12 ms·

Why anything? Why this? (1998)

66 points by diodorus 10y ago

macawfish 10y ago
I skimmed the article, and it was filled with lots of historical philosophical sorts of things about anthropic principles and "God" and what not. But what I really like is the headline was a question, which reads like a Simple English Wikipedia article. Here's my reaction: Let's assume that at least "one" existence of "something" is possible, and that it corresponds with the one that you, the reader, are assuming to be experiencing right now. Somethingness. Okay, then let's make the leap and say it's possible that nothing could be. At this point, the odds of nothing existing are 1/2, because the set of possible universes is [nothing, something]. And if we go by the assumptions that every possible state in this set of possible states is equally likely (a common assumption in classical probability theory), but that only one state can be actualized, then this is leaving us with 1/2. But then think about all the possible "existences" that could exist as different combinations of the substance around you. The state space is huge. Nothingness forms a vanishingly small part of that set of possible existences. The thing is that one form of "nothingness" is indistinguishable from another form of "nothingness". By extensionality, the set of possible existences only contains "nothingness" one time. This is a naive set theory/classical probability theory approach to the question. Of course, in a multiverse idea of reality, we don't necessarily have to pick one of the possible existences. They can be in some kind of larger superposition, even if they are somehow cut off from one another. Maybe nothingness is compatible with somethingness. We existers just don't happen to experience it. And how could we? What is there to experience and who is there to experience it? Wow. Enough is enough! I feel like a wide-eyed college freshmen again! Bye :) P.S. It occurred to me that there might be distinguishable variations on non-existence. For example, what if the set of possible realities is: ["Nil", "nada", "null", "nothingness", "pitch black silence", "non-sense", "eternal vacuum", "something"]. Well then in this case, we are sure lucky to be here! There was a 7/8 chance that some form of nothing would be the ultimate reality!
- heckless 10y ago
  > And if we go by the assumptions that every possible state in this set of possible states is equally likely (a common assumption in classical probability theory) I know I am being nitpicky, but despite the fact that yes, it's common to assume equal priors, this often has no basis---especially in regards to this question. With only one observation we know virtually nothing about the distribution of possible observations other than that the state that we observed is in a region with nonzero probability. We can't conclude anything else with any certainty at all. I was happy to see that in the article the author discusses this point in particular.
  - macawfish 10y ago
    I don't know if "tongue in cheek" is the right word, but I'm not exactly being philosophically earnest. There are a lot of assumptions involved in any discussion of these kinds of things, and I've come to see a kind of inevitably foolishness in pondering this kind of stuff. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. That said, I definitely can relate to the gravity of existential yearnings.
    - heckless 10y ago
      I agree about the futility of trying to answer this question---that is what the entire article is about after all. But I am a practicing statistician so I feel the need to "well actually" sometimes when I see stuff like this. I can't help it.
      - macawfish 10y ago
        I get that. I'm not the most fluent in probability theory, but I'm vaguely aware that there are all kinds of ways of going about it. Even just in setting up a probabilistic model, there are assumptions to be made. Then you have to make certain assumptions about what kind of probability theory you are using. Then there is the linking of probability theory to logic... Logics themselves have their own sets of assumptions and rules.
      - mannykannot 10y ago
- Gatsky 10y ago
  How can you define a sample space if there is no space? I don't see how nothingness can be treated as equally likely as somethingness.
  - macawfish 10y ago
    you said there "is no space". How can there be nothing if there is ___. Is "no space" not something that can "be"? I mean, you said there "is" no space, you said it yourself! :D But more seriously, why should my reasoning, my set theory/classical probability idea, be required for a nothing reality? It's just a tool I'm using here on hacker news to make a line of reasoning, to communicate about the possibility this sort of nothingness. I have the luxury of such a tool apparently existing, here in this universe of somethingness. But why should that have any bearing on a possible nothing universe?
- ramblenode 10y ago
  > At this point, the odds of nothing existing are 1/2, because the set of possible universes is [nothing, something] An uninformed prior doesn't really make sense in this case. You have observed somethingness at least once but have never observed nothingness--only conjectured its existence. If 1) your observations are correct and 2) somethingness is mutually exclusive with nothingness then your prior distribution should approach [1, 0], not [0.5, 0.5].
dvt 10y ago
For context, Parfit died a few days ago, he was a brilliant man and I read some of his papers as a philosophy undergraduate. As far as the essay itself goes, it's pretty much typical run-of-the-mill anti-theist cosmology with the same arguments that have become status quo for the past 20 years or so. Even as a Christian, I find both cosmological arguments (theist and anti-theist) wholly unconvincing. For example, if I was a non-believer, I would find it equally hard to believe in a multi-verse or a God. Not only that, but to make these kinds of arguments, we need to make all kinds of pretty serious assumptions: that we know how causality works in a multiverse, that laws of physics are invariant even at the beginning of universes (whatever that might mean), and so on. But here's where I completely disagree with the position so many philosophers have (a field which I love): > As these remarks suggest, there is no clear boundary here between philosophy and science. If there is such a highest law governing reality, this law is of the same kind as those that physicists are trying to discover. As much as I respect Parfit (and many other philosophers of science), I think they're just dead wrong. What philosophers do is very different than what physicists do. This view absolutely permeates academic philosophy: that philosophy of science is, you know, basically science. It's not. I always recommend Barry Dainton's Time and Space[1] for budding philosophers of science, but don't kid yourself: it's merely a very high-level introduction to the physics of space and time. Until you really get down and dirty with the intricacies of (at first) Galilean spacetime and (eventually) Minkowski spacetime, you really won't "get it" -- but alas, many philosophy undergraduates and grad students think they do. And I'm sure that hubris follows them in their postgraduate careers. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Time-Space-Barry-Francis-Dainton/dp/0773537473 https://www.amazon.com/Time-Space-Barry-Francis-Dainton/dp/0...
- ozy 10y ago
  My I ask why you are a Christian? Personally I think the question of a god has only one answer: we cannot know. But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 innocent Egyptian kids? Genocide and more promise of genocide? Stoning? Hating homosexuals? Sending good people to hell? None of these things are loving or good. Or just try Mark 16:17-18, a simple test, but I have never seen it demonstrated. Those are my reasons to not belief, and see it as bronze/iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs. Would you mind expanding on what convinces you? If not the cosmological argument?
nessus42 10y ago
I read Parfit's book Reasons and Persons for a Philosophy class a number of years ago. One large section of the book addressed that age-old question: If you get into a Star Trek transporter, do you actually get transported somewhere else? Or do you die, and a new person is created at the destination who is deluded into thinking that they are you? The book was very interesting. I'm not sure that I agree with his conclusion, however, which was (1) Yes, you die. (2) So what? (I.e., there being someone else who is just like you is just as good as not dying.) From my point of view, if the result is just as good as not dying, then that's what I meant by not dying. But I'm sure I'd have to write just as much as Parfit did to make that claim credible to philosophers.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  I am not sure there is any difference in your opinions, I get the impression that he and you are just putting it differently. Many of these sorts of discussion end up being about the meaning of words. Parfit seems to have had a talent for avoiding that.
Maken 10y ago
In the end, it all comes down to Aristotle. We assume that nothing moves unless it is moved by others, and then when faced by the fact that rule necessarily implies a infinity chain of movers, we just and put a unmoved mover at the beginning. Because breaking the rule just one is fine.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel 10y ago
At its end the essay says there will be a part II that will address the question of how much deeper these sorts of causal explanations could go. Is there a link available for it? My own view is that such causal explanation has to stop somewhere, and we are left with, as Parfit mentions at a few points, sheer awe. I think this is an example of the larger principle that human understanding is finite. Another example would be Colin McGinn's argument the human mind is not the sort of intelligence that could understand why consciousness (in the hard problem meaning of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness).... I think that furthermore the finiteness of human intelligence is linked with many other types of finitude, such as our being mortal material bodies with material brains in a material world, and that philosophy is to a great extent the process of determining how finite things are in each area or aspect of reality, and how these various finitudes connect with each other in an overall pattern. I would add that I think that many if not most philosphical disagreements are based at least in part on differing views about these finitudes. So for instance Platonism holds that many apparent finitudes are in fact delusions, while Aristotle tends to affirm them as real.
- westoncb 10y ago
  I think there's something to what you're saying here, but there's a slight technical correction I'd make. Human concepts are not finite; they are definitely infinite. However, just because something is infinite doesn't mean it covers everything--e.g. the real numbers are fundamentally more encompassing than the integers. So, human concepts are infinite, but that doesn't mean they cover everything.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    Yes, that is a good point.
- cristianpascu 10y ago
  The problem raised by the article is one of necessesity and contingency. Why is there something? Why this? A necessary being and a contingent being demand very different questions. That's why the article then goes into probabilities, which are the mark of contingency. The ancient and medieval philosophy/theology insisted on the lack of contingent attributes of God, whereas the Universe has all the attributes of contingency. As Heidegger said (in a quote I read somewhere), necessity can not be explained. That's where our mind will stop explaining things. The difference between a theist and an atheist is in their willingness to accept contingency as being necessary, or, to say that the electron is necessary the way it is and there's no other possible way for it to be this way. It exists necessarily like this and that's it. Or some other material entity that caused it, but the chain ends quickly and stops there.
lolc 10y ago
Humans are good at recognizing intent. They want to be. When you let them loose on a question, they will try to find an answer with intent, because the expectation is for there to be intent. Sheer complexity is hard to stomach for us. We must be clear that the only things that make sense are we ourselves, plus the animals we're surrounded by. The animals too are trying hard to make sense of things. Most cannot afford the luxury of developing advanced brains like we did. We can try and calculate the possibility for other "sensible" things in the universe, but that is just idle speculation. We have not the slightest indication of them existing. For our current physics, the question of what lies beyond the beginning of our universe is nonsensical, as we are limited to light-speed. We cannot leave the universe expanding outwards at light-speed. Our perception is limited to that bubble within. When we say that our physical discoveries point to a fine-tuned universe, we're just being proud of our fine-tuned physics. We did figure out a few things about the universe after all. And we're trying really hard to understand something that happened far in the past. Then these intent-people come along and claim it theirs. TLDR: Who created this fine-tuned universe? We did.
- cristianpascu 10y ago
  Who put the wagon in front of the horses? The horses did. :)
calebsurfs 10y ago
Part 2 is here, with plenty of food for thought: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n03/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-this http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n03/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-t... > If we find this astonishing, we are assuming that these features should be the Selectors: that reality should be as simple and unarbitrary as it could be. That assumption has, I believe, great plausibility. But, just as the simplest cosmic possibility is that nothing ever exists, the simplest explanatory possibility is that there is no Selector. So we should not expect simplicity at both the factual and explanatory levels. If there is no Selector, we should not expect that there would also be no Universe. That would be an extreme coincidence.
johnfn 10y ago
I have two fun answers to this question. One is that we are in a simulation and our higher order universe has no conception of cause and effect. Two is that we are the side effects of a mathematical system. (This one is harder to explain on mobile.) Consider Wolfram's rule 110. With simple inputs, the results iterated over and over again become arbitrarily complex. Perhaps complex enough to be life like? Perhaps complex enough to simulate a universe? But consider that if you could actually simulate something complex with a mathematical system, no cause is required, in the same way that no cause is required for the empty cell to have whatever output exists when you iterate rule 110 on it 10000 times. Our universe could just be playing out some mathematical formula already set down. Sorry, that probably makes no sense. It's a bastardized explanation of something I read on lesswrong ages ago.
tehwalrus 10y ago
This is the problem with philosophy. Expanding zero information into some information. I wasn't very good at spotting it before I learned about compression and information entropy, which incidentally gave me a lifelong obsession with encodings. It is sufficient to believe nothing about the origin of the universe, as with deities, since obtaining data is impossible.

66 points by diodorus 10y ago

I skimmed the article, and it was filled with lots of historical philosophical sorts of things about anthropic principles and "God" and what not. But what I really like is the headline was a question, which reads like a Simple English Wikipedia article. Here's my reaction: Let's assume that at least "one" existence of "something" is possible, and that it corresponds with the one that you, the reader, are assuming to be experiencing right now. Somethingness. Okay, then let's make the leap and say it's possible that nothing could be. At this point, the odds of nothing existing are 1/2, because the set of possible universes is [nothing, something]. And if we go by the assumptions that every possible state in this set of possible states is equally likely (a common assumption in classical probability theory), but that only one state can be actualized, then this is leaving us with 1/2. But then think about all the possible "existences" that could exist as different combinations of the substance around you. The state space is huge. Nothingness forms a vanishingly small part of that set of possible existences. The thing is that one form of "nothingness" is indistinguishable from another form of "nothingness". By extensionality, the set of possible existences only contains "nothingness" one time. This is a naive set theory/classical probability theory approach to the question. Of course, in a multiverse idea of reality, we don't necessarily have to pick one of the possible existences. They can be in some kind of larger superposition, even if they are somehow cut off from one another. Maybe nothingness is compatible with somethingness. We existers just don't happen to experience it. And how could we? What is there to experience and who is there to experience it? Wow. Enough is enough! I feel like a wide-eyed college freshmen again! Bye :) P.S. It occurred to me that there might be distinguishable variations on non-existence. For example, what if the set of possible realities is: ["Nil", "nada", "null", "nothingness", "pitch black silence", "non-sense", "eternal vacuum", "something"]. Well then in this case, we are sure lucky to be here! There was a 7/8 chance that some form of nothing would be the ultimate reality!

heckless 10y ago
> And if we go by the assumptions that every possible state in this set of possible states is equally likely (a common assumption in classical probability theory) I know I am being nitpicky, but despite the fact that yes, it's common to assume equal priors, this often has no basis---especially in regards to this question. With only one observation we know virtually nothing about the distribution of possible observations other than that the state that we observed is in a region with nonzero probability. We can't conclude anything else with any certainty at all. I was happy to see that in the article the author discusses this point in particular.
- macawfish 10y ago
  I don't know if "tongue in cheek" is the right word, but I'm not exactly being philosophically earnest. There are a lot of assumptions involved in any discussion of these kinds of things, and I've come to see a kind of inevitably foolishness in pondering this kind of stuff. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. That said, I definitely can relate to the gravity of existential yearnings.
  - heckless 10y ago
    I agree about the futility of trying to answer this question---that is what the entire article is about after all. But I am a practicing statistician so I feel the need to "well actually" sometimes when I see stuff like this. I can't help it.
    - macawfish 10y ago
      I get that. I'm not the most fluent in probability theory, but I'm vaguely aware that there are all kinds of ways of going about it. Even just in setting up a probabilistic model, there are assumptions to be made. Then you have to make certain assumptions about what kind of probability theory you are using. Then there is the linking of probability theory to logic... Logics themselves have their own sets of assumptions and rules.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
Gatsky 10y ago
How can you define a sample space if there is no space? I don't see how nothingness can be treated as equally likely as somethingness.
- macawfish 10y ago
  you said there "is no space". How can there be nothing if there is ___. Is "no space" not something that can "be"? I mean, you said there "is" no space, you said it yourself! :D But more seriously, why should my reasoning, my set theory/classical probability idea, be required for a nothing reality? It's just a tool I'm using here on hacker news to make a line of reasoning, to communicate about the possibility this sort of nothingness. I have the luxury of such a tool apparently existing, here in this universe of somethingness. But why should that have any bearing on a possible nothing universe?
ramblenode 10y ago
> At this point, the odds of nothing existing are 1/2, because the set of possible universes is [nothing, something] An uninformed prior doesn't really make sense in this case. You have observed somethingness at least once but have never observed nothingness--only conjectured its existence. If 1) your observations are correct and 2) somethingness is mutually exclusive with nothingness then your prior distribution should approach [1, 0], not [0.5, 0.5].

dvt 10y ago

For context, Parfit died a few days ago, he was a brilliant man and I read some of his papers as a philosophy undergraduate. As far as the essay itself goes, it's pretty much typical run-of-the-mill anti-theist cosmology with the same arguments that have become status quo for the past 20 years or so. Even as a Christian, I find both cosmological arguments (theist and anti-theist) wholly unconvincing. For example, if I was a non-believer, I would find it equally hard to believe in a multi-verse or a God. Not only that, but to make these kinds of arguments, we need to make all kinds of pretty serious assumptions: that we know how causality works in a multiverse, that laws of physics are invariant even at the beginning of universes (whatever that might mean), and so on. But here's where I completely disagree with the position so many philosophers have (a field which I love): > As these remarks suggest, there is no clear boundary here between philosophy and science. If there is such a highest law governing reality, this law is of the same kind as those that physicists are trying to discover. As much as I respect Parfit (and many other philosophers of science), I think they're just dead wrong. What philosophers do is very different than what physicists do. This view absolutely permeates academic philosophy: that philosophy of science is, you know, basically science. It's not. I always recommend Barry Dainton's Time and Space[1] for budding philosophers of science, but don't kid yourself: it's merely a very high-level introduction to the physics of space and time. Until you really get down and dirty with the intricacies of (at first) Galilean spacetime and (eventually) Minkowski spacetime, you really won't "get it" -- but alas, many philosophy undergraduates and grad students think they do. And I'm sure that hubris follows them in their postgraduate careers. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Time-Space-Barry-Francis-Dainton/dp/0773537473 https://www.amazon.com/Time-Space-Barry-Francis-Dainton/dp/0...

ozy 10y ago
My I ask why you are a Christian? Personally I think the question of a god has only one answer: we cannot know. But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 innocent Egyptian kids? Genocide and more promise of genocide? Stoning? Hating homosexuals? Sending good people to hell? None of these things are loving or good. Or just try Mark 16:17-18, a simple test, but I have never seen it demonstrated. Those are my reasons to not belief, and see it as bronze/iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs. Would you mind expanding on what convinces you? If not the cosmological argument?

nessus42 10y ago

I read Parfit's book Reasons and Persons for a Philosophy class a number of years ago. One large section of the book addressed that age-old question: If you get into a Star Trek transporter, do you actually get transported somewhere else? Or do you die, and a new person is created at the destination who is deluded into thinking that they are you? The book was very interesting. I'm not sure that I agree with his conclusion, however, which was (1) Yes, you die. (2) So what? (I.e., there being someone else who is just like you is just as good as not dying.) From my point of view, if the result is just as good as not dying, then that's what I meant by not dying. But I'm sure I'd have to write just as much as Parfit did to make that claim credible to philosophers.

mannykannot 10y ago
I am not sure there is any difference in your opinions, I get the impression that he and you are just putting it differently. Many of these sorts of discussion end up being about the meaning of words. Parfit seems to have had a talent for avoiding that.

Maken 10y ago

In the end, it all comes down to Aristotle. We assume that nothing moves unless it is moved by others, and then when faced by the fact that rule necessarily implies a infinity chain of movers, we just and put a unmoved mover at the beginning. Because breaking the rule just one is fine.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

woodandsteel 10y ago

At its end the essay says there will be a part II that will address the question of how much deeper these sorts of causal explanations could go. Is there a link available for it? My own view is that such causal explanation has to stop somewhere, and we are left with, as Parfit mentions at a few points, sheer awe. I think this is an example of the larger principle that human understanding is finite. Another example would be Colin McGinn's argument the human mind is not the sort of intelligence that could understand why consciousness (in the hard problem meaning of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness).... I think that furthermore the finiteness of human intelligence is linked with many other types of finitude, such as our being mortal material bodies with material brains in a material world, and that philosophy is to a great extent the process of determining how finite things are in each area or aspect of reality, and how these various finitudes connect with each other in an overall pattern. I would add that I think that many if not most philosphical disagreements are based at least in part on differing views about these finitudes. So for instance Platonism holds that many apparent finitudes are in fact delusions, while Aristotle tends to affirm them as real.

westoncb 10y ago
I think there's something to what you're saying here, but there's a slight technical correction I'd make. Human concepts are not finite; they are definitely infinite. However, just because something is infinite doesn't mean it covers everything--e.g. the real numbers are fundamentally more encompassing than the integers. So, human concepts are infinite, but that doesn't mean they cover everything.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Yes, that is a good point.
cristianpascu 10y ago
The problem raised by the article is one of necessesity and contingency. Why is there something? Why this? A necessary being and a contingent being demand very different questions. That's why the article then goes into probabilities, which are the mark of contingency. The ancient and medieval philosophy/theology insisted on the lack of contingent attributes of God, whereas the Universe has all the attributes of contingency. As Heidegger said (in a quote I read somewhere), necessity can not be explained. That's where our mind will stop explaining things. The difference between a theist and an atheist is in their willingness to accept contingency as being necessary, or, to say that the electron is necessary the way it is and there's no other possible way for it to be this way. It exists necessarily like this and that's it. Or some other material entity that caused it, but the chain ends quickly and stops there.

lolc 10y ago

Humans are good at recognizing intent. They want to be. When you let them loose on a question, they will try to find an answer with intent, because the expectation is for there to be intent. Sheer complexity is hard to stomach for us. We must be clear that the only things that make sense are we ourselves, plus the animals we're surrounded by. The animals too are trying hard to make sense of things. Most cannot afford the luxury of developing advanced brains like we did. We can try and calculate the possibility for other "sensible" things in the universe, but that is just idle speculation. We have not the slightest indication of them existing. For our current physics, the question of what lies beyond the beginning of our universe is nonsensical, as we are limited to light-speed. We cannot leave the universe expanding outwards at light-speed. Our perception is limited to that bubble within. When we say that our physical discoveries point to a fine-tuned universe, we're just being proud of our fine-tuned physics. We did figure out a few things about the universe after all. And we're trying really hard to understand something that happened far in the past. Then these intent-people come along and claim it theirs. TLDR: Who created this fine-tuned universe? We did.

cristianpascu 10y ago
Who put the wagon in front of the horses? The horses did. :)

calebsurfs 10y ago

Part 2 is here, with plenty of food for thought: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n03/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-this http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n03/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-t... > If we find this astonishing, we are assuming that these features should be the Selectors: that reality should be as simple and unarbitrary as it could be. That assumption has, I believe, great plausibility. But, just as the simplest cosmic possibility is that nothing ever exists, the simplest explanatory possibility is that there is no Selector. So we should not expect simplicity at both the factual and explanatory levels. If there is no Selector, we should not expect that there would also be no Universe. That would be an extreme coincidence.

johnfn 10y ago

I have two fun answers to this question. One is that we are in a simulation and our higher order universe has no conception of cause and effect. Two is that we are the side effects of a mathematical system. (This one is harder to explain on mobile.) Consider Wolfram's rule 110. With simple inputs, the results iterated over and over again become arbitrarily complex. Perhaps complex enough to be life like? Perhaps complex enough to simulate a universe? But consider that if you could actually simulate something complex with a mathematical system, no cause is required, in the same way that no cause is required for the empty cell to have whatever output exists when you iterate rule 110 on it 10000 times. Our universe could just be playing out some mathematical formula already set down. Sorry, that probably makes no sense. It's a bastardized explanation of something I read on lesswrong ages ago.

tehwalrus 10y ago

This is the problem with philosophy. Expanding zero information into some information. I wasn't very good at spotting it before I learned about compression and information entropy, which incidentally gave me a lifelong obsession with encodings. It is sufficient to believe nothing about the origin of the universe, as with deities, since obtaining data is impossible.