Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T03:27:54.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - On the Question Why There Exists Something Rather Than Nothing

from Part I - Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

Roderich Tumulka
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, USA
Khalil Chamcham
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Joseph Silk
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
John D. Barrow
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Simon Saunders
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In my opinion, nothing useful has ever been written on the question in the title, and small is the contribution that I have to offer. I outline an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, an explanation which, however, I believe is incorrect because it makes a certain empirical prediction (absence of qualia) that is incorrect. Nevertheless, it may be interesting to discuss this reasoning. It allows, in principle though not in practice, to derive the laws of nature and all physical facts about the universe. Then I elucidate which objections to this explanation are, in my opinion, valid and which are not.

Explanation in physics usually works this way: observable phenomena get explained by physical theories. A physical theory is the hypothesis that the physical world consists of certain kinds of physical objects governed by certain laws. From this hypothesis we derive, or we make it plausible that it can be derived, that the phenomenon in question (typically) occurs; then we say that the theory explains the phenomenon. The physical theory does not explain why these kinds of physical objects exist, why others do not, and why these laws hold; instead of explaining them, the theory merely posits them. At best, some theories are simpler and more elegant than others (e.g. Einstein's general relativity more than Newton's theory of gravity). But no physical theory comes close to explaining why these laws hold, or why there exist any physical objects at all. Thus, no physical theory contributes to the question in the title.

Specifically, some physical theories allow for the possibility of a vacuum state, i.e. that at a certain time there is no matter in space, and for the possibility of a transition from a vacuum state to a non-vacuum state, i.e. that at some other time there is some matter in space. While such a theory has some explanatory value, it does not touch upon the question in the title, as it does not explain the physical laws, nor why space-time exists,1 nor why certain kinds of matter (described by certain kinds of mathematical variables) exist and others do not. For related discussion, see Holt's overview [4] and Albert's critique [1] of Krauss's book [5].

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Albert, D. Z. 2012. On the Origin of Everything. Review of Krauss, L. (2012) A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing. Free Press.The New York Times(25 March 2012).
[2] Anselm, of Canterbury, 1078. Proslogion . English translation in Deane, S. N. St. Anselm: Basic Writings.. Chicago: Open Court, 1962.
[3] Chalmers, D. 1996. The Conscious Mind.. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[4] Holt, J. 2017. Why the Universe Exists. To appear in Ijjas, A. and Loewer, B. eds. A Guide to the Philosophy of Cosmology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[5] Krauss, L. 2012. A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing. New York: Free Press.
[6] Loewer, B. 1978. Leibniz and the Ontological Argument. Philosophical Studies. 34, 105–9.Google Scholar
[7] Russell, B. 1908. Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics. 30, 222–62.Google Scholar
[8] Tegmark, M. 1998. Is “the Theory of Everything” Merely the Ultimate Ensemble Theory? Annals of Physics. 270, 1–51. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009. Google Scholar
[9] Tegmark, M. 2008. The Mathematical Universe. Foundations of Physics. 38, 101–50. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646. Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×