4 ms·

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there anything at all?

by acqbu 4y ago

kekebo 4y ago
If you consider existence / non-existence as a quantum superposition you'll have 0 observers and thus no entanglement in the non-existing branch and basically get existence for free. Maybe existence just happens to be the default. Joscha Bach has more elaborate thoughts on this.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Why do we get the quantum entanglement instead of “nothing”?
namero999 4y ago
Why is a terrible question when dealing with the reduction basis :)
layer8 4y ago
I suspect that there isn’t just something, but that actually there is everything — all possible worlds, or maybe more formally, all logically consistent structures. In other words, there is no difference between existence and possibility. The answer to why there is anything then boils down to “because it can”.
- lvncelot 4y ago
  Yes, this puts something I believe rather nicely. I think this applies to every mathematical structure, and that, in a sense, the number 3 and my desk exist on the same conceptual level of reality. (Only one is a tad more complex than the other).
- kleene_op 4y ago
  It is actually the most elegant answer to why we're here. I know Occam's razor is not a valid scientific argument, but supposing that everything just exists removes the arbitrariness of it all, our subjective view of the world in particular. It's the simplest explanation of it all. I also believe that the simplest axiomatization of this theory would be a paradox. From a false postulate, any true (and/or false) statements can be derived. Including that which describes/corresponds to our reality. It only takes 0 == 1 for everything to exist, but that's something we cannot logically prove, nor use at our advantage. It's a useless theory of everything, but a neat one.
jboulanger2 4y ago
How would you observe "nothing"?
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Per definition, an entity must exist that doesn’t have a beginning. (It is hard for me to reason about events outside of time…)
pixl97 4y ago
I recommend the 'history of the universe' channel as they ask this exact question. https://youtube.com/c/HistoryoftheUniverse https://youtube.com/c/HistoryoftheUniverse
euroderf 4y ago
If there were nothing at all, that would really be something eh

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there anything at all?

by acqbu 4y ago

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there anything at all?

If you consider existence / non-existence as a quantum superposition you'll have 0 observers and thus no entanglement in the non-existing branch and basically get existence for free. Maybe existence just happens to be the default. Joscha Bach has more elaborate thoughts on this.

quickthrower2 4y ago
Why do we get the quantum entanglement instead of “nothing”?

namero999 4y ago

Why is a terrible question when dealing with the reduction basis :)

layer8 4y ago

I suspect that there isn’t just something, but that actually there is everything — all possible worlds, or maybe more formally, all logically consistent structures. In other words, there is no difference between existence and possibility. The answer to why there is anything then boils down to “because it can”.

lvncelot 4y ago
Yes, this puts something I believe rather nicely. I think this applies to every mathematical structure, and that, in a sense, the number 3 and my desk exist on the same conceptual level of reality. (Only one is a tad more complex than the other).
kleene_op 4y ago
It is actually the most elegant answer to why we're here. I know Occam's razor is not a valid scientific argument, but supposing that everything just exists removes the arbitrariness of it all, our subjective view of the world in particular. It's the simplest explanation of it all. I also believe that the simplest axiomatization of this theory would be a paradox. From a false postulate, any true (and/or false) statements can be derived. Including that which describes/corresponds to our reality. It only takes 0 == 1 for everything to exist, but that's something we cannot logically prove, nor use at our advantage. It's a useless theory of everything, but a neat one.

jboulanger2 4y ago

How would you observe "nothing"?

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Per definition, an entity must exist that doesn’t have a beginning. (It is hard for me to reason about events outside of time…)

pixl97 4y ago

I recommend the 'history of the universe' channel as they ask this exact question. https://youtube.com/c/HistoryoftheUniverse https://youtube.com/c/HistoryoftheUniverse

euroderf 4y ago

If there were nothing at all, that would really be something eh