Why is there something rather than nothing?

[D M]

Hi Switch,

When we get right down to it, the possible answers are that
1) The universe exists for no reason at all. It is an inexplicable brute fact.

2) The universe exists necessarily, but we mere mortals do not yet realize how it exists necessarily.

3) It is possible for something to exist or for nothing to exist, but something is more likely to exist than nothing. I find think this is an especially valid possibility, since there is only one way for nothing to exist, but there is an infinite number of ways for something to exist.

That’s interesting, thank you for your contribution.
I think the third possibility would be an elaboration of the second possibility, wouldn’t it? That if it is probable for something to exist, then there is some reason for it?

As a Christian I do think some of us mortals realize how it exists necessarily, although as someone without faith, you are not in a position to know that our claims are true. Could possibility 2 be elaborated to include the possibility that ‘we mere mortals don’t know if anyone else realizes how it exists necessarily’ ?

Myron:

Best I understand it, that's what science says at the moment. There are different cosmological theories coming and going throughout the decades though, so I suppose that could change.

I know that the big bang is the theorized beginning of the known physical universe, although I wasn’t aware that scientists were claiming that time and space didn’t exist before the big bang. I was under the impression that it was believed that all of the matter that currently makes up the known universe was believed to be contained within a singularity which exploded around 12 billion years ago, but which would have existed before that explosion and the space that the explosion occurred within was also believed to have existed before the explosion took place. I could be mistaken though, as I’m no expert on the topic.

Maybe, maybe not.

Here's some speculation: If Einstein is correct that space and time are just different dimensions of the universe (time being one, length width and height being the other three) then it follows that the past, present and future isn't "what has happened", "what is happening" and "what may/will happen in the future" - they're all just "what is". Which leads to the conclusion that the future is as unchanging and unchangeable as the past and the present. This in turn makes our lives less of an epic story of choice or destiny, and more a 4-dimensional tableau, painting or sculpture. What is the meaning of a painting of a battle, or a sculpture of a great leader, or the static words in a book, or the unchanging 10,000 frames of a movie? In a sense, they describe or represent meaningful things, and it may be that that's what the universe is about.

Then again, that presupposes a painter, writer, composer, sculptor, etc who finds meaning in his/her work, and I'm not sure there is any such thing. So really, I don't know what it all means, if anything. I'm just going to play the part it seems like I should. I'll keep my eyes open for a more intellectually satisfying answer than that, but I'm not optimistic of finding one. Even supposing there is an answer to the question of the meaning of life, there's no guarantee we can find it, or understand what we find.

Thank you for your thoughts.
The future is unchanging, although I don’t believe this rules out free will. It may rather be that our own freely chosen actions are what determines this unchaning future. The idea that the universe is like a tableau is a beautiful image… and as a Christian who believes that God works all things for a purpose (Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose), I would agree with that notion. Everything in the universe is part of a beautiful picture we don’t yet see fully.
I commend your search for some kind of answer to that question of what is the meaning of life, which you are not optimistic about finding. I think that too many of our contemporaries will unfortunately disregard such questions and assume there is no meaning and therefore no point in searching for it, or they will think it is an irrelevant question to their existence. Every culture on Earth has grappled with that question in past history though, and I think it is very much relevant to our modern era.

Traveler:

I would ask the opposite question. Why does anything require a reason? Things just are. They exist. And we deal within that existence. But reason? I think that's a human-made thought process. Does a cat ask why there's food in its dish? It knows why there's food in its dish. Because it told the big silly human to put it there!!! LOL But, seriously. Flowers are beautiful. Are they there because beauty inspires people? No. But they do inspire us. The flower doesn't need a reason for its existence, but we perceive a reason because we like to solve puzzles, and we tend to see things in terms of what they mean to us.

I’m not sure if I stated my last question in a clear manner, or if I fully understand what you’re saying here.
What I mean by asking why does the Sun exist, is that people (myself included) will claim that it exists because (at least theoretically) there was a nebula that coalesced into a star about 4.6 billion years ago and the laws of physics acting upon this mass caused it to reach fusion and become the Sun that we know today. If someone, however, stated that none of this was true and that the Sun simply existed without a reason, I think many people would question and have difficulty with that idea.
Are you stating that you would ask the opposite question to this, and wonder why anything had a reason and would you state that all such things (including physical laws and causes for physical things) were imagined by human thought processes?
I’m not sure if you are stating this or not.
What I wonder though is that if we did have difficulty with the idea that something could have no reason for its existence, why is it that the universe is different and there isn’t a problem with thinking that it could have no cause for it. I don’t say this because I think that’s its necessary (for someone without faith) to think that it had to have a cause, but because I find it a very mysterious concept to assert that something would exist without a reason.
Thank you for your contribution,
God Bless,

[Traveler]

Hi D M, I'm probably confused by my response too.  I think I was trying to distinquish between how and why.

I do believe that things have a cause. A how. We just probably don't fully understand those causes. Like the universe, life, cat food. All those things came to be through some process, some cause, or as you say, some reason. By reason I was interpreting a purpose. A why. And whether the universe or life has a purpose is anybody's guess as far as I'm concerned. So we, as humans, can investigate and question how things came to be. But when it comes to why we're all just guessing or hoping or thinking we know.

I hope that clarifies my thinking. :)

Traveler:

I would ask the opposite question. Why does anything require a reason? Things just are. They exist. And we deal within that existence. But reason? I think that's a human-made thought process. Does a cat ask why there's food in its dish? It knows why there's food in its dish. Because it told the big silly human to put it there!!! LOL But, seriously. Flowers are beautiful. Are they there because beauty inspires people? No. But they do inspire us. The flower doesn't need a reason for its existence, but we perceive a reason because we like to solve puzzles, and we tend to see things in terms of what they mean to us.

I’m not sure if I stated my last question in a clear manner, or if I fully understand what you’re saying here.
What I mean by asking why does the Sun exist, is that people (myself included) will claim that it exists because (at least theoretically) there was a nebula that coalesced into a star about 4.6 billion years ago and the laws of physics acting upon this mass caused it to reach fusion and become the Sun that we know today. If someone, however, stated that none of this was true and that the Sun simply existed without a reason, I think many people would question and have difficulty with that idea.
Are you stating that you would ask the opposite question to this, and wonder why anything had a reason and would you state that all such things (including physical laws and causes for physical things) were imagined by human thought processes?
I’m not sure if you are stating this or not.
What I wonder though is that if we did have difficulty with the idea that something could have no reason for its existence, why is it that the universe is different and there isn’t a problem with thinking that it could have no cause for it. I don’t say this because I think that’s its necessary (for someone without faith) to think that it had to have a cause, but because I find it a very mysterious concept to assert that something would exist without a reason.
Thank you for your contribution,
God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

Hi D M,

Why would someone need to observe that nothing existed in order for nothing to exist? (or not exist…I’m not sure how to say this correctly…)

I'm not sure how to say it correctly either, and I rather suspect that there is no way to say it correctly. I am trying to get to grips with your question as stated in the format you have chosen, which seems to suggest two alternative scenarios, one where stuff exists and another where there is not anything that exists. It's the second that I can't give any meaning to, so your question boils down to "of two options, A and B, where B is inconceivable, why A?"

OTOH given A, B is not possible ... which simply sounds like the axiom of the excluded middle. I don't think it is, though.

Do you not mean "why are things as they are?" rather than "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Regards,

HE

[D M]

Hi Traveler,

Hi D M, I'm probably confused by my response too.   I think I was trying to distinquish between how and why.

I do believe that things have a cause. A how. We just probably don't fully understand those causes. Like the universe, life, cat food. All those things came to be through some process, some cause, or as you say, some reason. By reason I was interpreting a purpose. A why. And whether the universe or life has a purpose is anybody's guess as far as I'm concerned. So we, as humans, can investigate and question how things came to be. But when it comes to why we're all just guessing or hoping or thinking we know.

I hope that clarifies my thinking. :)

I was guessing that was probably what you meant, and I think my own questions could be more carefully phrased.
I suppose if I could try to rephrase my meaning and ask what is the (how) reason for the existence of reality (ie. everything – all existence : logic, time, space, the laws of the universe, etc.) ? Does it have no such cause, does one not know if it has such a cause, does it have a cause which is unknown, or does it have a cause which is known? (or any other ways to answer to answer this question?)
People in this thread have been giving interesting replies to this and I thank you for your contribution.
HE:

I'm not sure how to say it correctly either, and I rather suspect that there is no way to say it correctly. I am trying to get to grips with your question as stated in the format you have chosen, which seems to suggest two alternative scenarios, one where stuff exists and another where there is not anything that exists. It's the second that I can't give any meaning to, so your question boils down to "of two options, A and B, where B is inconceivable, why A?"

OTOH given A, B is not possible ... which simply sounds like the axiom of the excluded middle. I don't think it is, though.

Do you not mean "why are things as they are?" rather than "why is there something rather than nothing?"

I don’t think that B is necessarily impossible if we considered that logic wouldn’t exist as well, although it does defy our normal conception of reality.
I suppose I do mean more ‘why are things existent?’ as opposed to the phrasing ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’  I am trying to ask what people think about why reality exists from the perspective of causation.
People of faith often have a much easier answer to this (eg. Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.), although I’m very interested in the answer of people without faith. Many philosophers have struggled over this question.
Thank you for your contribution.
God Bless,

[JustMyron]

I am trying to ask what people think about why reality exists from the perspective of causation.

The problem we have is the paradox of infinite regress. Humans don't deal well with infinity  

Everything we know to exist logically requires a cause, but God is the first cause, but there can't be a first cause because everything requires a cause.

Theists solve the paradox of infinite regress by faith (belief that first-cause-God exists, without being able to logically support this belief): Ok, so it doesn't make logical sense to say that there is a first cause (a God), but it doesn't make sense to say that there isn't a first cause, either. So since we can't determine whether God exists or not using a logical analysis of causes, either a belief that God exists or one that God doesn't exist is, logically, equally sensible. And since most people believe god exists why not go with that?

Atheist: Just because lots of people believe something doesn't mean it's true!

Atheists, instead of saying "one must have faith", say "we don't know the answer".

[SkunkButt]

Atheists, instead of saying "one must have faith", say "we don't know the answer".

[/b]


Not knowing the answer seems to be the common theme of the thread so far. Some say they believe they know but believing is not knowing. So Myron points out succinctly what we all know------we don't.

If you follow the history of man's quest for truth the more we discover we only discover we know less. Answers always lead to more questions but I don't think mankind has the capacity to absorb what the universe has to offer.

[Waldo]

So then, is there infinity?  Bearing in mind, of course, this must run in both directions.

[SkunkButt]

So then, is there infinity?  Bearing in mind, of course, this must run in both directions.

If I have read Hawkings right: if there is an infinite amount of time we would not be here because it would take an infinite amount of time to get here. But we are here.

[Waldo]

Wherever you go, there you are...

[SkunkButt]

Exactly

[D M]

Hi Myron,

The problem we have is the paradox of infinite regress. Humans don't deal well with infinity   

Everything we know to exist logically requires a cause, but God is the first cause, but there can't be a first cause because everything requires a cause.

Theists solve the paradox of infinite regress by faith (belief that first-cause-God exists, without being able to logically support this belief): Ok, so it doesn't make logical sense to say that there is a first cause (a God), but it doesn't make sense to say that there isn't a first cause, either. So since we can't determine whether God exists or not using a logical analysis of causes, either a belief that God exists or one that God doesn't exist is, logically, equally sensible. And since most people believe god exists why not go with that?

Atheist: Just because lots of people believe something doesn't mean it's true!

Atheists, instead of saying "one must have faith", say "we don't know the answer".

I would state that for myself I don’t start with the belief that everything requires a cause, although this seems to the way the reality around us operates. It doesn’t seem to be possible for time to be infinite for the reason quoted by Skunkbutt, although to the best of my knowledge there is not a scientific answer that explains how time could have started. Perhaps there will be someday though.
Although I believe that God created the universe (Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth), I can’t state that I’ve been convinced how a person could know that He must be the cause of all things simply because all things supposedly need a cause.
I’ve met atheists who do claim to know the answer and they will state that reality has no cause but it just is, and I’ve met atheists (such as the reasonable people in this thread) who will not claim such knowledge but rather will humbly admit their ignorance of such an answer. I think the latter claim makes more sense from a perspective without faith than the former.
Sometimes I ask myself why it is that we would assume that something had to have a cause normally. It sounds very strange and mysterious, but if one were to state that the sun (for example) existed and it had no cause for it, would such an idea be conceivable?
Do all things have to have causes?
Do you believe that it is false or probably untrue that anyone could know the answer to the question? Do you believe that it is false of probably untrue that theists have had the answer revealed to them? 
God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

Hi D M,

I don’t think that B is necessarily impossible if we considered that logic wouldn’t exist as well, although it does defy our normal conception of reality.

By "logic" I mean our ability to reason, which would not exist if we didn't exist. We plainly do exist (that is an axiom), so there cannot have ever been "nothing", since if there had been nothing there would have been no cause for us to exist.

I suppose I do mean more ‘why are things existent?’ as opposed to the phrasing ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’  I am trying to ask what people think about why reality exists from the perspective of causation.

Which particular things did you have in mind? The existence of "reality" itself must again be taken as an axiom ... see my signature.

People of faith often have a much easier answer to this (eg. Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.), although I’m very interested in the answer of people without faith.

I don't believe that the "faith" answer is in any way easier. How does introducing an unobservable Being into the picture make things any simpler? It actually makes the picture even more complicated because you now have to explain why "reality" AND God exist. If you claim that we don't have to explain why God exists then why would you make the claim that we must explain why "reality" exists?

Many philosophers have struggled over this question.

It's probably the wrong question.

Regards,

HE

[D M]

Hi HE,

By "logic" I mean our ability to reason, which would not exist if we didn't exist. We plainly do exist (that is an axiom), so there cannot have ever been "nothing", since if there had been nothing there would have been no cause for us to exist.

It is an axiom that we do exist and that reality exists. This, however, is a hypothetical situation, and it doesn’t need to be a reality in order for us to discuss its possibility. If we didn’t exist, why is it that nothing couldn’t exist?

Which particular things did you have in mind? The existence of "reality" itself must again be taken as an axiom ... see my signature.

What I had in mind is questioning what people (especially those without faith) thought to be the answer to what is the cause of reality. For example in the OP I put the potential answers:  it has a cause and one doesn’t know it, it has a cause and one does know it, it doesn’t have a cause, one doesn’t know if it has a cause. I don’t know if there are other answers than those four, but if there are then those can be given too. How do you answer?

I don't believe that the "faith" answer is in any way easier. How does introducing an unobservable Being into the picture make things any simpler? It actually makes the picture even more complicated because you now have to explain why "reality" AND God exist. If you claim that we don't have to explain why God exists then why would you make the claim that we must explain why "reality" exists?

I don’t think I‘ve made any claim that you have to explain why reality exists. I asked a question as to why people thought it did exist, and simply stated that the concept of not having a cause was mysterious to me, although I didn’t state that I rejected the idea. I suggested in the OP the options of admitting one doesn’t know the cause or one doesn’t know if there is a cause too.
I would say that it makes things easier with regard to this question because one actually knows the answer to the question with certainty given by faith (Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth), whereas one who doesn’t have this advantage is often forced to grapple with trying to come up with a concrete answer to a question without this certainty. Many people become tempted to presumption in such circumstances and decide to believe in answers that they are not in a position to know.

It's probably the wrong question.

I think it’s an excellent question. Philosophy is supposed to try and tackle difficult questions like these.

God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

Hi D M,

It is an axiom that we do exist and that reality exists. This, however, is a hypothetical situation, and it doesn’t need to be a reality in order for us to discuss its possibility. If we didn’t exist, why is it that nothing couldn’t exist?

Given that we do exist then it follows that something exists, and if something exists now then something must have always existed. If nothing ever existed then nothing ever would exist ... isn't that self-evident? Are you asking why nothing didn't ever exist?

What I had in mind is questioning what people (especially those without faith) thought to be the answer to what is the cause of reality.

See below.

I ... simply stated that the concept of not having a cause was mysterious to me, although I didn’t state that I rejected the idea.

I am assuming that you haven't rejected the idea, since the traditional view of God (which I presume you subscribe to) is that he has no cause.

I would say that it makes things easier with regard to this question because one actually knows the answer to the question with certainty given by faith (Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth),

Then you are answering the wrong question, you are assuming that the Heavens and the Earth are all of Reality, which is not by any means demonstrated.

My answer to your question, as framed, is "because it is not possible for there to be nothing". If there was simply emptiness then that would be the reality.

Regards,

HE

[D M]

Hi HE,

Given that we do exist then it follows that something exists, and if something exists now then something must have always existed. If nothing ever existed then nothing ever would exist ... isn't that self-evident? Are you asking why nothing didn't ever exist?

I’m not asking that. I main question is asking what is the cause of reality, but after you questioned the wording of my question, I also raised the lesser question of why it is that nothing couldn’t exist. I don’t say this because I think that nothing existed, but because I am interested in the hypothetical question.
Assuming that hypothetically we didn’t exist… why is that nothing couldn’t exist if that condition was true?

I am assuming that you haven't rejected the idea, since the traditional view of God (which I presume you subscribe to) is that he has no cause.

Yes.
I can’t think of a quote that calls Him causeless, but this one isn’t too far off: Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” says the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Then you are answering the wrong question, you are assuming that the Heavens and the Earth are all of Reality, which is not by any means demonstrated.

My answer to your question, as framed, is "because it is not possible for there to be nothing". If there was simply emptiness then that would be the reality.

It depends on how one defines the ‘heavens and the earth’. If we take it literally then I think you have a point, but if we think it to mean all of reality then it is not problematic.
Thank you for your answer.
If I could make the question even more radical though: Why is there logic? Why does that axiom concerning the existence of nothing, that you outline, exist (in terms of a cause)?
If reality must exist because an axiom exists, why does the axiom exist? (does it have no cause, does it have a cause that one doesn’t know, etc.?)
Thank you for your contribution.
God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

Hi D M,

Assuming that hypothetically we didn’t exist… why is that nothing couldn’t exist if that condition was true?

Do you mean why is it not possible that there could be no "reality"? If it were true that there was no reality then there would be no reality for that state of affairs to exist in. How is that meaningful? The absence of reality would not be real (since there would be no reality), so it would not be real that there was an absence of reality, so there would not be an absence of reality.

?

I am assuming that you haven't rejected the idea, since the traditional view of God (which I presume you subscribe to) is that he has no cause.

Yes.
I can’t think of a quote that calls Him causeless, but this one isn’t too far off: Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” says the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

I don't really care what it says in some old book, but if you want your God to have no cause then why do you object to anything else having no cause?

It depends on how one defines the ‘heavens and the earth’. If we take it literally then I think you have a point, but if we think it to mean all of reality then it is not problematic.

Well, sure, but in that case the text you quote ought to make that clear, otherwise it is not claiming anything. These are then just your ideas.

Why is there logic?

There is logic because there is language.

... why does the axiom exist? (does it have no cause, does it have a cause that one doesn’t know, etc.?)

The axiom exists because you and I have agreed that it is an axiom. I accept it as an axiom for the reasons outlined by Ayn Rand in my signature. Why do you accept it?

Regards,

HE

[D M]

Hi HE,

Do you mean why is it not possible that there could be no "reality"? If it were true that there was no reality then there would be no reality for that state of affairs to exist in. How is that meaningful? The absence of reality would not be real (since there would be no reality), so it would not be real that there was an absence of reality, so there would not be an absence of reality.

?

Yes, that was my secondary question, ‘why is it not possible that there could be no ‘reality’?
The same axiom we’ve been discussing would seem to make it impossible, but if that axiom didn’t exist, could ‘nothing’ possibly exist?

I don't really care what it says in some old book, but if you want your God to have no cause then why do you object to anything else having no cause?

I don’t claim that everything needs a cause.
If someone suggested that the sun (or something we ordinarily think there is a cause to) did not have a cause but simply existed, would you object to it?

Well, sure, but in that case the text you quote ought to make that clear, otherwise it is not claiming anything. These are then just your ideas.

The text on its own needs an interpretive authority, although it’s not me who fulfills that role, as I’m not the infallible interpreter. On that note I should probably correct what I wrote in the last post by stating that (not on my own authority though) God created all of reality except that which is evil including temptation, sin, etc. Wisdom 1:13 because God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living.

There is logic because there is language.

If people didn’t communicate, there would be no logic?
Would the logic that reality must exist because ‘nothing’ paradoxically can’t exist, not be true if we didn’t have language?
If a pen was on a table, would it no longer be true that logically the table must be under the pen, if language didn’t exist?

The axiom exists because you and I have agreed that it is an axiom. I accept it as an axiom for the reasons outlined by Ayn Rand in my signature. Why do you accept it?

What I mean to ask is why is it that this logical statement (ie. that nothing paradoxically can’t exist) exists? Does it have a cause that made it exist?
I would actually state that I question whether it is impossible for nothing to exist if that logic didn’t exist. It is an axiom that we do exist, but the hypothetical situation of nothingness is something that I am undecided if it could be possible.
God Bless,

[hypsell]

Who knows?Humans don't.Our brains aren't big enough and anyways our brains are part of the universe themselves so cannot study it from an "outside" perspective.
Why is there anything?Bill Cosby once asked "why is there air?"and his answer was "to blow up basketballs with".We can use observation and logic to understand why certain things happen,but not the full why of it nor much at all about the really big questions.(is there a god,what is the ultimate universe,ect).

[D M]

Hi Hypsell,

Who knows?Humans don't.Our brains aren't big enough and anyways our brains are part of the universe themselves so cannot study it from an "outside" perspective.
Why is there anything?Bill Cosby once asked "why is there air?"and his answer was "to blow up basketballs with".We can use observation and logic to understand why certain things happen,but not the full why of it nor much at all about the really big questions.(is there a god,what is the ultimate universe,ect).

Thank you for answering.
Why do you believe that humans are unable to know the answers to those big questions?
Why do you say that we need to be in an “outside” perspective to be able to understand?
God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

Hi D M,

If people didn’t communicate, there would be no logic?

Yes. I think that without language there would be no vehicle for logic, so it could not, therefore, exist. Language is the substrate for logic and logic is a property of language, as is grammar, for example.

Would the logic that reality must exist because ‘nothing’ paradoxically can’t exist, not be true if we didn’t have language?

We cannot judge whether a proposition is true if we cannot state the proposition. Can we?

The answer to this question ...

If a pen was on a table, would it no longer be true that logically the table must be under the pen, if language didn’t exist?

 ... would be that "on the table" and "under the pen" would have no meaning if language did not exist because those words would not exist. The statement "A is under B" implies "B is above A" because of the meanings of the words "above" and "below".

What I mean to ask is why is it that this logical statement (ie. that nothing paradoxically can’t exist) exists?

That is the same question that you asked before. One of the necessary conditions for the existence of that statement is the existence of language.

I would actually state that I question whether it is impossible for nothing to exist if that logic didn’t exist. It is an axiom that we do exist, but the hypothetical situation of nothingness is something that I am undecided if it could be possible.

I think that what I am trying to say is the we know empirically that something exists, so it follows that it is not possible for nothing to exist. Even if we posit an alternative universe in which nothing existed it would still be true that this universe exists, so something would exist even with respect to that other, empty, universe.

If nothing existed then the question of whether it was possible for something to exist wouldn't arise.

Regards,

HE

[D M]

Hi HE,

Yes. I think that without language there would be no vehicle for logic, so it could not, therefore, exist. Language is the substrate for logic and logic is a property of language, as is grammar, for example.

This reminds me of a quote from Sartre:

There can be no eternal truth because there is no eternal Consciousness to think it."

It’s a slight divergence, but what do you think of his statement?
I think that logic would exist whether or not we had language to describe it. I also think Truth would exist even if we did not exist to think it.

We cannot judge whether a proposition is true if we cannot state the proposition. Can we?

The answer to this question ...

I think we can judge if a proposition was true in the hypothetical scenario if we didn’t have language. If I couldn’t communicate with anyone I think I still would be able to see that 2 +2 =4 for example.
I also think that a proposition could still be true if we didn’t think of it as well.

... would be that "on the table" and "under the pen" would have no meaning if language did not exist because those words would not exist. The statement "A is under B" implies "B is above A" because of the meanings of the words "above" and "below".

Your answers are very interesting, and I thank you for contributing these.
The statements wouldn’t have meaning, but would the physical reality no longer be true? Even if there was no human being in existence, if a pen was atop a table would that mean that the table didn’t have to be below the pen? I think it would still have to be below the pen even if we didn’t exist to describe it.

That is the same question that you asked before. One of the necessary conditions for the existence of that statement is the existence of language.

Yes, it is the same question. Language needs to exist for a statement to exist, but I think that the underlying logic or principle could still exist even if there was no language for it. 2 +2 would still equal four even if we didn’t exist to think it. The universe still existed even before life on Earth began.

I think that what I am trying to say is the we know empirically that something exists, so it follows that it is not possible for nothing to exist. Even if we posit an alternative universe in which nothing existed it would still be true that this universe exists, so something would exist even with respect to that other, empty, universe.

If nothing existed then the question of whether it was possible for something to exist wouldn't arise.

I agree that we can know that something exists both empirically and through a priori reasoning. A hypothetical alternate universe couldn’t exist because of the paradox you outline.
To wiggle my way back to a key question: is there a cause for why this paradox exists?

On a different note, I found a scripture passage that sort of relates to the issue of God creating more than just the physical heavens and the Earth.
Wisdom 11:20 But thou hast arranged all things by measure and number and weight.

God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

This reminds me of a quote from Sartre:

There can be no eternal truth because there is no eternal Consciousness to think it."

It’s a slight divergence, but what do you think of his statement?

I think that it is very interesting, and I don't agree with it. It was one of my last lines of defence before I finally rejected the God hypothesis, God as the Universal Witness to the Truth.

We know empirically that things persist when we don't observe them because when we observe them again they have changed in ways that are consistent with our other experiences. We don't see any consciousness guiding the observed parts of the physical Universe (apart from ourselves and other animals) , so there is no reason to suppose that a consciousness is required for the unobserved parts. If there is a rock fall on Mars, then that is true whether we observe it or not, we just don't know about it.

[Waldo]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100301.html

Our chances of observing such a thing are getting better, it seems.

[D M]

Hi HE,

I think that it is very interesting, and I don't agree with it. It was one of my last lines of defence before I finally rejected the God hypothesis, God as the Universal Witness to the Truth.

We know empirically that things persist when we don't observe them because when we observe them again they have changed in ways that are consistent with our other experiences. We don't see any consciousness guiding the observed parts of the physical Universe (apart from ourselves and other animals) , so there is no reason to suppose that a consciousness is required for the unobserved parts. If there is a rock fall on Mars, then that is true whether we observe it or not, we just don't know about it.

That’s interesting, thank you for sharing your experience. Am I correct in interpreting that you were originally thinking the reversal of Sartre’s statement that God had to exist because Truth existed?

It does seem to be true that physical reality persists whether or not we are observant of it. On the other hand, I sometimes think to myself that we don’t actually have a means to know what physical reality does when we don’t observe. As a humorous thought experiment, suppose there was a large dancing grizzly bear that made no noise and it appeared behind you every time you logged into IGI. The grizzly bear cast no shadow, had no smell and left absolutely no evidence of its existence nor could it be recorded by a camera or similar device, and it disappeared the moment anyone looked in its direction. Now, how would one know if this existed or not?
Even from the perspective of faith, I don’t have certainty on such a seemingly silly question. The pope does seem to support the achievements of the natural sciences:

From this starting-point, human reason with its many questions has developed further its yearning to know more and to know it ever more deeply. Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another.

–John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 1998
However, I think to myself that if reality changed its working outside of our perception in such a way that it left no evidence we could see, how would we know about it? In fact, how do we know that that isn’t the case right now?

On a different note: Do you believe that there is or may be any cause for the laws of physics to exist?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Waldo: Thank you. You might like this website if you are not already familiar with it: http://www.uahirise.org/

God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100301.html

Our chances of observing such a thing are getting better, it seems.

Yes indeed, we are much closer to observing rock falls on Mars than we have ever been. I love this site too.

[Happy Evolute]

Hi D M,

That’s interesting, thank you for sharing your experience. Am I correct in interpreting that you were originally thinking the reversal of Sartre’s statement that God had to exist because Truth existed?

Yes, those were the lines along which my thought was running.

The grizzly bear cast no shadow, had no smell and left absolutely no evidence of its existence nor could it be recorded by a camera or similar device, and it disappeared the moment anyone looked in its direction. Now, how would one know if this existed or not?

There would be no reason to suppose it existed. I would be confident in rejecting the hypothesis. You?

On a different note: Do you believe that there is or may be any cause for the laws of physics to exist?

I think that the word "law", in this context, is a metaphor. These "laws" are generalisations of how the world is observed to behave. I have no idea why the world behaves in those ways, but it is a fascinating question.

Regards,

HE

[D M]

Hi HE,

There would be no reason to suppose it existed. I would be confident in rejecting the hypothesis. You?

There would be no reason to suppose it existed. I would be confident in forgetting about it, although from a perspective of pure logic, I wouldn’t actually have a means of knowing it was either true or false.
On the other hand, I would be willing to think and consider the possibility that reality could be something other than our understanding of it and even the scientifically problematic issue of whether the ‘laws’ or workings of the universe were constant when unobserved.

I think that the word "law", in this context, is a metaphor. These "laws" are generalisations of how the world is observed to behave. I have no idea why the world behaves in those ways, but it is a fascinating question.

I would agree, and say that it was a theorized law rather than a concretely known law. What I would mean is that they are hypotheses that are meant to be consistent with a wide body of observations that support them. It isn’t actually possible to know that the hypothesis is necessarily true, however, because there is always the possibility that an observation will come some day that will refute the supposed law.
For example if mass always has gravity when it is observed and the gravity always occurs at a detectable rate in a relationship between how much mass is present and the distance involved,  we will then hypothesize that there is a constant law at work that will always make a force between masses according to this detectable rate. Even if every observation we ever made was consistent with this hypothesis, we wouldn’t actually have a means of knowing that every observation we ever will make will be consistent with this (even if I rolled a dice 10 times and I got ten 6s that wouldn’t prove there was necessarily a rule in place that made it either probable or necessary to get a 6). On that note, I don’t know if it would interest you, but there are some physicists who I’ve heard of who are questioning if the supposed ‘dark matter’ that has been theorized to exist to explain observed gravitational forces in the universe, might actually not exist and they present an alternative hypothesis that instead the ‘law’ of gravity might not work as it is thought to.
It is a fascinating question as to what is behind such laws. As a matter of faith I believe that God is ultimately behind everything except evil(Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.), although whether there are unknown scientific causes underlying the present ‘laws’ of the universe is an interesting question.
Do you think there may be cause for why matter, space, time and energy exist?
Thank you for your thoughts.
God Bless,

[Kerlyssa]

Coyote did it on a  lark.

[D M]

Hi Kerlyssa,

Coyote did it on a  lark.

There's probably a pagan creation myth out there that has something similar.

Thank you for your thoughts.

God Bless,

[Happy Evolute]

Hi D M,

There would be no reason to suppose it existed. I would be confident in rejecting the hypothesis. You?

There would be no reason to suppose it existed. I would be confident in forgetting about it, although from a perspective of pure logic, I wouldn’t actually have a means of knowing it was either true or false.

From the perspective of pure logic it would make perfect sense to label the grizzly bear "non-existent" because it qualifies by every logical criterion for non-existence. If it began to show existent properties then we could, logically, review the conclusion.

On the other hand, I would be willing to think and consider the possibility that reality could be something other than our understanding of it and even the scientifically problematic issue of whether the ‘laws’ or workings of the universe were constant when unobserved.

Surely it's axiomatic to say that reality is something other than our understanding of it?
 

... there is always the possibility that an observation will come some day that will refute the supposed law.

A single observation is unlikely to convince anyone that a well-established "law" is false. Such observations would need to be checked, and making scientific observations is not a trivial exercise.
 

... Even if every observation we ever made was consistent with this hypothesis, we wouldn’t actually have a means of knowing that every observation we ever will make will be consistent with this (even if I rolled a dice 10 times and I got ten 6s that wouldn’t prove there was necessarily a rule in place that made it either probable or necessary to get a 6).

If I rolled a die ten times and got ten sixes it would be logical to conclude that the die was biased. The chances of being wrong on that can be calculated. Also, I could examine the die to confirm it. The number of times that Newton's Law of Gravity (within it's domain of applicability) has been confirmed is not comparable to your ten dice analogy, seriously.

Do you think there may be cause for why matter, space, time and energy exist?

Yes, there might be.

Regards,

HE