Why is there Something instead of Nothing?

[atrib]

When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses.

Who is "we"? That does not seem like a very common definition of nothingness, in fact.

Feel free to tell us what you think the common definition is. And then contrast it to what I said.

Perhaps you could explain the source of your definition? I would expect a common definition of nothingness to be more abstract.

Is this really a point of contention - how people use the word nothing in their everyday lives? Most people understand what we mean when we use the word nothing to describe some aspect of our everyday lives, as long as some context is provided. And you can always look it up in a dictionary if you are confused.

There is nothing in the box - meaning there are no material objects (baryonic matter/energy) in the box (within the region of spacetime defined by the sides of the box) that we can see or sense (detect with our five senses).

I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to "nothing" in daily conversation in a way that sugeested they thought there was no baryonic energy within their sensory range, no.

Correct. Most people don't know that material objects that we can sense with our sensory organs are actually made up of what physicists call baryonic matter. I specifically used the word baryonic because there are other forms of matter/energy in the universe that we cannot detect with our senses, like dark matter and dark energy, but most people using the word "nothing" in everyday usage are not referring to dark matter or dark energy. When someone says there is nothing in the box, what he means is that he cannot detect any objects made up of baryonic matter within the box, whether he understands what the word baryonic means or not.

The word nothing means something entirely different in the context of certain creationist claims like the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, as I pointed out in my first post. That is what we are trying to discuss here.

 

[Politesse]

When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses.

Who is "we"? That does not seem like a very common definition of nothingness, in fact.

Feel free to tell us what you think the common definition is. And then contrast it to what I said.

Perhaps you could explain the source of your definition? I would expect a common definition of nothingness to be more abstract.

Is this really a point of contention - how people use the word nothing in their everyday lives? Most people understand what we mean when we use the word nothing to describe some aspect of our everyday lives, as long as some context is provided. And you can always look it up in a dictionary if you are confused.

There is nothing in the box - meaning there are no material objects (baryonic matter/energy) in the box (within the region of spacetime defined by the sides of the box) that we can see or sense (detect with our five senses).

I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to "nothing" in daily conversation in a way that sugeested they thought there was no baryonic energy within their sensory range, no.

Correct. Most people don't know that material objects that we can sense with our sensory organs are actually made up of what physicists call baryonic matter. I specifically used the word baryonic because there are other forms of matter/energy in the universe that we cannot detect with our senses, like dark matter and dark energy, but most people using the word "nothing" in everyday usage are not referring to dark matter or dark energy. When someone says there is nothing in the box, what he means is that he cannot detect any objects made up of baryonic matter within the box, whether he understands what the word baryonic means or not.

The word nothing means something entirely different in the context of certain creationist claims like the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, as I pointed out in my first post. That is what we are trying to discuss here.

So "most people" mean whatever you say they do when they say words, they just don't know that they do, and would disagree with you if asked. Because they are ignorant.

Whereas when you say that "there is nothing in the box" - not in a philosophical discussion, but explicitly in an "everyday context" - you are knowingly making an empirical claim that there is no baryonic matter present in the box. Correct?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Whereas when you say that "there is nothing in the box", you are knowingly making an empirical claim that there is no baryonic matter present in the box. Correct?

Are you intentionally being obtuse, coy? The baryonic facet has already been discussed. It isn't difficult to understand.

 

[Politesse]

Whereas when you say that "there is nothing in the box", you are knowingly making an empirical claim that there is no baryonic matter present in the box. Correct?

Are you intentionally being obtuse, coy? The baryonic facet has already been discussed. It isn't difficult to understand.

What have I misunderstood?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Whereas when you say that "there is nothing in the box", you are knowingly making an empirical claim that there is no baryonic matter present in the box. Correct?

Are you intentionally being obtuse, coy? The baryonic facet has already been discussed. It isn't difficult to understand.

What have I misunderstood?

I'm going to play my coy, obtuse card. But I'm not writing you off entirely. You could be sincere and I'm misunderstanding.

But here is my offering to help you understand in case it's me that is being the ass.

Baryonic Matter

 

[Elixir]

Nothing doesn't exist. The demonstration of the Higgs Boson by CERN confirms that the minimum energy of the Higgs Field occurs at a non-zero value, so any and every location in spacetime has at least one non-zero attribute.

Discussing the attributes of reality in the absence of spacetime is meaningless, in the same way that discussing what might be found north of the North Pole is meaningless.

There is something, and always was. 'Nothing' is a concept without a real referent, like 'unicorn', 'fairy', 'elf' or 'god'.

We all know what 'nothing' means, but few understand that it's demonstrably entirely fictional.

So, in that song “there ain’t no mountain high enough”, they’re literally correct.

 

[steve_bank]

Most things are qualities like light/dark. heavy/light, big/small. Is or was there nothing given we exist and observe something. It is a philosophical question. It is a logical question with no logical answer.

Something always existed or something came from nothing. Science based on Laws Of Thermodynamics and conservation can not address the quetion.

Invoke a deity as causation and it becomes religion.

Philosophically the question is mental gymnastics and exercise.

On a multiple choice answer test it is a question with 'not enoufh information' as one of the answers.

 

[Politesse]

Whereas when you say that "there is nothing in the box", you are knowingly making an empirical claim that there is no baryonic matter present in the box. Correct?

Are you intentionally being obtuse, coy? The baryonic facet has already been discussed. It isn't difficult to understand.

What have I misunderstood?

I'm going to play my coy, obtuse card. But I'm not writing you off entirely. You could be sincere and I'm misunderstanding.

But here is my offering to help you understand in case it's me that is being the ass.

Baryonic Matter

I know what matter is, I'm dubious that anyone, using the word "nothing" in an everyday context, has ever been referring to a lack of baryonic matter within a region, including the person who is claiming that to be their definition of the word. I'm not being obtuse, I'm asking for y'all to make a bare minimum of sense in your own arguments before you go audaciously calling everyone else idiots. I also must have missed the part of Genesis where its like, "once upon a time there were neutrinos a-plenty, but NO PROTONS AT ALL."

If you call other people ignorant for disagreeing with you but can't defend your own arguments except with weird metaphors that get weirder and less applicable the more anyone thinks about them, that isn't sending the message you think it does.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's been a while since we took up this subject. I happened upon the question again in a video linked by Thomas II. In fact, the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered.

While I agree that it may be difficult to comprehend "what nothing is," I wouldn't say that asking why nothing at all exists is hopelessly nonsensical or should never be asked. Besides, if the question is nonsensical or is never to be asked, then it's odd that you've entitled this thread with that question.

The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?' And should be further refined to 'How is there something instead of something else?'

Yes, that's a good question I've often pondered. For instance, why don't we live in a world in which we need not suffer or die? Is such a world even possible? If the multiverse exists, such worlds might exist in it.

It's a scientific question that can be answered scientifically when asked properly. I've come to the conclusion that creationist types must have "nothing" to get started on their claims without ever thinking about what they mean when they use the word. And then they go to a god or creator to account for the fact that there isn't any "nothing." It's a very shortsighted mindset that I guess comes from religious indoctrination, an unfamiliarity with scientific inquiry and the use of common parlance.

Many Christians believe that God created the world out of nothing. In Latin the phrase is ex nihilo. Many apologists like William Lane Craig contradict this belief insisting that: "From nothing, nothing comes." Craig, of course, is not arguing that God cannot have created the world but that some modern notions that the universe created itself out of nothing are nonsensical. He seems to have painted himself into a corner because if something cannot have come from nothing, then God could not have created the cosmos.

 

[steve_bank]

Why there is something is no less nonsense than why is there nothing.

I think I'll write a book and 'make something out of nothing'.

There was 60s-70s era nonsense non sequitur comedy group Firesign Theater who said

"Give them a light a light and they will follow it anywhere!".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

While I agree that it may be difficult to comprehend "what nothing is," I wouldn't say that asking why nothing at all exists is hopelessly nonsensical or should never be asked. Besides, if the question is nonsensical or is never to be asked, then it's odd that you've entitled this thread with that question.

Well, that's the common refrain so I thought to state it as commonly heard from creationists. So If there is difficulty in comprehending "what nothing is" let's start there.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why there is something is no less nonsense than why is there nothing.

Do you really believe that? It seems obvious to me that somethingness is the norm and "nothingness" is less than mythical. Just look around. Is there a single experience that demonstrates "nothingness" when properly questioned and examined? The canard of nothingness is a legacy of our ignorance and bias, a notion we should outgrow due to scientific curiosity. I'll agree that if scientific curiosity is lacking the seeming truth of such a false notion as "nothingness" will persist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not being obtuse, I'm asking for y'all to make a bare minimum of sense in your own arguments before you go audaciously calling everyone else idiots.

How have I not made sense and where have I referred to a person as an idiot? If there is any idiocy present it must reside with those who refuse to examine the OP's question with scientific curiosity and instead cling to religious dogma.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I can have my cell phone in my hand. Obviously there is something in my hand. So I remove the cell phone and my hand no longer has the phone. It's empty, zero cell phone. I can't see anything in the open hand so someone says there's nothing in my hand. Okay.

So I pick up a spoon and the spoon is in my hand. Then I place the spoon aside and hold out my visibly empty hand and someone says there is nothing in my hand. Okay again.

Then I do the same thing with a lid, a fork, a ball, even place my hand to the ground to hold the Earth, or on a wall to hold my house, on my car to "hold" my car, etc. Get the idea? When I separate my hand from all those objects someone says it's empty, there's nothing there. Okay.

But the hand is still full of atmosphere, heat as particles in motion, electromagnetic radiation, space, virtual particles, lots and lots of aero-microorganisms, vapor, nitrogen, billions of leptonic neutrinos, etc. Again, we get the idea.

So how do I ever get to nothing? Isn't "nothing" just really believing that there isn't something still there owing simply to my lack of knowledge?

 

[atrib]

Whereas when you say that "there is nothing in the box", you are knowingly making an empirical claim that there is no baryonic matter present in the box. Correct?

Are you intentionally being obtuse, coy? The baryonic facet has already been discussed. It isn't difficult to understand.

What have I misunderstood?

I'm going to play my coy, obtuse card. But I'm not writing you off entirely. You could be sincere and I'm misunderstanding.

But here is my offering to help you understand in case it's me that is being the ass.

Baryonic Matter

I know what matter is, I'm dubious that anyone, using the word "nothing" in an everyday context, has ever been referring to a lack of baryonic matter within a region, including the person who is claiming that to be their definition of the word. I'm not being obtuse, I'm asking for y'all to make a bare minimum of sense in your own arguments before you go audaciously calling everyone else idiots. I also must have missed the part of Genesis where its like, "once upon a time there were neutrinos a-plenty, but NO PROTONS AT ALL."

If you call other people ignorant for disagreeing with you but can't defend your own arguments except with weird metaphors that get weirder and less applicable the more anyone thinks about them, that isn't sending the message you think it does.

I don't think you are an idiot, but I am convinced that you go out of your way to troll people. You have done this with things I have said on at least two prior occasions that I can remember. So I am not going to play that game anymore. If you really are unable to understand plain English, perhaps you need remedial reading classes.

 

[steve_bank]

Why there is something is no less nonsense than why is there nothing.

Do you really believe that? It seems obvious to me that somethingness is the norm and "nothingness" is less than mythical. Just look around. Is there a single experience that demonstrates "nothingness" when properly questioned and examined? The canard of nothingness is a legacy of our ignorance and bias, a notion we should outgrow due to scientific curiosity. I'll agree that if scientific curiosity is lacking the seeming truth of such a false notion as "nothingness" will persist.

Yes I do.

A universe with no beginning and no end has no first cause, as such tere is no why. Why implies a description of a causation.

The word nothing and something are contextual. In common usage having something implies the possibility of not having. A duality. It does not apply to the universe.

More scientificaly ican tere be areas out in free space devoid of all matter, partcles, negry and the like? Or is space itself 'something? Those kinds of arguments with physical definitions can make some sense.

The universe 'is what it is'.....

 

[Elixir]

“Why” is an ask for a description of a prior state that gave rise to the one under question. Positing an eternal universe does not dispense with the question.

Can there be areas of nothing? Sure. There’s a chance that all the air molecules in a room will gather on the south half of the room. That state won’t last if it does occur. The known universe is saturated with photons in similar manner that the space in a room is saturated with air molecules.

 

[Politesse]

Whereas when you say that "there is nothing in the box", you are knowingly making an empirical claim that there is no baryonic matter present in the box. Correct?

Are you intentionally being obtuse, coy? The baryonic facet has already been discussed. It isn't difficult to understand.

What have I misunderstood?

I'm going to play my coy, obtuse card. But I'm not writing you off entirely. You could be sincere and I'm misunderstanding.

But here is my offering to help you understand in case it's me that is being the ass.

Baryonic Matter

I know what matter is, I'm dubious that anyone, using the word "nothing" in an everyday context, has ever been referring to a lack of baryonic matter within a region, including the person who is claiming that to be their definition of the word. I'm not being obtuse, I'm asking for y'all to make a bare minimum of sense in your own arguments before you go audaciously calling everyone else idiots. I also must have missed the part of Genesis where its like, "once upon a time there were neutrinos a-plenty, but NO PROTONS AT ALL."

If you call other people ignorant for disagreeing with you but can't defend your own arguments except with weird metaphors that get weirder and less applicable the more anyone thinks about them, that isn't sending the message you think it does.

I don't think you are an idiot, but I am convinced that you go out of your way to troll people. You have done this with things I have said on at least two prior occasions that I can remember. So I am not going to play that game anymore. If you really are unable to understand plain English, perhaps you need remedial reading

So you do, or don't, casually make claims to people that no baryonic matter exists inside, say, empty boxes? I'm not the one who claimed this was the "everyday" definition of the concept. You started out by complaining that people are ignorant for not critically evaluating what they mean when they make claims about nothing, but now I am a "troll" who doesn't understand English because I've invited you to critically evaluate your own very unique definition. I remain unconvinced that the common definition of "nothing" has anything to do with baryonic vs nonbaryonic particles, and I strongly suspect that even you yourself do not use the term that way in daily life. Because that would be strange and nonsensical. You know perfectly well that there are atoms in empty boxes (st least while it atmo) and so does everyone else, at least everyone who knows the difference between baryonic and non-baryonic particles in the first place. That isn't what "nothing" means. Your proposed "common definition" is silly, and I think your name-calling behavior here indicates that you're starting to realize that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The word nothing and something are contextual. In common usage having something implies the possibility of not having. A duality. It does not apply to the universe.

That's exactly what I said, that it does not apply to the universe. Seems we agree.