Why is there something rather than nothing? The question seems to stir a sense of awe in
many because, after all, it seems that there should be nothing and yet there is something.
In fact, the philosopher Martin Heidegger called it “the fundamental question
of metaphysics”. In this video, I’ll be exploring the best responses to this question
including analyzing if the question is even answerable and if so, what is the best answer?
Note that I did have a series of videos exploring this topic,
but some commenters mentioned those videos were very tedious, so I’ve rolled them
into one easier-to-understand video with a more clearly defined conclusion.
First, before attempting to answer the question,
one ought to examine if the question makes sense and is answerable at all.
When we begin to question the question, we find that there
are two ways philosophers seem to formulate it.
Version A. Why is there something, rather than nothing?
Version B. Why does anything exist at all?
These may sound the same, but I think question A. presupposes that the concept
of ‘nothing’ is a necessary condition that exists in addition to ‘something’.
We can think of the idea of nothing concept as…
Possibly there might not have been anything It’s possible a state of nothing can exist
There is a possible world in which nothing exists.
But, it may be possible that the concept of nothing makes no sense or never
existed at all. The very structure of question A rules out answers that question B does not. So,
let’s proceed with the question rephrased as Why does anything exist at all?
All the possible responses to the question will fall into the following categories.
First, the question can be answerable or not answerable.
If the response is a ‘not answerable’ one, then the response can fall into two categories:
meaningless and meaningful. A meaningless response just means the question itself is
illogical or a pseudo question. It’s not meaningful and we can’t answer it. On the
other hand, the question may be logical to ask and meaningful, but still unanswerable at this time.
If there is an answer, it will most likely be one of the following types of answers:
necessitarian, theistic, axiological, or brute-fact.
Ok, so let’s briefly explore in a nutshell each of these types of responses. Then,
I’ll conclude at the end what I think the best response to the question is at this time.
First, let’s assume the question is answerable and start with Axiologial-type answers.
Philosophers and scientists such as John Leslie, Max Tegmark, and Nicholas Rescher believe abstract
objects and concepts explain why there is anything at all. Why would they think that?
Think of the concept of ‘nothing’ as having different levels to it.
First, we have the world as we know it with concrete things,
at the next level there are no concrete things, but maybe just the laws of nature
and time or space. Another level could be just abstract objects like mathematics,
value, or probability, the concept that something could happen.
These abstract objects could be eternal, existing outside of time,
and can’t really be created or destroyed. They are axiomatic, without cause or explanation.
For instance, Leslie’s theory of Axiarchism states there is something because it’s ethically good
that it exists. In his book Value and Existence, he details that something exists because it is the
product of a directly active ethical requirement, which, as a matter of fact, not logic, has proven
sufficient to make things exist. Goodness, for him, is axiomatic and brought about our universe.
For Tegmark, math is axiological explains
existence as detailed in his book Our Mathematical Universe.
Next, Necessitarian answers claim that something necessarily has to exist
because a state of ‘nothing at all’ is impossible.
Perhaps the most notable of these types of answers is Peter Van
Inwagen’s probabilistic argument for existence.
His argument basically goes as follows:
There are some beings.
If there is more than one possible world, there are infinitely many possible worlds.
There is at most one possible world in which there are no beings.
For any two possible worlds, the probability of their being actual is equal.
We know there are some beings since we exist,
and there is a possible world in which there’s absolutely nothing. Both of these
can equally exist. Plus, if there’s more than one possible world, which there is, there are
infinitely many possible worlds. Therefore, it’s more likely something exists rather than nothing.
Imagine a dartboard that contains all possible combinations a universe can be.
The very middle is a world that’s totally empty with no concrete or abstract concepts.
If you close your eyes and throw a dart, chances are you'll hit a world that isn’t totally empty.
An empty world with absolutely nothing in it can exist but is
as improbable as you can ever get. Thus something exists.
Next, we have Theistic Answers.
Theistic responses claim God necessarily has to exist,
therefore making the concept of complete nothingness impossible.
The most notable and cited theistic argument today is the Kalam Cosmological Argument,
an older argument from Islamic scholasticism
that has been given a modern formulation by theologian William Lane Craig.
Here’s the basic form of the argument.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Craig writes that contingent objects can’t appear ex nihilo or out of nothing. Craig defends that
the Universe had a beginning by citing a proof, created by 11th-century Persian Muslim philosopher
Al-Ghazali, that actual infinity is impossible, so things can’t have an infinite series of causes.
So, given its conclusion, Craig appends a further conclusion based upon an analysis
of what caused the Universe, as follows:
4. The Universe has a cause.
5. If the Universe has a cause, then an uncaused,
personal Creator of the Universe exists, who without the Universe is beginningless,
changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
6. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the Universe exists, who sans the universe
is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and infinitely powerful.
Essentially, the cause of the universe had to be all-powerful, all-knowing,
and all-benevolent because we’re here in existence contemplating the issue. What or whoever caused
the universe had to be able to conceive of us, be powerful enough to create it, and be benevolent
to bring us forth. This description matches the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of God
and his attributes. Therefore something exists because God is a fundamental fact of reality.
However, not all are convinced of this and similar theistic arguments,
leading us to the ‘Brute Fact’ response.
First, a brute fact is a fact that cannot be further explained or explains itself.
Bertrand Russell, in his famous debate
“Debate on the Existence of God,” with Frederick Copleston in 1964, stated,
there’s no explanation needed” and “the universe is just there, and that’s all.”
For Russell, the universe is a brute fact that needs no explanation. If theists essentially claim
God is a brute fact, why can’t atheists claim the universe or
energy is a brute fact. Energy could be is eternal and something that never created.
But, what if the best response to the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’
or ‘why is there anything at all really’ unanswerable?
The question could be meaningless and
unanswerable. A position sometimes called the deflationary response.
For example, logical positivists believe the question isn’t answerable because the
only real knowledge we have is that of direct observation or a priori logical statements (i.e.,
all bachelors are unmarried. Metaphysics as a whole is not doable.
However, logical positivism has died out for the most part as it’s a self-defeating philosophy
that drains philosophy and science of their true purpose: to understand reality better.
The statement that says “only statements which can be verified by experience are meaningful”
is in itself not verifiable by logical positivism.
The philosopher Paul Edwards has attacked the semantics of the question, particularly the ‘why’
part. Edwards stated that for anything x why it happened or why it is what it is,
we presuppose that there are conditions that existed before x which can explain x. However,
when we ask ‘‘why there is anything at all?’ there can be no antecedent
conditions of this kind. ‘Why’ doesn’t make sense in this case.
But, as we have already seen, the question may invoke self-explanatory conditions,
or have an abnormal answer. Many philosophers who’ve taken
a look at Edward’s response think it’s too strong of a conclusion.
So, it appears the question of existence can be asked in
ordinary English and does not disobey any grammatical maxims or semantical issues.
Is it possible that the question doesn’t have an answer, yet is meaningful to us somehow?
In his book, The Felt Meanings of the World’ philosopher Quentin Smith believes just that.
Smith believes there is no rational answer to the fundamental question, however, we can have a type
of affective, emotional answer. The question can be felt as meaningful as we can feel an
appreciation for existence even though we can’t rationally understand it or answer it. Just as if
we can have a metaphysics of rational thinking, one can have a metaphysics of felt emotions.
Existence is just a brute fact that we can feel is there,
which gives the question meaning despite no logical answer.
So, those are all the possible responses. Which is the best?
Well, philosophers have refuted all types of axiological and
necessitarian arguments pretty clearly.
The axiological arguments fail because we have no reason to believe abstract
objects can create things. The necessitarian arguments fail because of the issue with
assuming probabilities at the start. We have to know something about how the probabilities are
distributed in the first place in these arguments, which is impossible.
The theistic answer seems to fail because the concept of God being all-powerful,
all-knowing, and all-benevolent and moral leads to many paradoxes.
Russell’s brute-fact response, in which we argue for a more naturalistic brute fact, is a
more coherent, simpler, and thus better answer at this time, I think, than the theistic responses.
However, in Russell’s answer, the universe or some aspect of it is a
brute fact and eternal in a sense, is not a satisfying answer.
Especially since we don’t know for sure if energy or some part of the universe
is eternal or what exactly time, eternity being a concept relating to, really is.
Plus, isn’t the job of metaphysics to find a fully coherent, satisfying answer in the first place?
That leaves us with the ‘meaningful but not answerable’ response,
which i think is the best response.
I think the best response is that if there is an answer, it lies outside
of current human conception and language, at least for the time being. For instance,
we run into trouble when trying to conceive of the idea of a ‘pure nothing’. Doesn’t the
concept of pure nothing mean that pure nothing can’t be pure nothing, then?
Perhaps to some degree, we can conceive of this concept.
Still, it seems we are beginning to seriously push the boundaries of language and logic
when we attempt to dive in and answer the fundamental question or provide a
space in which to answer it. This concept seems like a paradox to me.
Human language and reason have hit a black hole of knowledge, so to speak,
which for right now, we can’t see clearly past.
And, even if we can conceive of pure nothing, I think a coherent,
satisfying answer and certainty lies beyond our understanding at the moment.
There may be a point where we can answer this question, which we should strive for. Just
saying that because we don’t know the answer right now, therefore, we shouldn’t waste time,
money, or resources pursuing an answer, is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. So we should
continue to ask the question, but not let it totally consume our lives and get on with living.
So, let me know what you think of anything covered in this video and your answer to
‘why there is something, rather than nothing?’ is. Make sure to subscribe.