Why there is anything at all

This article has multiple issues. Please help or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs attention from an expert in philosophy. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Philosophy may be able to help recruit an expert. (April 2019) The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please or discuss the issue. (April 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This question has been written about by philosophers since at least the ancient Parmenides (c. 515 BC)^[1][2]

The questions pertaining to "why there is anything at all", or, "why there is something rather than nothing" have been raised or commented on by philosophers including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,^[3] Ludwig Wittgenstein,^[4] and Martin Heidegger – who called it "the fundamental question of metaphysics".^[5][6][7]

The question is posed comprehensively, rather than concerning the existence of anything specific such as the universe or multiverse, the Big Bang, God, mathematical laws, physical laws, time, or consciousness. It can be seen as an open metaphysical question.^{[8][9][10][11]}

The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being, the Monad or the Absolute.

On causation[]

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that everything must have a cause, culminating in an ultimate uncaused cause. (See Four causes)

David Hume argued that, while we expect everything to have a cause because of our experience of the necessity of causes, a cause may not be necessary in the case of the formation of the universe, which is outside our experience.^[12]

Bertrand Russell took a "brute fact" position when he said, "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all."^[13][14]

Philosopher Brian Leftow has argued that the question cannot have a causal explanation (as any cause must itself have a cause) or a contingent explanation (as the factors giving the contingency must pre-exist), and that if there is an answer it must be something that exists necessarily (i.e., something that just exists, rather than is caused).^[15]

Philosopher William Free argues that the only two options which can explain existence is that things either always existed or spontaneously emerged. In either scenario, existence is a fact for which there isn't a cause.^[16]

Explanations[]

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote:

Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself.^[17]

Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.^[18][19]

Physicist Max Tegmark wrote about the mathematical universe hypothesis, which states that all mathematical structures exist physically, and the physical universe is one of these structures. According to the hypothesis, the universe appears fine-tuned for intelligent life because of the anthropic principle, with most universes being devoid of life.^[20]

Criticism of the question[]

Philosopher Stephen Law has said the question may not need answering, as it is attempting to answer a question that is outside a spatio-temporal setting, from within a spatio-temporal setting. He compares the question to asking "what is north of the North Pole?"^[21] Noted philosophical wit Sidney Morgenbesser answered the question with an apothegm: "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining!",^[22][23] or "Even if there was nothing, you still wouldn't be satisfied!"^[24]

Physics is not enough[]

Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have offered explanations that rely on quantum mechanics, saying that in a quantum vacuum state, virtual particles and spacetime bubbles will spontaneously come into existence, which is mathematically proven by physicists from Wuhan.^[25][26] Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek is credited with the aphorism that "nothing is unstable." However, this answer has not satisfied physicist Sean Carroll, who argues that Wilczek's aphorism accounts merely for the existence of matter, but not the existence of quantum states, space-time or the universe as a whole.^[27]

God is not enough[]

Philosopher Roy Sorensen writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that to many philosophers the question is intrinsically impossible to answer, like squaring a circle, and even God does not sufficiently answer it:

"To explain why something exists, we standardly appeal to the existence of something else... For instance, if we answer 'There is something because the Universal Designer wanted there to be something', then our explanation takes for granted the existence of the Universal Designer. Someone who poses the question in a comprehensive way will not grant the existence of the Universal Designer as a starting point. If the explanation cannot begin with some entity, then it is hard to see how any explanation is feasible. Some philosophers conclude 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is unanswerable. They think the question stumps us by imposing an impossible explanatory demand, namely, 'Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises'. Logicians should feel no more ashamed of their inability to perform this deduction than geometers should feel ashamed at being unable to square the circle."^[28]

Argument that "nothing" is impossible[]

The pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides was one of the first Western thinkers to question the possibility of nothing. Many other thinkers, such as ,^[29] have questioned whether nothing is an ontological possibility. It can be argued that all encompassing nothingness is an impossibility as there is already an existence, and the cessation of existence cannot erase that. This is in some ways comparable to the "I think, therefore I am" argument.^{[30][31][32][33]}

Non-Existence[]

The contemporary philosopher Roy Sorensen has argued that curiosity is possible "even when the proposition is known to be a necessary truth." For instance, a "reductio ad absurdum proof that 1 − 1/3 + 1/5 − 1/7 + … converges to π/4" demonstrates that not converging to π/4 is impossible. However, it provides no insight into why not converging to π/4 is impossible. Similarly, it's legitimate to ask why non-existence or "nothingness" is impossible, even if that is the case.^[34]

See also[]

References[]

Further reading[]

• Sorensen, Roy (2020). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Nothingness. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
• Kuhn, Robert Lawrence (2013). Leslie, John (ed.). The mystery of existence : why is there anything at all?. Chichester [England]: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-67355-3.
• Holt, Jim (2012). Why does the world exist?: an existential detective story (1st ed.). New York: Liveright Pub. Corp. ISBN 978-0871404091.

External links[]

• Why Anything at All?, Closer to Truth