Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #1201.

See full discussion instead
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions leading to #1201

What do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 year ago·#525· Collapse

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)

Criticism of #1194
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 year ago·#546· Collapse
2nd of 2 versions leading to #1201

Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right? Rules itself out.

Criticism of #525Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year ago·#530· Collapse

Is non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?

(Logan Chipkin)

Criticism of #546
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year ago·#531· Collapse

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)

Knut Sondre Sæbø’s avatar
Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 8 months ago·#1193· Collapse
2nd of 2 versions leading to #1201

A useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.

Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualities

I kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Nothingness as a qunatifier

Typo. Consider revising your idea to resolve this criticism.

Criticism of #1193Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Knut has fixed the typo. @knut-sondre-saebo, be sure to check off addressed criticisms when you revise an idea. Underneath the revision form, there’s a list of criticisms that you can check and uncheck.

Criticism of #1132