Sunday, June 02, 2013

What kind of question is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

In school as a kid, it took a while to understand why we needed to know about mathematical statements (e.g., "a meaningful composition of words which can be considered either true or false is called a mathematical statement"), it seemed obvious at first that one would never, unless insane, pose a non-statement.

I was reminded of that when Jim Holt's book, "Why Does the World Exist?" was discussed on Gödel's Lost Letter blog.

It is not at all clear to me whether the question,
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
is meaningful. I cannot think of what an acceptable answer might look like; and I have a suspicion that the question hides an assumption that makes it impossible for there to be nothing, and so the question is a trivial and frivolous question. For instance, in the Peano axioms for the natural numbers, 1 != 2 follows directly from the axioms, and thus asking "why is 1 !=2?" is frivolous and uninteresting.

Comments (7)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
There was a debate between the theologian Swinburne and the philosopher of Science Adolf Grunbaum on this issue. The latter shows that the question itself (why there is something rather than nothing) is ill-posed: check his paper titled as "the poverty of theistic cosmology", which can be had at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bwte3_9g4U6oVnlIL....

The latest one is here: http://www.ontologia.net/studies/2009/gruenbaum_2...

Balu's take on the same question is here: http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/03/05/the-reality-of-...
4 replies · active 617 weeks ago
Thanks!

Also apologies, not sure why the software decided that your comment needed moderation.
I take it, both from Grunbaum, and Balu, that the question is ill-posed, unless we make an unwarranted assumption. That assumption is natural only in a culture with a religion (In Balu's meaning of the term).
Grunbaum wrote:

Unfortunately, in the Christian culture of the Occident, both philosophers and ordinary people have inveterately imbibed SoN with their mother’s milk. And it is deeply ingrained even among a good many of those who altogether reject its received theological underpinning. But before Christianity molded the philosophical intuitions of our culture, neither Greek philosophy nor most other world cultures featured SoN (Eliade, 1992). No wonder that Aristotle regarded the material universe as both uncreated and eternal.

----
Maybe the responses to this question is a good probe of how much people have imbibed the philosophical intuitions of Christianity. What is interesting is that this question is entering physics as a legitimate question.
Maybe Grunbaum can convince skeptics that they might have some Christian doctrines as unjustified philosophical presuppositions, where Balu is perceived as having some unspecified Hindu agenda.

Post a new comment

Comments by