Why is there something, rather than nothing?

[BlackHatCoiner]

A very philosophical question that bypasses physics, maths and religions. I don't expect someone to answer it since there is no answer, but I would like to have a discussion about it.

Physicists study what exists. Although they (may) know what happened since the big bang. Some of them have studied of what may happen after trillions of years.

I'm not going to comment the video since I don't care what will happen next. What makes me curious is what happened before the big bang. And before that. And, also, before that. You get my point. We can't set the start of the "Time" equal with X, because there's always gonna be a X-1. With my logic, since we exist right now, nothingness never existed.

Imagine a room with no windows. This room is empty. I just removed every atom inside that room. Now I removed the walls of it. It is a complete infinity. Width & height = ∞. So is this nothing? Yes and no, from my view. Yes because there is no atom there. There is nothing. And nothing will exist if we leave it for a trillion years. If we throw a ball inside that room, something may happen after these years, but without anything it will remain nothing forever. Why is it no too? Because it has space. Why should nothing has space? This room wouldn't be considered as nothing if it has space. Can we remove the space? Then it wouldn't be a room at all.

Conclusion. This empty "room" could not exist, because if it did, we should not exist. So if we take this as a rule, then nothingness never existed and something always existed. The problem is that this leads to something paradox, because something exists because something else existed before. Thinking of whether nothingness existed or not, is terrifying.

Your thoughts.

[Ucy]

Physicists study what exists. Although they (may) know what happened since the big bang. Some of them have studied of what may happen after trillions of years.

They don't know what happened because they can't recreate the so called big bang even by making tiny matter explode or "bigbanged", and self organized into the sophistication we have today. It's mere theory anyway.

I wonder how long it will take mere laptop to self organized into a laptop if you gather all the materials needed to make a laptop and you keep mixing them together in something like concrete mixer for many years. 1000years? 10000years? 1000000years? 1000000000000years? 10000000000000years?
The truth is that a mere laptop will never be created without an intelligent builder guiding its creation, not to talk of the extraordinarily sophisticated/complex things that occur in nature.

Well, your questions are the sort of things we ask ourselves when we encountered those theories in classroom. They make no sense. And only a SUPREME BEING Creation truth  makes sense

[odolvlobo]

What makes me curious is what happened before the big bang. And before that. And, also, before that. You get my point. We can't set the start of the "Time" equal with X, because there's always gonna be a X-1.

There are theories that time did not exist before the Big Bang, so there would be no "before the Big Bang".

With my logic, since we exist right now, nothingness never existed.

You are trying to say that we must have always existed because we exist now. That is not necessarily true, depending on how you define "always", "exist", and "now". Sorry for being pedantic. Also, "nothing" cannot exist because "nothing" is the absence of existence.

Imagine a room with no windows. This room is empty. I just removed every atom inside that room. Now I removed the walls of it. ... So is this nothing? Yes and no, from my view. Yes because there is no atom there. There is nothing.

The room still exists, despite containing nothing and having no walls. It exists as a volume, a location, a memory, etc.

[BlackHatCoiner]

There are theories that time did not exist before the Big Bang, so there would be no "before the Big Bang".

Time does not exist. Universe is just expanding if that's what you mean. There would be something before the Big Bang, because something caused it. If there wasn't anything before the big bang, then the big bang wouldn't happen.

Also, "nothing" cannot exist because "nothing" is the absence of existence.

So how do you want me to define you "nothing"? We should not playing with the words. Existence of nothing means existence of the absence of existence.

The room still exists, despite containing nothing and having no walls. It exists as a volume, a location, a memory, etc.

Yeah, so it's still not nothing. Because it is a room. Not nothing. I couldn't give a better example.

[odolvlobo]

There are theories that time did not exist before the Big Bang, so there would be no "before the Big Bang".

Time does not exist. Universe is just expanding if that's what you mean. There would be something before the Big Bang, because something caused it. If there wasn't anything before the big bang, then the big bang wouldn't happen.

"because something caused it" is an assumption, and it is not easy to support that assumption. There are many possibilities that I can think of (I haven't really thought about it much, so don't laugh):

• The universe has always existed but only became observable at some point.
• Something transformed into the universe.
• The universe existed before time existed and then time began.
• Time operates like Zeno's paradox, in that time slows as you get closer to the beginning, so you can never get back to the beginning, even though there is one.
• The universe was created by some external process.

Also, "nothing" cannot exist because "nothing" is the absence of existence.

So how do you want me to define you "nothing"? We should not playing with the words. Existence of nothing means existence of the absence of existence.

If "nothing" exists, then there no absence of existence ("nothing" exists). Existence of nothing is self-contradictory.

Anyway, you can define it any way you want, but when discussing fundamental concepts, such as the origin of existence, I think the meanings of words matter because you have very little else to go by.

BTW, I'm not necessarily trying to contradict you, I'm just bringing up points to consider that I think are relevant.

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as "nothing." If there is absence of all material and energy as we know them, then there all that exists is an elastic solid that the ancients called the aether. What we know as "something" is simply vibration in the aether. This vibration is on micro scales as well as macro scales. It is exceedingly complex.

The thing we know of as entropy, in its most basic form, is the collapse of complexity into simplicity. Ultimately there will be no "something" as we know it, if entropy has its way... because all vibration will finally cease. At that time, all that will be left is the solid aether, which really is just the opposite of "nothing."

[franky1]

before planets there were just suns (stars)

before stars there were just energetic atoms

before atoms was just lose leptons and quarks

before that. who knows

..
when loose quarks collided and fixed they created the protons and neutrons that then pulled in leptons(electrons) thus creating the first simple atom of hydrogen. that then pulled in other atoms of simple hydrogen created nearby.
which they accumulated into clouds. then the gravitational pull of each atom pulled them in closer and the energy/force of the collisions created other atoms of more electrons(different elements)
then combustions got bigger and bigger as energy balls starting from something as a grain of sand that grew and grew to the scales of what we now call stars. 


dont think of it as one cloud in one spot that burst out
think it just random leptons and quarks spaced out throughout infinity, that then became more then (think of a big number you cant imagine) clouds which then became (impossible number to count) energised balls that kept growing

and at a certain point when they start combining together then then reach critical point and explode and send out smaller parts
some of the smaller bits became younger(smallers stars) and some even smaller parts lost their energy and crusted over to create planetoids and moons

the big bang was not a single bang of the universe but separate 'clouds' that imploded and then exploded

[Artemis3]

A very philosophical question that bypasses physics, maths and religions. I don't expect someone to answer it since there is no answer, but I would like to have a discussion about it.

Physicists study what exists. Although they (may) know what happened since the big bang. Some of them have studied of what may happen after trillions of years.

Before and after huh? It gets better BlackHatCoiner. Their calculations indicate that, time itself wasn't moving before "big bang"...

You say it "bypasses", but that's actually THE reason for religion and even the sciences. Ie: Where do we come from, and where do we go. And whats the logic behind it. Some call this "meta" (physics, etc).

It may happen that we may never get an answer in our lifetime, which is so convenient. You may or may not get an answer afterwards, without any way to tell back the living. But wait, did you not notice the part about time flow?

Time is elastic, so elastic its not even funny. It might escape the minds of many the importance of this. The cosmic time in the "blink of an eye".
And, apparently, such things also happen if you get too close to a blackhole. They say you get spaguettified to infinity... Nobody could actually try it and be able to send back the results. Nothing you send past the event horizon returns, kinda like death.

If there are parallel universes, nothing we say or think on this one necessarily applies elsewhere, but you cannot observe it, at least not in this state of existence. You could also say we come from infinite and go into infinite. Popping in and out of existence, like in quantum physics...

[Mttewndew]

This is just a question from the field of physics. I don't remember it exactly, but if you simplify it a lot, it is described as follows.

As far as I remember from a university physics course, when matter and antimatter collide, they collapse into nothing. During the Big Bang, one of the many matter-antimatter pairs was missing a pair. As a result, all the other pairs collapsed into nothing, and that matter, which remained alone and did not collapse, spread throughout the universe.

[Ucy]

Time is itself a "thing." There could be universes or realities without time.
In thinking about this question of why there is something rather than nothing, we have to back up beyond all space-time considerations. It is difficult to be able to conceive of a reality without time, but I think it would help us to do so.

A "reality" where everything is perfect and nothing ages. The "LIGHT" Shines forever without darkness. Trees bear fruit constantly. There is everlasting happiness, joy and other wonderful/perfect things that last forever. This reality would be timeless.
I believe the only way to get to the reality is by getting closer to the SOURCE. The SOURCE is the CREATOR of everything. HE is GOD of perfect law and order. HE is the only ONE that hold things together in perfect order.
 This 👆is the truth not theory!

You gradually become opposite of this Perfection as you drift away from the SOURCE (THE CREATOR).  

[decodx]

Observers are very powerful players in the quantum world. This has been proven many times, for example, the famous double slit experiment, but scientists have never been able to explain it.
According to the most popular theory, there is no objective reality.

[aiguy]

Many earlier thinkers had asked why our universe is the way it is, but Leibniz went a step further, wondering why there is a universe at all. ... The explanation he gave was that God wanted to create a universe – the best one possible – which makes God the simple reason that there is something rather than nothing.