Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
Discussion started by Dennis Hackethal
Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas, and submit new ideas.A discussion with Logan Chipkin. Shared with permission. Others are welcome to contribute.
Ayn Rand writes:
[A]lthough few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: “If there is no God, who created the universe?”
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.
In short, she argues that “the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated […]”. Which means that investigations into the origin of the universe are metaphysically invalid because they contradict the primacy of existence.
Sounds like she treats existence as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.
But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should all of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.
Of course the fact that this ‘exist as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.
(Logan Chipkin)
Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.
But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should any of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.
Of course the fact that this ‘existence as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.
(Logan Chipkin)
What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that causes the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the former has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the latter has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right?
Is non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?
(Logan Chipkin)
Btw I do sometimes wonder if the problem of explaining why there’s something rather than nothing is connected to the fact that there’s a difference between Platonic reality and physical reality.
(Logan Chipkin)
If non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.
I would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.
(Logan Chipkin)
I would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.
(Logan Chipkin)
Doesn’t physics presume the existence of physical objects and laws? Ie it presumes the existence of something physical. So it presumes existence itself. In which case physics can’t be the arbiter here.
Good point - philosophy, then.
(Logan Chipkin)
Since you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?
You mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.
(Logan Chipkin)
To the question of existence.
Yes, it should. I am left with no counterargument but a mild sense of dissatisfaction.
(Logan Chipkin)
Inexplicit criticism is good, maybe you can make it explicit someday and we can continue.
People use the same argument to "prove" the existence of God. The existence of anything can then be proved simply by including in the definition that it must exist. Example: Dragons must exist because I can define "dragon" as what is traditionally thought of a dragon, plus the claim that it exists.
Also you can't at the same time say that non-existence is ruled out on logical grounds, and then define it as something that's clearly possible, namely the absence of the universe. It's conflating an abstract concept for a physical one.
Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right? Rules itself out.
Is non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?
(Logan Chipkin)
Btw I do sometimes wonder if the problem of explaining why there’s something rather than nothing is connected to the fact that there’s a difference between Platonic reality and physical reality.
(Logan Chipkin)
If non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.
I would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.
(Logan Chipkin)
I would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.
(Logan Chipkin)
Doesn’t physics presume the existence of physical objects and laws? Ie it presumes the existence of something physical. So it presumes existence itself. In which case physics can’t be the arbiter here.
Good point - philosophy, then.
(Logan Chipkin)
Since you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?
You mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.
(Logan Chipkin)
To the question of existence.
Yes, it should. I am left with no counterargument but a mild sense of dissatisfaction.
(Logan Chipkin)
Inexplicit criticism is good, maybe you can make it explicit someday and we can continue.
People use the same argument to "prove" the existence of God. The existence of anything can then be proved simply by including in the definition that it must exist. Example: Dragons must exist because I can define "dragon" as what is traditionally thought of a dragon, plus the claim that it exists.
Also you can't at the same time say that non-existence is ruled out on logical grounds, and then define it as something that's clearly possible, namely the absence of the universe. It's conflating an abstract concept for a physical one.