Something Instead of Nothing

I agree. I think there is a kind of pre-emptive habit in humans, and even in the scientific community. The urge to stave off any particular other authority. We got this. It’s pretty much wrapped up. We can close the door on epistemology or whatever.
IOW it is in the context where other groups have claimed or might claim authority, and they want to close that door.

I think it is good to have gaps in knowledge because of the intellectual curiosity it provokes
Once something is known then that curiosity no longer exists and has to be found elsewhere

I suppose, but it’s a bit like saying it’s good to not be omnipotent. I am not worried about not being omnipotent either, any time soon. I am pretty good at worrying, but the problems of being omnicient and omnipotent haven’t made it to my top ten list of worries yet.

The title of the article is, “Science Will Never Explain Why There’s Something Rather Than Nothing”

Who are you talking about?

I’m saying that. Science and religion are far, far removed with respect to the “methodology” they employ in grappling with questions like this. It’s just a question of exploring further the gap between those who have faith in God the Creator and those who insist that God did in fact create the universe in, what, six days?

Faith implies doubt but I doubt the truly fervent believers feel much of that.

Mulling what in general?

I agree. Even the scientific method still flounders when scientists go far enough out on the metaphysical limb. And examining why there is something instead of nothing is about as far out as one can go.

Here I tend to come back to two things:

  • “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

  • “It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.”

Knowledge about what though?

And to suppose that knowledge will come in its own time seems to suggest that the knowledge we seek is out there. We just need be patient.

And, sure, that may well be the case regarding something rather than nothing. Or regarding those things that either are or are not in fact true.

But some then argue that in regard to conflicting goods that knowledge is also out there biding its time before finally showing up.

Well, suppose that it’s not? Suppose knowledge [what we can know] here is never more than a subjective point of view?

If he said that science will never explain why there is something…etc. He didn’t do it in the citation. He says it will not happen soon.
[/quote]

Ah, sorry, missed the title and read the text, which doesn’t really fit the title, since he mentions soon and now.

Yes, my sentence was poorly worded, but i though still clear.
He didn’t say the scientific method was the same as a leap of faith. He said that saying we have it all figured out or will soon is like that.

Right, sure. But saying that we have it all nearly figured out or will soon, is not a conclusion based on scientific methodology.

Fervent believers regardless of paradigm or methodology tend not to.

Well, there you go. That’s where it can become reasonable to call some things scientists or science advocates say as a mirror image of religous claims.

[/quote]
Sure, that could be part of saying that those who say we know nearly everything are speculating wildly and mirror faith-based people.

To ask the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is a valid question, because, conceivably, there could be nothing. If the universe, really, was meaningless (which it isn’t), then there would, actually, be nothing existing.

Activity implies intentionality, which entails meaning. Humans strive for various things, such as social power; animals strive to survive and reproduce; plants strive to grow and pass on their seed; even inorganic matter has a telos: gravitation — accumulation of more energy, amassing itself.

Striving for something is intending, or meaning something. Everything means to do one thing or another. The universe is teleological.

There is something rather nothing, because the universe has meaning.

Arggh… I have to repeat myself again because someone didn’t read the thread.

Nothing is defined as: isn’t

Isn’t by definition isn’t: it’s not there

The universe is the lack of isn’t.

That’s why existence exists.

To additionally explain this:

From a Buddhist perspective, there is something called “dependent arising”.

This basically means that something else has to exist in order for something to exist.

What both of the phrases mean in terms of time is that in every moment, existence is just beginning to exist through the lack of isn’t, and dependent arising.

That’s why the present is so important in Buddhism.

The present moment is all of creation.

There is an inherent parsimony in scientific models. It’s an attitude which hides within it (or doesn’t) the idea that if we don’t have a really good model for why something exists and we all can’t find it in the lab, then it doesn’t exist. Another take on this is Occam’s Razor, as science groupies use it: this idea that the simpler model or context is the more likely one. (that’s a basterdization of the OR, but it does get used that way). So we have this tendency towards little or nothing or less in expectation. Taken to its extreme it means that something, the existence of whatever that something is, including the universe, bears the onus. Like something it weirder than nothing. Parsimony as ontology.

In that context the ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ question is a reaction to our, often, being immersed in this parsimonius ontology of the scientismists. And it should bother them. And it does bother them.

Yes there is ‘dependent origination’ [inter-beingness] is Buddhism, but there is also the concept of ‘Sunyata’ aka ‘emptiness’ and that is ultimately extended to ‘nothingness’ [it is contentious]. But I do not agree with the opposing view taking into the account the principle of the Buddhist Tetralemma.

All knowledge is ultimately subjective because it is mind dependent but how subjective it is is another matter entirely
But the degree of rigour that is applied to any truth claim has to be sufficiently high for it to be regarded as objective

The way I’ve had emptiness taught to me is that dreams are just as real as waking life, and thus, they are both not real, you must wake from the dream of the dreams and the dream of the waking life.

Since dreams are empty, and waking life is also empty, this is called “everything is emptiness”. Unless you wake up from both dreams, then you are called an “awakened one”, enlightened.

Ecmandu, you are a crazy bastard.

That’s where things get tricky though. When we speak of things being “conceivable” we are back to that which we still do not fully understand about the evolution of matter into minds able to conceive of anything at all.

Or there are those who insist that, on the contrary, it is mind [God’s or No Gods’s – the pantheists] that evolved into matter. But then they have absolutely no way in which to demonstrate that other than as an expression of the matter embodied in their own mind.

Human activity [in the is/ought world] is embedded existentially in conflicting renditions of meaning. And even in regard to the either/or world, we don’t grasp meaning beyond that which we are able to describe is in fact true or false.

We understand the meaning behind those activities that sustain our existence. But what can we understand regarding behaviors we ought to choose in order to accomplish this? Eventually we come to those interactions in which conflicting moral and political narratives arise.

Okay, but that is not the way in which others use the word teleological. For them it suggests a universe in which somethingness is embedded in an essential meaning or purpose. There is a reason why it is this somethingness and not another. Or why it is something and not nothing at all. And then many invent “the Gods” or “a God, the God, my God” in order to assure themselves that existence is not encompassed in the “brute facticity” of existence itself.

But in a No God world, what might that meaning be?

It seems reasonable that in a universal somethingness knowledge is only a “thing” if there is a brain/mind to have it. If the only accumulated knowledge in the entire universe is here on Earth and tomorrow the Really, Really, [b]Really[/b] Big One [asteroid/comet] strikes it and obliterates all life forms, what of knowledge then?

But in the interim, I agree, some of our collected knowledge seems clearly to reflect that which is true for all of us. We call this objective knowledge because it seems to transcend any particular subject’s point of view.

In a universe sans God.

Well, I know who my father is, so I’m not a bastard.

Actually, since I’m a “pill baby” (conceived of a mother taking the pill) I could actually be immaculately conceived !!

Crazy? Maybe. I’ll walk, actually run, into nooks of existence many fear to tread.

Good idea? Probably not.

Made me who I am today though…

Which I happen to think is a great idea.

Go figure.

Agree to an extent, but the point is ‘awakened_ness’ is also empty as with emptiness is also empty. Where one do not adopt this principle, there is a good chance the ego [self] will creep in to grab/cling [Upādāna] at whatever.

There are many [monks, gurus, mystics] who claimed to be awakened and had/have many followers but they turned out be involved in many evil scandals.

It will cease to exist because knowledge requires minds so without them it is no more
Information however does not require minds so it will carry on existing just as before

Although i find this funny, it is actually a bad idea to go around thinking people are crazy bastards.
It’s a trick where you compare yourself to the worst people therefor you are great because you aren’t as bad as they are.