The brute force of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Question 1: “How is there
something, rather than nothing?” (e.g. method of origination)
We have no idea, and this question cannot
be even WORDED accurately (the problem of ‘is’)…
We have already noted the testimony of
scientists on this -- “How” assumes methods, rules, laws, principles,
mechanisms, sequence (maybe), etc. – NONE OF WHICH are ‘in’ or can ‘emerge
from’ a NOTHING.
The questions SEEMS valid and
reasonable—and we SENSE there is an ‘answer’—but we are stuck inside our
linguistic and conceptual bubble without a way to ‘see outside’ it.
But the force of this is still disturbing:
there is SOMETHING OUTSIDE our existence that somehow has the means (and
‘will’?) to make a SOMETHING. This OTHER must be uniquely ‘capable’ or
‘powerful’ to do this unthinkable MAKING.
And even if we knew HOW the SOMETHING was
made/generated, that would not help us – we are STILL STUCK with an UNKNOWN
SOURCE for this… a distinctly “OVERWHELMING” source…
This would not tell me much about the
OUTSIDE OTHER, other than that it must have a ‘skill level’ of a unique and
VERY impressive nature.
Question 2:
“Why is there something, rather than nothing?”
This
is the standard version of the question, but the change from HOW to WHY
introduces the nuances of rationale, purpose (perhaps), agency, choice between
alternatives.
Since
‘nothing’ would be the EXPECTED DEFAULT ‘condition’ (notice that we cannot even
speak of it without smuggling in ‘categories’ of SOMETHING), this question is
staggering in itself.
As
was noted in the Hawking quote:
“The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why
there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother
of existing?”
We
KNOW we have a ‘something’ and are part of that ‘something’, so there is
no real escape from THAT REALITY. There IS a ‘something’ that cannot be denied.
But
the fact that we SHOULD NOT BE HERE speaks VOLUMES about an ‘other’(?) ‘outside
of OUR SOMETHING’ that is AT LEAST AS REAL as us…
Whatever
it is, is it not merely a ‘figment of our imagination’ or a ‘logical
implication’ – its ‘level of existence’ must be AT LEAST at the level of ours.
This question would also not tell me much
about the OUTSIDE OTHER, other than that –in addition to its skill level—it is prodigiously
and ‘more stubbornly’ REAL than us, and that I/we would not be able to
‘evade’ its existence if we tried.
And
as we examine OUR SOMETHING for clues as to the OTHER’s ‘character and skills’,
anything that impresses US must be placed ‘on top of’ the already beyond-us
level of existence.
And
if this Other – which is somehow the ‘impulse behind’ implied in the ‘why’
question—is the ‘origin’ of this SOMETHING, then every increase in amazement
of some aspect of OUR SOMETHING implies a required ‘increase’ in our
estimate of this OTHER.
The
next series of questions turn now to an examination of ‘our something’ (looking
at the ‘art piece’), seeking patterns that might suggest something about the
OUTSIDE OTHER.