE can ever be logically necessary. It would also be a bold statement given our current understanding.

Maybe scratch “meek acceptance of the status quo” & substitute “denial”.

Personally I’m entirey agnostic on the answer to the question, but you seem to have made your mind up quite firmly that the question doesn't even deserve acknowledgement.