Why is there something instead of nothing?

[shootingmad]

I found this in a very cool and interesting forum (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com) and thought it would be interesting to know what you guys think and have to say about this.

Pinx @ Unexplained Mysteries Forum said:

I know the question is cliche, it leads to a trap of circular thinking, and is completely unanswerable, but it's still fun to think about.

Now please, this isn't meant to be a question of who or what created the universe, I'm not trying to start a creation/evolution debate here. I just want to know why stuff exists instead of not? And before creationists answer "because it's God's will" then why does God exist instead of not? Let's just cut out the middle man and call everything "something".

By it's definition, nothing is the absence of something. Does that mean that in order for there to be something, there has to be nothing? Only, there isn't nothing, so how can there be something? But there is something, of this I'm at least sure. I can observe, interact and experience it. And clearly something was here long before I or any being could experience it. Even if life had never started and no observers ever came to be, it would still have been here. So what's the point of it? What's the point of there being something rather than nothing? There isn't one. So why did something even bother to exist in the first place.

Speaking of "first place" what of time? Time has to be included in the something. So I guess, there can never have even been a time where nothing existed, because then there wouldn't have been time and therefore no catalyst for something to start existing.

Now I'm starting to tread into "how" territory and I said I wouldn't go there. I guess my only consolation is that in several decades, when I cease to exist again, all these questions will be moot, at least to me. Thank you for reading my slightly drunken babble and I would love to hear everyone else's thoughts on what could possibly be the oldest question ever, as well.

[Bluestone]

Amazing! I was about to answer in similar fashion, but Paul took the words right out of my mouth!

It is like we are in a sealed room of a building and can only understand our environment based upon the rules of the room. Let's say that the room's environment has been created to be a weightless environment. So, everything that we see in this environment relates directly to this weightless environment. Like Paul says, our brains are programmed to accept this as the norm, so that all of our theories and science is based upon the characteristics of this room. Is there anything outside of this room? Well, we don't know, because we cannot see, hear or sense anything outside of this sealed room.

Now, in light of our limited experiences in this sealed, weightless room, how could we possibly know that there are 107 other rooms in this structure that do not have weightless environments? How could we comprehend that this building is only a small part of a massive planet with a strong gravitational field? How could we conceive of a universe beyond that planet with near limitless space and both weightless and strong gravitational fields? The answer is that we cannot. We do not have the information necessary to postulate what the area outside of the room looks like... what laws apply to it... anything about it, or whether it exists or not.

That is why it appears to be an unanswerable puzzle. Oh, there is an answer, but we can't go there

Blue

[JohnM]

Q: How many existentialists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: Two. One to screw it in and one to observe how the lightbulb itself symbolizes a single incandescent beacon of subjective reality in a netherworld of endless absurdity reaching out toward a maudlin cosmos of nothingness.

[Max5s]

This question reminds me of the person who tries to do long division before learning to add and subtract. We're simply not prepared to really solve the problem. The answer ends up being based on faith and chance rather than fact. I think that the fun part is slowly chipping away at the answers to all of the questions you can and and working back in time to learn as much as you can. Otherwise, the answer is merely "42". Thank you Douglas Adams and "Deep Thought". Next question.

[Den-CnB]

I always figured I was nothing more than a random thought in the mind of some entity who is severely mentally ill. I can think of nothing else than can explain my life. Who can prove to me that this is a wrong conclusion?

Question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

Is a thought something? How much space does it occupy?

Dennis

[elsullo]

There is BOTH something AND nothing. It's not an either/or question. These are simultaneous and congruent. "Form is Emptyness, Emptyness is Form" says the Heart Sutra of Buddhism. The direct personal perception of this indivisible unity is what the Buddhists call, "Enlightnement", and anyone can perceive it if only they can ignore the concept of a perceiving self. Everything, bursting forth moment by moment from Emptyness, all the Forms, yet each one still filled with Emptyness. Magnificent!......................elsullo