Skeptic: Examining Extraordinary Claims and Promoting Science Skeptic: Examining Extraordinary Claims and Promoting Science

top navigation:

Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 | ISSN 1556-5696

eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society

Share this eSkeptic with friends online. Subscribe | Donate | Watch Lectures | Shop


Follow Daniel Loxton on Twitter, Facebook, and Skepticblog.

NEW FROM DANIEL LOXTON ON SKEPTICBLOG.ORG
Some of My Work In Skeptical History

Daniel Loxton gathers together an annotated list and links to a few of his pieces related to the history of scientific skepticism.

READ THE POST

Should Scientific Skeptics Care About History?

Daniel Loxton shares a slightly adapted version of his introduction to the Preserving Skeptical History workshop at The Amazing Meeting 2013 conference in Las Vegas.

READ THE POST

FOLLOW DANIEL LOXTON ON TWITTERFACEBOOKSKEPTICBLOG

Skepticality logo
Abominable Science!
SKEPTICALITY EPISODE 213

The new book penned by Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero, Abominable Science!, made its debut in an exclusive pre-release on the first day of The Amazing Meeting (TAM) 2013. While at the conference, Derek sat down with Daniel and Donald to learn more about this informative tome. Hear their thoughts about their research into the many cryptozoological topics covered by the book — this week on Skepticality.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 213

SUBSCRIBE ON iTUNES

FOLLOW THE RSS FEED

Get the Skepticality App

Get the Skepticality App — the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society, so you can enjoy your science fix and engaging interviews on the go! Available for iOS, Android, and Windows 8 devices.

Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on the App Store
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available at Amazon for Android
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on Windows Store

NASA Hubble Space Telescope's eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) photo, assembled from 10 years of  photographs taken of a patch of sky at the center of the original Hubble Ultra Deep Field.

NASA Hubble Space Telescope’s eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) photo, assembled from 10 years of photographs taken of a patch of sky at the center of the original Hubble Ultra Deep Field. (Credit: NASA; ESA; G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch, University of California, Santa Cruz; R. Bouwens, Leiden University; and the HUDF09 Team)

About this week’s eSkeptic

Lump together literally everything contained in ultimate reality. Now call it all by the simple name “Something.” Why is there “Something” rather than “Nothing”? Is not Nothing, no world, simpler and easier than any world; is it not so that Nothing would have been the least arbitrary and “most natural” state of affairs? In this week’s eSkeptic, Robert Lawrence Kuhn explores the essence of Nothing, or what he calls “Levels of Nothing.” This article appeared in Skeptic magazine issue 18.2 (2013).

Share this article with friends online.
Click the + for more options.
Subscribe to Skeptic magazine for more great articles like this one, and if you enjoy reading them, consider making a tax-deductible donation to the Skeptics Society.

Levels of Nothing
There Are Multiple Answers to the Question
of Why the Universe Exists

by Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Nothing, of late, is something of a scandal. Physicists and philosophers debate the efficacy of quantum physics, and the value of philosophical analysis, to explain why there is Something rather than Nothing.1 In Skeptic magazine Vol. 13 No. 2 (2007), I confronted my life-long obsession with Nothing. Entitled “Why This Universe: Toward a Taxonomy of Ultimate Explanations,” the article described my existential angst and offered some 27 possible “ultimate explanations.” I suggested that while “Why Not Nothing?” may seem impenetrable, “Why This Universe?”, energized by remarkable advances in cosmology, may be accessible. While they are not at all the same question, perhaps if we can begin to decipher the latter, we can begin to decrypt the former.

After the article was published, Skeptic editor Michael Shermer encouraged me to expand the article into a book. I approached the philosopher John Leslie, who for decades had focused on Something/Nothing and whom I had come to know through our discussions on Closer To Truth, the PBS television series that I created and host, and we set about to co-edit a book of readings and commentaries on the ultimate question.

The Mystery of Existence: Why is there Anything At All? (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), long in gestation, presents the ideas of contemporary thinkers as well as some others throughout intellectual history, grouped under five possible “solutions” to the “Why-is-there- Something-rather-than-Nothing?” puzzle:

  1. a blank is absurd;
  2. no explanation needed;
  3. chance;
  4. value/perfection as ultimate; and
  5. mind/consciousness as ultimate.

In this article I shall explore the essence of Nothing, or what I call “Levels of Nothing,” especially in light of recent debates and public interest.2 Why “Levels” of Nothing? That’s where the confusion lies.

What is it About Nothing?

Lump together everything that exists and might exist—physical, mental, platonic, spiritual, God, other nonphysicals. As for the physical, include all matter, energy, space and time, and all the laws and principles that govern them (known and unknown); as for the mental, imagine all kinds of consciousness and awareness (known and unknown); as for the platonic, gather all forms of abstract objects (numbers, logic, forms, propositions, possibilities— known and unknown); as for the spiritual and God, embrace anything that could possibly fit these nonphysical categories (if anything does); and as for “other nonphysicals,” well, I just want to be sure not to leave anything unclassified. Lump together literally everything contained in ultimate reality. Now call it all by the simple name “Something.” Why is there “Something” rather than “Nothing”?

Why Not Nothing? What guides me here is gut feeling, not clever reasoning, which is why no argument has ever dissuaded me from continuing to think, following Leibniz,3 that Nothing, no world, would be simpler and easier than any world, that Nothing would have been the least arbitrary and “most natural” state of affairs.

As I have continued to think about Nothing, I have continued to think that Nothing “should,” in some sense, have obtained, and the only reason I accept the fact that Nothing does not obtain is not because of any of the arguments against Nothing,4 but because of the raw existence of Something—because in my private consciousness I am forced to recognize that real existents compose Something. In other words, an a priori weighing of Nothing v. Something (from a timeless, explanatorily earlier perspective) would, for me, tip the balance heavily to Nothing, but for the fact of the matter.

Thus, since I have no choice but to recognize that there is Something, I have no choice but to conclude that there is foundational force, selector, productive principle or type of necessity—some deep reason—that brings about the absence of Nothing. I cannot rid myself of the conviction that Nothing would have obtained had not something special somehow superseded or counteracted it. Yes, I know that seems circular—and many well-regarded philosophers say, “So there’s a world not a blank; what’s in any way surprising about that?” But I just can’t help feeling that they are passing right over the problem most probative of ultimate reality.

Levels of Nothing

Defining “Nothing” may seem simple—no thing, not a thing. But what’s a “thing”? I invoke the term “thing” in the most general possible way, and therefore, given some possible notions of Nothing, it is no contradiction to find “things” that compose these different kinds or levels of Nothing. Teasing apart these constituent things, as if scaffolds or sinews of Nothings, may help enrich understanding of the nature of Nothing, yielding a taxonomy that arrays opposing kinds of Nothing that could be conceived and might have existed.

This taxonomy is structured as a deconstruction or as a dissection, as it were, a reverse layering, a peeling, a progressive reduction of the content of each Nothing in a hierarchy of Nothings. As such, this taxonomy takes its heritage from the so-called Subtraction Argument, which seeks to show that the absence of all concrete objects would be metaphysically possible. (Stated simply, the Subtraction Argument works by imagining a sequence of possible worlds each containing one less concrete object than the world before, so that in the very last world even the very last object has vanished. It is no surprise that complexities emerge.5)

Developing this way of thinking, there might be nine levels of Nothing, with a general progression from Nothing most simplistic (Nothing One) to Nothing most absolute (Nothing Nine). There are criticisms of each of these Nothings. My point here is not so much to argue the legitimacy of any one kind of Nothing but rather to construct an exhaustive taxonomy of all potential or competing Nothings, and perhaps a taxonomy in which those Nothings are mutually exclusive. Following are nine levels of Nothings.

  1. Nothing as existing space and time that just happens to be totally empty of all visible objects (particles and energy are permitted)—an utterly simplistic, pre-scientific view.
  2. Nothing as existing space and time that just happens to be totally empty of all matter (no particles, but energy is permitted—flouting the law of mass-energy equivalence).
  3. Nothing as existing space and time that just happens to be totally empty of all matter and energy.6
  4. Nothing as existing space and time that is by necessity— irremediably and permanently in all directions, temporal as well as spatial—totally empty of all matter and energy.
  5. Nothing of the kind found in some theoretical formulations by physicists, where, although space-time (unified) as well as mass-energy (unified) do not exist, pre-existing laws, particularly laws of quantum mechanics, do exist. And it is these laws that make it the case that universes can and do, from time to time, pop into existence from “Nothing,” creating spacetime as well as mass-energy. (It is standard physics to assume that empty space must seethe with virtual particles, reflecting the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, where particle-antiparticle pairs come into being and then, almost always, in a fleetingly brief moment, annihilate each other.)
  6. Nothing where not only is there no space-time and no mass-energy, but also there are no preexisting laws of physics that could generate space-time or mass-energy (universes).
  7. Nothing where not only is there no space-time, no mass-energy, and no pre-existing laws of physics, but also there are no non-physical things or kinds that are concrete (rather than abstract)—no God, no gods, and no consciousness (cosmic or otherwise). This means that there are no physical or non-physical beings or existents of any kind—nothing, whether natural or supernatural, that is concrete (rather than abstract).
  8. Nothing where not only is there none of the above (so that, as in Nothing 7, there are no concrete existing things, physical or non-physical), but also there are no abstract objects of any kind—no numbers, no sets, no logic, no general propositions, no universals, no Platonic forms (e.g., no value).
  9. Nothing where not only is there none of the above (so that, as in Nothing 8, there are no abstract objects), but also there are no possibilities of any kind (recognizing that possibilities and abstract objects overlap, though allowing that they can be distinguished).

Nothings 1 through 7 progressively remove or eliminate existing things, so that a reasonable stopping point—a point at which we might well be thought to have reached (what I hesitatingly call) “Real Nothing”, the metaphysical limit—would be Nothing Seven, which features no concrete existing things (no physical or non-physical concrete existents) of any kind.

Nothings 8 and 9 go further, eliminating nonconcrete objects, things, existents and realities. Do they go too far? Many philosophers assert that neither Nothing 8 nor Nothing 9 is metaphysically possible, arguing that the claimed absence of abstract objects and/or possibilities would constitute a logical contradiction and hence abstract objects and/or possibilities exist necessarily. This could be important because, as John Leslie points out, among the realities which aren’t concrete things, or which do not depend on the existence of concrete things, and thus cannot be eliminated, there may be some realities that are plausible candidates for explaining the world of concrete things.7 In this way of thinking, the crucial distinction is between realities that seemingly can be eliminated and realities that seemingly cannot be eliminated, rather than any particular way of distinguishing between levels of nothingness or particular ways of defining nothingness.

Note that among all these levels of Nothing, one of the “lesser Nothings”—that is, a kind of Nothing with more “things” in it—is the Nothing of physicists. What physicists contemplate—the sudden emergence or “tunneling” of universes from “Nothing”—is fascinating and indeed may be cosmogenic, but the tunneling process or capacity is not Nothing.8 The Nothing of physicists is thick with the complete set of the laws of physics, and so between physicists’ Nothing and Real Nothing lies a vast, unbridgeable gulf. On this taxonomic scale, physicists’ Nothing is Nothing Level 5, barely half way to utterly Nothing. If physicists’ Nothing were in reality Real Nothing (i.e., ultimate reality), the laws of quantum physics (or whatever might turn out to be the most fundamental physical laws underlying quantum physics) would have to be either impossible to remove (meaning that eliminating them would involve logical contradiction) or a brute fact about existence beyond which explanation would be meaningless. I doubt I could ever get over the odd idea that something so intricate, so involved, so organized and so accessible as the laws of physics would be the ultimate brute fact.

As a separate consideration, some philosophers of religion argue that God is a “necessity”—meaning that it would be impossible for God not to exist— thus precluding Nothing 7 (which has no non-physical concrete things such as God but still has abstract objects) and crowning Nothing 6 (which has no space-time, no mass-energy, no laws of physics but still has God and other nonphysical things) as the metaphysical limit of what is to be explained.9 I find the move challenging. Moreover, based on the levels of Nothing in this taxonomy, it would seem less of a leap to imagine a world without God (Nothing 7) than to imagine a world without abstract objects (Nothing 8). For the traditional God, that won’t do.10

Why Not Nothing?

Cosmic visions are overwhelming, but I am sometimes preoccupied with another conundrum. How is it that we humans have such farsighted understanding after only a few thousand years of historical consciousness, only a few hundred years of effective science, and only a few decades of cosmological observations? Maybe it’s still too early in the game. Maybe answers have been with us all along. This is a work in process and diverse contributions are needed.

Setting aside my taxonomy and consulting my gut, I come to only two kinds of answers. The first is that there can be no answer: Existence is a brute fact without explanation. The second is that at the primordial beginning, explanatorily and timelessly prior to time, some thing was self-existing. The essence of this something necessitated its existence such that non-existence to it would be as inherently impossible as physical immortality to us is factually impossible.

Various things or substances could conceivably contain this deeply centered self-existing essence, from the most fundamental meta-laws of physics to diverse kinds of consciousness, one of which could be God or something like god. Perhaps even these explanations are so mundane and bedrock is so bizarre that abstract objects or pure possibilities somehow harbor generative powers.

Why is there Something rather than Nothing? Why Not Nothing? If you don’t get dizzy, you really don’t get it. END

The author thanks John Leslie, his co-editor of The Mystery of Existence: Why is there Anything At All?, for his comments and suggestions.

References
  1. Why is there Something rather than Nothing?, the ultimate question, is a continuing theme of Closer To Truth, the public television/PBS series that I created and host, produced/directed by Peter Getzels.
  2. Holt, Jim, Why does the World Exist: An Existential Detective Story (New York: Liveright, 2012). Shermer, Michael, “Much Ado About Nothing,” Scientific American, May 2012. Krauss, Lawrence, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (New York: Free Press, 2012). Albert, David, “On the Origin of Everything,” The New York Times, March 23, 2012. Andersen, Ross, “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete,” The Atlantic, April 24, 2012.
  3. Leibniz, Gottfried. 1714. The Principles of Nature and Grace.
  4. Arguments against Nothing include saying that Nothing is unimaginable, nonsense, meaningless or absurd, or as soon as something is possible it must exist somewhere. Some would have God’s necessary existence as proscribing Nothing.
  5. For the Subtraction Argument, see the following. Baldwin, T. 1996. “There might be nothing”, Analysis 56, pp. 231–8. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 1997. “There might be nothing: the subtraction argument improved”, Analysis 57, pp. 159–66. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2002. “Metaphysical nihilism defended: reply to Lowe and Paseau,” Analysis 62, pp. 172–80. Paseau, Alexander. 2006. “The Subtraction Argument( s),” Dialectica 60(2), 2006, pp. 145–156. For the opposing view, that it is metaphysically not possible that there would be no concrete objects, see the following. Armstrong, D.M. 1989. A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell. Lowe, E. J. 1996. “Why is there anything at all?” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 70: 111–20. See also, Sorensen, Roy. 2009. “Nothingness,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  6. As an example of an objection to a kind of Nothing, some would resist the idea that there could be space and time that had been emptied of existing things. The “relational” theories of space and of time assume that emptying space and time of existing things is impossible, because space is the system of spatial relations between things, and time is the system of temporal relations between things.
  7. See sections 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9 in the taxonomy of “Why This Universe?” (Skeptic, Vol. 13 No. 2, 2007, p. 36).
  8. That the universe may have popped into existence via some sort of cosmic spontaneous combustion, emerging from the “nothing” of empty space (i.e., vacuum energy generated by quantum fluctuations, unstable high energy “false vacua”), or from “quantum tunneling” (Vilenkin, Alex. 2006. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. New York: Hill and Wang), may be the proximal cause of why we have a universe in the first place, but cannot be the reason, of itself, why the universe we have works so well for us. Universe-generating mechanisms of themselves, such as unprompted eternal chaotic inflation or uncaused nucleations in spacetime, can only address the fine-tuning problem of our universe by postulating innumerable universes, perhaps an infinity of universes, a vast multiverse, in which the laws of physics must reset randomly in each universe, and must be, in some sense, primordial and foundational. Nor can vacuum energy or quantum tunneling or anything of the like be the ultimate cause of the universe, because, however hackneyed, the still-standing, still-unanswered question remains “from where did those laws come?”
  9. The question of whether God, assuming God exists, would be “necessary”— which means that God would exist in all possible worlds—has beset philosophers and theologians for centuries. The much-debated Ontological Argument for the existence of God, which defines God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived,” leads to the claim that God is necessary because necessity is a higher perfection than contingency. Richard Swinburne asserts that God is a “factual necessity” but not a “logical necessity” in that the non-existence of God would introduce no logical contradiction (Closer To Truth). Timothy O’- Connor defends God’s necessity in his monograph on the topic. O’Connor, Timothy. 2008. Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. Oxford: Blackwell.
  10. The relationship between God and abstract objects is particularly troublesome for those who believe that God created and sustains all things and who privilege above all else God’s absolute sovereignty (aseity). The reason is that abstract objects, many philosophers believe, exist necessarily, which means that it is impossible for abstract objects not to exist, which further means that it makes no sense for even God to have created them. What would it take to create the idea of the number 3 or the truth that 1+2=3 or the reality that squares are not round? How could such ideas, truths, realities even conceivably be created? Peter van Inwagen calls abstract objects “putative counterexamples” to the thesis that God has created everything. But if abstract objects do exist necessarily, then wouldn’t God’s mental life be encompassed by swarms of infinities of infinities of abstract objects, not only which God would not have created but also over which God could exercise no control? The problem posed by abstract objects for a God whose sovereignty must be absolute is complex and requires metaphysical analysis. Consider two of the more general ways to defend God’s sovereignty (aseity): 1) Deny that abstract objects are real, in that numbers, universals, propositions and the like are mere human-invented names with no correspondence in reality (nominalism); and/or 2) claim that abstract objects are thoughts in the mind of God. Van Inwagen rejects both ways; he must therefore defend the position that there are besides God other uncreated beings and thus prefers to restrict God’s creation of “all things visible and invisible” to “objects that can enter into causal relations” (which excludes abstract objects). Van Inwagen, Peter. 2009. “God and Other Uncreated Things,” in Metaphysics and God, ed. Kevin Timpe. London: Routledge. On the other hand, William Lane Craig rejects the view that “there might be things, such as properties and numbers, which are causally unrelated to God as their Creator.” Craig says that “Abstract objects have at most an insubstantial existence in the mind of the Logos,” adding, “If a Christian theist is to be a platonist, then, he must, it seems, embrace absolute creationism, the view that God has created all the abstract objects there are.” However, Craig himself resolves the conundrum by espousing nominalism, by judging platonism to be false—so that those pesky abstract objects no longer exist and thus no longer undermine God’s sovereignty. Craig, William Lane. 2011. “Van Inwagen On Uncreated Beings.” Richard Swinburne argues that abstract objects, which seem to contradict his concept of God, are fictions; the only things that are true or false are human sentences (Closer To Truth). Also, Davidson, Matthew. 2009. “God and Other Necessary Beings,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Skepticism 101: The Skeptical Studies Curriculum Resource Center

Skepticism 101: The Skeptical Studies Curriculum Resource Center

Last June, we announced the launch of Skepticism 101: The Skeptical Studies Curriculum Resource Center, where we, in collaboration with educators from all over the country, provide free educational resources, to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Brought to you by the Skeptics Society under the direction of Anondah Saide and William Bull, Skepticism 101 is a resource center for educators, teachers, administrators, students, and skeptics in all fields and walks of life. The Skepticism 101 site provides you with materials (e.g., powerpoints, syllabi, recommended reading, assignments, etc.) used in real classrooms across the country that can assist you, and others, in how to think critically about a variety of topics.

Annual Call for Submissions

Educators, we invite you to get involved in your Skeptics community by contributing your materials. We are looking for suggested readings, course syllabi, PowerPoint presentations, student projects, papers, and videos that you have written and/or produced that you think are relevant, interesting, and important to our cause of making the world a better place through reason and science. Please review our contribution guidelines before submitting materials.

Explore The 101 Resource Center

Make a tax-deductible donation

Acknowledgements

Thank you to everyone who has contributed thus far—in both educational materials and financial support. We are especially grateful to our significant supporters in last year’s fundraising campaign on behalf of Skepticism 101: Bill Nye, Steven Ridley, Robert Engman, Richard Epstein, Jones Hamilton, James Alexander, Jean Bettanny, Arnold Lau, David Kaloyanides, Jeff Kodosky, Marvin Mueller, and Michael Roberts. Special thanks go to Tyson Jacobsen, who also attended Michael Shermer’s first official course in skepticism last fall, “Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist Without Being a Geek.”

22 Comments »

22 Comments

  1. Jeremy P. Ross says:

    I would like to comment on Mr. Kuhn’s article. I admire anyone who seeks a fundamental answer to the issue of “why something rather than nothing”. But I am invariably frustrated by efforts which seek conclusions or answers that complicate rather than clarify, i.e. in Mr. Kuhn’s case involving taxonomies, subtraction arguments, Liebniz theories, philosophical musings, etc. Mr. Kuhn’s Nine Levels of Nothing are examples of a certain analytical ability and perhaps celebrate a high level of writing skills but nothing more. No human, whether formally elevated by one’s own self or others to a position of theistic, deistic, philosophical or scientific authority has any greater level of understanding than the remainder as to why space exists or what its contours or extent may be. Hume’s major contribution to the subject, as I understand it, was to assert that humanity’s ability to reason is wholly inadequate when seeking to reach metaphysical conclusions relating to matters beyond human experience (e.g. the visionary or supernatural), in that humans do not have the scientific, intellectual or experiential capacity to infer the concept, content or reality of God, the prime mover, etc., from the observed qualities of that which has in fact been created (or, in any event, exists today) and can be seen, touched, heard, etc. All we know is that the basis upon which space (whether filled with matter particles and/or energy or not) exists lies beyond the realm of our known laws of physics and is therefore (in that sense) supernatural in character, i.e. by human standards there can’t logically be a finite end to space, whether curved or otherwise (i.e. if some outer barrier exists, what’s on the other side?), and the contrary conclusion, that it is infinite and eternal, is truly evidence of something far beyond our capacity for understanding. So honesty, at least to me, requires adherence (however grudging) to an agnostic view of deism (it is impossible to know how space came to exist so I won’t pretend I do). There may well be a sentient force which (who) created space and the physical and temporal laws by which all else operates within it, but I doubt that such a force, if existing, bears any characteristic which humans might recognize by reference to their own experience or capacity to imagine. To put it far too simplistically, the only evidence we will ever have of the existence of the supernatural is space itself. It is by far the major component of the atoms that comprise our individual bodies and of the cosmos within which all known matter and energy reside. We live within it always, yet have no understanding of why or how it exists, nor, reasonably, will we ever. So, perhaps, rather than simply providing evidence of the supernatural, the identity of the primordial and eternal force is space itself, which serves as the medium within which all else exists and occurs. And, respectively, it seems to me that there is little else which can be said on the subject despite innumerable efforts (musing, words and the like) to the contrary ((e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, etc.). Thank you

  2. John Forester says:

    It seems pretty reasonable that our universe contains all that we could possibly know. There is no evidence that anything comes into our universe or goes out of it. Speculating about its cause is useless, because that would require knowledge from outside our universe. We might have better physical explanations of the history of how the universe became existent, but we can never know why that was done. As I have often said, our Big Bang might be no more than one more explosion used in constructing some supernatural superhighway. Therefore, I think that consideration of the source of the universe is of no greater use than arguing about how many angels can dance on a pinhead.
    In a way this is the deism argument. Whatever it is that set our universe in motion, there has never been any evidence that that entity has ever reached into our universe to produce miraculous effects.

  3. top squirrel says:

    I read the piece all the way through.
    At first I thought it to be an elaborate put-on. Little by little I became convinced, “Hey, this guy really means it!”
    On one level this is the ultimate mental masturbation, in which one looks down and sees….(are you ready?)…nothing.
    On another, it may represent the mind’s anguished attempt to make sense of some ultimate questions, which, I suspect, boil down to imagining what things would be like if you never existed. Not the world — just you. It includes, I further suspect, the mystery and fear of death.
    Atheists wonder why theists fear and avoid death so much if they “know” they’ll go to a great place. And if death is made painless, what’s the problem? The thoughts behind this article, I suspect, are this guy’s attempt to initiate grappling with the problem.
    He won’t get far, and I think he must know that.
    I cannot resist getting unserious with the question, however, so here are some reasons, off the top of my head, in reaction to the noted question:

    As to why is there Something and not Nothing:

    1) Somebody set the controls wrong. We were supposed to have Nothing. Check the manual. Then do Something about it.
    2) There is nothing in an adjacent universe. Ours is just the other way.
    3) If you visit a universe with nothing, it will have something as soon as you arrive, so nothing will come of it.
    3a) Can a universe with nothing be said to exist? If not, where did you go?
    4) Special for this group: So that god has somebody to tell him how great he is.
    5) Because Something is the default condition; otherwise there would be Nothing by default.
    6) It could have gone either way. Try not to complain. Be happy and try not to wear out your belly button. They rarely go on sale at Woolworth’s.
    7) Dumb luck. (Care to go 2 out of 3?)
    ——————————————–

  4. Rob Benjamin says:

    I guess I get it, because I am really, really dizzy.

  5. Thomas H. Jones says:

    Oh, we are stuck in the binary!

  6. awc says:

    Which one are we again?

  7. R. Harkness says:

    It’s obvious that the author put a lot of effort and thinking into this piece and my remarks are not meant disrespectfully.

    The author seems to be lost in the metaphysical woods. This is a prime example of being hogtied by what I call terminology confusion. If your foundational understanding of the terms you use is flawed, everything you build on top of that will be flawed (usually more so as you proceed).

    A key misunderstanding seems to be equating “abstract” with “non-physical,” a term peppered throughout the piece. This mistake is legion. Some abstractions the author lists are mental (consciousness, awareness), platonic, spiritual (including other emotions and feelings), logic, forms, propositions, possibilities, etc.

    These and other abstractions exist physically in the brain as neural circuits/networks–the terms themselves, the understood definition of the terms, and the concepts and processes (e.g., mental/emotional processes) related to the terms. Nothing non-physical here.

    Likewise, the term “non-physical” itself exists physically inside the brain as the word/definition/concept. But, apart from wishful thinking, no non-physical “things” or goings-on appear to exist in our universe.

    Non-physical would equate to supernatural: something “non-physical/non-material” that does not have to obey the laws of physics. But all things that exist must obey the natural laws of physics (known and unknown). Otherwise, how could they exist in the first place?

    Wouldn’t you agree that “non-physical” means “not physical”–that is, not composed of matter? Wouldn’t something that fit this definition actually equate to…nothing? And wouldn’t nothing be, well, nonexistent? You don’t need nine levels to understand this “nothing.”

    Here are a couple of telling errors that jump out:

    *Nothing 1: “…empty of all matter (no particles, but energy is permitted).”
    [The author appears to share the popular misunderstanding that energy is an "entity" that exists apart from matter. Simply put, "energy" is an abstract term that refers to the *physical* process of matter in motion and interacting with other matter. Matter carries energy. Energy does not exist apart from matter (particles or objects). The author might be referring to "pure energy," a term physicists use to refer to photons (particles of light); this term is an unfortunate, confusing misnomer that should not be used.]

    *Nothing 5: “…VIRTUAL particles, reflecting the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, where particle-antiparticle pairs come into being and then, almost always, in a fleetingly brief moment, ANNIHILATE each other. [The popular notion is that “annihilation” means “completely vanish into nothingness.” Not so. Annihilation means that colliding particles generate new particles–the colliding particles do not disappear into nothing. Blame the TV physicists and their flair for drama over accuracy in their explanations of annihilation (as well as “pure energy”) for imparting the wrong impression.

    That said, some aspects of the natural world are likely to remain beyond human ken.

  8. Thomas H. Jones says:

    Goodness, a lot of strang and durm to end the way you did.

    • Thomas H. Jones says:

      Comment on the previous comment. Not the article. But we are an equal opportunity employer. :)

  9. Jim Hull says:

    1. The Nine Levels of Nothing — or are they Dante’s Nine Circles of Hell? :-) — make for an interesting use of philosophy to address a physics problem, namely, how a universe might emerge from nothing. It could even open up deeper realms for cosmologists to explore someday.

    2. A long time ago, while trying to figure out how to extract ultimate certainty from reality — I was feeling very insecure back then — suddenly I realized, “Certainty GOES WITH uncertainty. They’re inseparable.” (Ironically, that felt reassuring.) Similarly, to ask, “Why is there Something rather than Nothing?” is like wondering, “Why is there white rather than black?” or “Why is there up and no down?” They make no sense. Something and Nothing always go together. They’re intertwined. You can’t have one without the other.

    3. There’s ALREADY a Nothing. By definition, it has no characteristics: no contents, no dimension, no location. So it can’t NOT exist.

    4. Here’s a Zen comment, similar to Russell’s Paradox (“Does the Set of All Sets contain itself?”) that’s appropriate to the Ninth Level of Nothing: “If everything rolls into The One, what does The One roll into?”

    • Alpha Diop says:

      I’m in the same mindset. For Void to even have any significance there must be something it devoid of.

      But I’m also of the mindset that we are waaaayyyy too early in our observation of the Reality as a species to even begin to really understand or even answer that question. Kinda like the Socratic Discourse, we should first try to resolve the more direct and ‘in our faces’ questions such as the human condition and our place on this planet and in this part of Reality we call our Universe.

      We can rest assured there is a reason for Existence, else there would be no such thing.

    • Sean says:

      There are seven days of the week, the number of God is seven, there are seven dwarves, the most common number to come up in Craps is 7. I’m certain if we think about deep enough, we’ll find many more correlations. The commonality of numbers

      • Sean says:

        Dang thing didn’t post it all…

        The commonality the numbers and their usage doesn’t mean they are linked (just like the nine levels of nothing and Dante’s nine levels of hell). I know you statement is tongue-in-cheek, but there are too many people out there who take it seriously.

        Just a couple other numbers

        12
        Grades in school (sans kindergarten)
        Appostles
        Steps in AA
        Months in a year

        52
        Weeks in a year
        Cards in a deck (sans Jokers)

  10. Julie R Butler says:

    My sentimental favorite for what the “deeply centered self-existing essence” of non-nothing might be is Love.

  11. Bob Pease says:

    Pease’s 11th Law
    “Any question which should not be asked Must be asked”

    We don’t seem to have the language to ASK this question in a meaningful way, but Godel stuff predicts that it might still be unanswerable even if Could be asked!

    “MU” is probably a good stab at this

    For the “Unenlightened”.
    MU is , among a lot of other stuff,
    the first letters OF “MUU” an a clever analogy to “WFF”
    a well formed formula

    See Godel Escher and Bach for a lot more..

    RJP

    • Jim Hull says:

      –“Any question which should not be asked Must be asked” — good point. If the question is merely silly, we can laugh; if it’s answered foolishly, we can mock; but we ought never to dismiss a question merely because it sounds annoying or threatening. That’s like taking the Blue Pill.

      –”WFF” — Did you mean “WTF”? :-)

      –Agreed, Godel haunts this discussion — it’s a topic that tends to chase its own tail. And Buddhists have argued arcanely about Nothingness for 2,500 years. It will be interesting to see what physicists make of it all, as they explore, e.g., the insides of black holes, multiverses, etc.

      • Bob Pease says:

        thnaks for the reply

        Actually it might not be POSSIBLE to ask these questions in a meaningful way
        As an example
        “how high is up” was once thought to be at once clever, scornful and profound

        The answer is ( of course ) MU

        Dr, S

  12. MattB says:

    I enjoyed nothing. No, really, stimulating piece. For a person who’s been reading apologetic material lately, its nice to think again. Thanks from Texas…

  13. Anders Whist says:

    Nothing cannot be positively defined. That is, it can only be defined by what it is not. Thus it can neither be defined physically nor philosophically. This makes it terribly uninteresting. Deists and theists are fond of asking why there is something rather than nothing, yet they have not defined (and cannot define) nothing. At the same time they are postulating that there was a time when nothing (except god) existed. They say this as if it goes without saying. Who’s to say there ever was such a thing as nothing (beyond level 5)? As Krauss says in ‘A Universe From Nothing’, just because you can formulate a question in English, does not mean it has to make and sense.

    (‘Why’ is also a loaded word, as it implies intention. If the question HAS to be posed, then using ‘how’ is more sober – but the religious tend to shy away from this.)

  14. 2.0 says:

    Skeptical of this pseudo-intellectual inane piece of nothing? Yes. Skeptical of the effort that went into it? No

  15. Bike Tourist says:

    Put it this way: Nothing is impossible.

get eSkeptic
our free newsletter

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic is our free email newsletter, delivered once a week. In it, you’ll receive: fascinating articles, announcements, podcasts, book reviews, and more…


Popular Articles
on skeptic.com

Here are the articles that people have been sharing over the last few days.

Carbon Comic

Carbon Comic (by Kyle Sanders)

Carbon Comic, which appears in Skeptic magazine, is created by Kyle Sanders: a pilot and founder of Little Rock, Arkansas’ Skeptics in The Pub. He is also a cartoonist who authors Carbon Dating: a skeptical comic strip about science, pseudoscience, and relationships. It can be found at carboncomic.com.

Help the
Skeptics Society
at no cost to you!

Planning on shopping at Amazon? By clicking on our Amazon affiliate link, which will open the Amazon Store in your Internet browser, the Skeptics Society will receive a small commission on your purchase. Your prices for all products remain the same, yet you’ll provide essential financial support for the work of the nonprofit Skeptics Society.

amazon.com

See our affiliate links page for Amazon.ca, Amazon.de, Amazon.co.uk, iTunes, and Barnes & Noble links.

Browse by Topic

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

Reality Check

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future

The battles over evolution, climate change, childhood vaccinations, and the causes of AIDS, alternative medicine, oil shortages, population growth, and the place of science in our country—all are reaching a fevered pitch. Many people and institutions have exerted enormous efforts to misrepresent or flatly deny demonstrable scientific reality to protect their nonscientific ideology, their power, or their bottom line…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Things You Should Know About Alternative Medicine

Top 10 Things You Should Know About Alternative Medicine

Topics include: chiropractic, the placebo effect, homeopathy, acupuncture, and the questionable benefits of organic food, detoxification, and ‘natural’ remedies.

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2014 Skeptic and its contributors. For general enquiries regarding the Skeptics Society or Skeptic magazine, email skepticssociety@skeptic.com or call 1-626-794-3119. Website-related matters: webmaster@skeptic.com. Enquiries about online store orders: orders@skeptic.com. To update your subscription address: subscriptions@skeptic.com. See our Contact Information page for more details. This website uses Google Analytics, Google AdWords, and AddThis tracking software.