3 ms·

This might be OT but is there anything physics has discovered that can answer the age-old question of why anything exists rather than nothing? The big bang doe

This might be OT but is there anything physics has discovered that can answer the age-old question of why anything exists rather than nothing? The big bang doesn't answer that afaik since it requires a singularity (I think), which is something (I think).

tsimionescu 4y ago
Physics can't really answer "why" questions. Physics can tell you how the universe behaves starting from some initial condition, but can't tell you "why" that initial condition is what it is, or "why" that initial condition evolves according to these laws. This particular question also seems most nonsensical to me - nothing can be said about a "universe" where nothing exists, so why even discuss it?
- stormdennis 4y ago
  nothing can be said about a "universe" where nothing exists, so why even discuss it? Why are there stars in the sky? Nothing could be said about stars in the sky if there were no stars in the sky, so why even discuss it? etc ad infinitum
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Asking why there is X instead of Y, where both X and Y are things, is valid. Even asking why there is/isn't more X ("why are there no stars closer to the Sun?") is valid. We could still conceivably be having this conversation even in a universe with many more stars, or much fewer. But the phrase "something exists" is tautologically true, while the phrase "nothing exists" is a logical contradiction (since the phrase itself and the speaker and the listener must exist). So it's logically impossible for the whole universe not to exist, as long as we can have this conversation or even thought. It's like discussing why 1+1=2 and not 0.
efkiel 4y ago
>why anything exists rather than nothing? Physics answer "How" things are, if you want to know "Why" the answer is to be found in philosophy or religion.
dghf 4y ago
> 1. Why is there something rather than nothing? > Well, why not? -- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Nothingness" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/)
cygx 4y ago
That's really more of a philosophical question, and arguably not a particularly interesting one - ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing), after all: Either there's 'eternal' nothingness - an option which we have excluded empirically - or something always must have existed. We're trying to work out the nature of that something, and the meaning of 'always' (did time begin at the big bang, making the question of 'before' as meaningless as the question of what's north of the north pole; is our universe just the lastest stage in a possibly eternal cycle; does the singularity hide a mirror universe with an arrow of time pointing in the opposite direction; ...).
spindle 4y ago
Some physicists think there is, e.g. Lawrence Kraus. See https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-f...

tsimionescu 4y ago

Physics can't really answer "why" questions. Physics can tell you how the universe behaves starting from some initial condition, but can't tell you "why" that initial condition is what it is, or "why" that initial condition evolves according to these laws. This particular question also seems most nonsensical to me - nothing can be said about a "universe" where nothing exists, so why even discuss it?

stormdennis 4y ago
nothing can be said about a "universe" where nothing exists, so why even discuss it? Why are there stars in the sky? Nothing could be said about stars in the sky if there were no stars in the sky, so why even discuss it? etc ad infinitum
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Asking why there is X instead of Y, where both X and Y are things, is valid. Even asking why there is/isn't more X ("why are there no stars closer to the Sun?") is valid. We could still conceivably be having this conversation even in a universe with many more stars, or much fewer. But the phrase "something exists" is tautologically true, while the phrase "nothing exists" is a logical contradiction (since the phrase itself and the speaker and the listener must exist). So it's logically impossible for the whole universe not to exist, as long as we can have this conversation or even thought. It's like discussing why 1+1=2 and not 0.

efkiel 4y ago

>why anything exists rather than nothing? Physics answer "How" things are, if you want to know "Why" the answer is to be found in philosophy or religion.

dghf 4y ago

> 1. Why is there something rather than nothing? > Well, why not? -- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Nothingness" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/)

cygx 4y ago

That's really more of a philosophical question, and arguably not a particularly interesting one - ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing), after all: Either there's 'eternal' nothingness - an option which we have excluded empirically - or something always must have existed. We're trying to work out the nature of that something, and the meaning of 'always' (did time begin at the big bang, making the question of 'before' as meaningless as the question of what's north of the north pole; is our universe just the lastest stage in a possibly eternal cycle; does the singularity hide a mirror universe with an arrow of time pointing in the opposite direction; ...).

spindle 4y ago

Some physicists think there is, e.g. Lawrence Kraus. See https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-f...