Talk:Why there is anything at all

Münchhausen trilemma NIH??

I find it very strange, that this is such a lengthy (badly-structured) article, yet there is not a single mention of the Münchhausen trilemma that is the pivotal problem of the whole thing!
At most, the last paragraph of the first section currently mentions two of the tree possibilities, but doesn’t even mention the causal cycle as the third option.
This whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch. In a strict language of formal logic and observations (of patterns) that doesn’t allow nonsense like opinions, beliefs, delusions, ignorance, stupidity, miscommunication, social standards and wishful thinking to derail it again and again and again and …
— 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.47.158 (talk)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has something on this. Something, and so not nothing. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_is_there_anything_at_all#Why_is_there_anything_at_all for initial page discussion. JCJC777 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

Following the 'deletion?' discussion, I agree with suggestions to (1) rename the page to "Origin of existence", and (2) redirect of "Ultimate question" and "Why is there anything at all" to that renamed page. Please could some wizard with sublime wiki skill action that? JCJC777 (talk) 20.07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777

The move can be done easily - go to the article page, click on the "more" tab, and you'll see a sub-menu item "move". Click that, it brings you to a page that asks for a new title. Make sure the "move talk page" item is clicked (it is by default, just make sure).

However, I think some discussion on the title of the page should take place, first. Would a better title be "origin of matter"? That as it happens, re-directs to Baryogenesis. I'm still unsure of what you are trying to document, which is why I don't know if the title you are suggesting is appropriate. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Tarl N. (discuss) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

Ref. what I am trying to document; it is the completely general question of how come anything at all exists (as set out by Liebniz et al refs in the page). i.e. atoms, laws, maths, pink guineau pigs, the universe(s), consciousness. I have added a sentence to the page intro to try to help on this.

Assuming wiki does not allow questions as page names, then I agree we need better ideas for a page title.

"Origin of existence"; use of 'existence' alone I feel leads thoughts to 'what does existence mean?' and towards thinking about being aware, and consciousness. (Existence is defined as 'the fact or state of living').

"Origin of matter" leads towards thoughts on matter (atoms, etc), and towards mechanisms of Big Bang etc.. As above the scientists and thinkers referenced are pursuing the much more general question of how come anything at all exists. Also some thinkers believe our existence may be virtual, i.e. matter does not exist.

Also 'origin' is defined as 'the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.'

My best suggestion is "Explanations for why there is anything at all existing." A shorter version could be "Explanations for why anything exists." Another option might be to base on Liebniz' words; "Explanations why there is something rather than nothing.'" Can anyone improve? Thanks JCJC777 (talk) 11.00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

• Tradition in philosophy is to refer to questions like this as "problems" - Problem of universals, Problem of evil, Problem of other minds, Problem of future contingents, Problem of induction, Problem of free will. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

godel's incompleteness theorem?

Can we interpret godel's incompleteness theorem in a way that applies it to the article? E.g. our universe/something is the system, and to answer why there is something and not nothing, can not be answered from inside our system, as it applies to our system and its superset. 2A02:1812:172C:F900:E8AC:8969:8232:4EDD (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have included this in the 'question is illogical' explanations section. User:JCJC777

I don't want to contribute directly to the article as I'm involved in the afd discussion, but I would caution the mention. Godel's incompleteness theorem is abused a lot in a pseudoscientific way, and without a credible source for its application, this probably falls foul of WP:OR. Porphyro (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this mention should be removed, as it has no supporting sources, and doesn't explain its rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.229.51 (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am removing this reference. As mentioned, the incompleteness theorems are abused in all type of ways. Currently the mention is vague and doesn't properly explain how it relates to the topic. "System" and "superset" have specific meanings in the context of Godel's theorems and I don't think they can apply to something as general as "the universe". If somebody can find a source that clarifies this connection then it would be more appropriate. Fireballs619 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

True paradox

There's the true paradox, where you build your time machine, go back to the exact moment the universe began, and begin the universe. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's close to the short story "The Last Question" of the "In popular culture" section. I don't think it would answer the question or that there's much use for or similarity to any potential answer to the question. Instead it's just close to those theories that suggest a cyclic universe. --Fixuture (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyclical universe is not necessarily paradox. Could just be a series of repeating iterations. Same with "The Last Question." The computer creates a universe, but we don't know, could be a brand new one. Paradox is raised by a situation like time travel: traveler from this universe travels back in time, specifically starts this universe. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Implicit and inherent bias under Criticism section

Under the section: Criticism of the Question’s Adequacy, it is written:

"Some argue that the question may be inherently illogical; if the universe had no beginning point then its non-existence might never have been an option.[13] One study has suggested a model that eliminates the initial singularity and predicts that the Universe had no beginning but existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before 'collapsing' into the Big Bang's hot dense state.[14][15][16] In other research a possible consequence of ‘rainbow gravity’ might be that the universe had no beginning with time stretching back infinitely without an initial singularity and Big Bang.[17] Similarly physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang, but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed.[18][19]"

But how do any of these conjectures address the subject question? They all suppose that something has always existed ("quantum potential," “rainbow gravity”) that gave rise to the universe, or else the universe itself has always existed, without explaining how such could have existed or exist without an antecedent cause. Accepting such inadequate criticisms that the question itself is inadequate without noting the criticisms’ limitations exhibits bias against the creator hypothesis.

For the record, I agree the question seems illogical, but only because the logic of its answer (and there must be one) is beyond the ability of the human intellect to comprehend, not unlike a computer trying to interpret commands written in a computer language it is not programmed to comprehend. (More on that later if anyone is interested: My default (Sherlock Holmes) explanation.)HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Addendum The question is most decidedly not analogous to asking: “What is north of the North Pole?” Rather, the question is analogous to asking: “Why is there a North Pole?”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

^this. North of the north pole is a classic analogy in physics often used to address the question of “before the big bang”. It was clearly misunderstood or misused, either by whoever wrote this article or by the guy being cited. As you’ve pointed out, this whole page is full of irrelevant nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:A431:E200:FD75:3E63:2998:DCFE (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree and removed several of those passages, as they clearly presume something existing (e.g. quantum mechanics) to start their speculations or misunderstand the question as "why is there a beginning?". I've also tried to generally clean up and focus the article. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps split materials relevant to a different article into that different article? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if there was nothing, you still wouldn't be happy

I heard this quote in a YouTube video of Rebecca Goldstein. She was quoting someone else. I haven't been able to track it down. It's a joking response, but belongs under the "nothing isn't possible" heading. If you can find who said it, please put it in.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Joke made in a YouTube? Doubt that belongs in a serious philosophical topic. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding to that, proper source would still be needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Found that : https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/10/morgenbesserisms/195834/ Lebricoleur64 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Alan Watts quote

Spotted this in a discussion forum, don’t know its provenance: “Isn’t it odd that anything exists? It’s most peculiar. It requires effort, it requires energy, and it would have been so much easier for there to have been nothing at all.” ~Alan Watts

• Hyperbolick (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Argument that "Something" and "Nothing" may be the same thing

I have moved this section here for discussion. As far as I can tell, the sited source is all about a gut doctor, not a neuroscientist, and has nothing to do with metaphysics. Further, I can't make sense of what's being said. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

According to the reciprocating dreams dream analogy proposed by the neuroscientist Muneeb Faiq, one dream implodes and the other explodes into existence and the consciousness in one world implodes/collapses to explode into the other realm. This be happening in reciprocal dream analogy where the observer is just a point (much like an imaginary intersection without any existence of its own)? Howbeit, from this dream argument, it can be argued that ‘nothing exists’ is a possibility and therefore the first question should not be ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ It may be something deeper and original which does not invoke any assumptive axiom. Before arriving at this question it seems that we have to confront some other questions like ‘Is there something rather than nothing?’ Or maybe ‘Is something different than nothing?’ Or ‘Is something the same as nothing?’ Or even ‘What is nothing? What is something?’ These questions disturb the sediment of Cartesian certainty of our existence or of the existence of the universe in the first place.

• Agree, not at all clear what the claim is here. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

References

It is stupid to say "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining" because if there were nothing then there wouldn't be you there to complain114.72.41.187 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC).

If so, take it up with Morgenbesser. Think perhaps you'd still be complaining. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The argument is correct; rationalist German Idealism (Mike Hockney) solved it 2012: nothing is somethings that balance like '1-1=0', 'eⁱˣ=cos x+i sin x. eⁱ^π+1=0' (equation in middle models all reality)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 17:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Article name change

@Seemplez: Was there any discussion about renaming this article? I think the name picked is a tremendously bad idea. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Specifically MOS:AT, The final character should not be punctuation. Either way, having an article title phrased as a question is a bad idea. Wikipedia is about documenting what is known, not about asking questions. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: I did not know that, but "Why there is anything at all" is in my opinion, grammatically incorrect. The title is a much better fit because the article is about a question, which makes it easier to search for. Seemplez 08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Addendum, feel free to move it back. Seemplez 08:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Seemplez: Moved back. The name of this article was discussed previously, both in the first section above and in the AFD earlier. For what it's worth, renaming an article without discussing it in the talk page is a bad idea. I would suggest always adding a talk page section to discuss a move, and wait several days for any response before doing the rename. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The essential idiocy of the question.

In modern contexts, particularly in the cultural milleu of science and the Analytic philosophical tradition, this is not considered a meaningful question and is considered a model case of the meaninglessness of traditional metaphysics generally. The question begs the answer of a first (personal, as why implies whom) cause, which of course is the deity or other personified ignorance of the questioner. This is the real import of the question, to beg the existence of God, or other rebellion against reason, in actual use in the real world although this not always made clear, it is usually self evident in the context of natural discourse.

More precisely, why as opposed to how (the something we see arose from what was before) implies agency. Also this article could have more on scientific theories about what precipitated this universe and how that's different (when it is) from something from nothing. Lycurgus (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

But Lycurgus, don't the scentific theories themselves presuppose a "something" preexisting everything else? A quantum state or a vacuum potential dynamic, or some such? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I wish I could say that was in general the case Hyperbolick, unfortunately it's not. In the shitshow of contemporary physics, in addition to main one you mention, there's plenty of singularity from nothing, precipitation in ekpyriotic cycles and the like. It's not wall-wall though there's people who will stand up for stuff. This month Leonard Susskind gave the Oppenheimer Lecture on ER = EPR, equating General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Essentially he suggests gravity is a holographic projection of the bulk. In the lecture, unfortunately, none of the follow up questions noted the connect to Bell's Theorem. Susskind is noted in the now beleaguered string theory. My personal naive model identifies the cosmic singularity with a one time event, the interaction of the primordial branes, a collision is how it would be portrayed in Peanuts style. So i guess bringing this new thing in, our universe is a holographic image of that event. Lycurgus (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The God of All and Nothing...

The God of All and Nothing...

For I yeild to a God of Nothing, more than one of something grand; For more things have come from nothing and return, I do understand. What with Big Bangs bold as bullets, shooting out from none at all; I would give my last breathe, breathing from which angels stood to fall.

For there is a place called nothing, and a place called shadow too, And as the fallen know they stand, in such a place that knew but few. And as God must be, such light that causes shadows, here, to grow; I am but to Him nothing so to this nothing, I must seem first to go.

Because this world does stand in shadows of His light and others shown, Light that teaches truth, the wisdom, and knowledge of things now known. A soul does crave the light; wants to know the truth and peace because. For in darkness we become the dark and let our souls embrace more flaws.

Darkness is of nothing; can decrease your joy and touch; darkly dying, In a spiral, of a life devoid of such; that is light and truth and joy, Given by a God above; for joy comes of now a knowing; more of what we touch.

Of the dark we speak of nothings but some things do haunt the land, Fallen angels and unspeakables that twist and grope, and shake the hands. I would rather turn to nothing; be in the memory of such a God so great. So to return to everlasting, and to the judgement I would make a date.

Now to the Nothing, I don't fear; for the books do say the dead do sleep; And in the memory of God, where nothing lives, I think I would not weep. But bring me out of such a slumber, built on dreams of more and a new wish. To take me out of memory thats nothing and to eternity I would be a dish.

Pour forth forever after; for our bodies only take from something given; The grace of God; forgiveness and the ability to join now the; enliven. For I've been good, I'd cry, and given too, and always tried to learn; Of the very much that came from nothing and the darkness I did spurn.

Of the shadows that we live in of the Light and God and other men; I know I still live in shadow of the light of God and so other then, To be in light I crave and when, I ask and try and move to thee; In life do I have to eat the fruit of good and evil and their tree.

DRB More to come... Engendao (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The First And Final Question

Perhaps the Universe is answering the First and Final Question; Is Something Better Than Nothing ? ! 2601:646:9A80:EA0:447E:DDEB:56AB:4DD1 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Leibniz Quote

The Leibniz quote is used twice, in both the Mathematical Necessity section and the God section, both times without much explanatation. Suggest removing from at least one section, citing "the above leibniz quote" in the other as needed, and provide some additional context as to the meaning, because it is a bit opaque to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmb720 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)