I am not going to go through 2400 posts to see if anything like this has been posted before. But for what it is worth here is my take on the question. I have posted this idea on other sites and the general response has been a deafening silence.
I am proposing a possible solution to the old question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It is intended to address both why something exists and why we observe a very specific something as opposed to any other something. I am putting this forward as a more explanatory and less problematic alternative to both the traditional creator scenario.
In that traditional scenario, the creator is represented as conscious, intelligent, volitional and purposeful. The obvious question is why the creator should exist. A standard answer is that the creator is the necessary existence. This is often meant in the sense of a creator being necessary to explain the existence of the world, which does not answer the question. Instead let us take it to mean that the entity that happens to be responsible for the existence of the world has the inherent property of necessarily existing, in and of itself, even if it never chose to create anything.
The next question is why this necessary existence should have the properties of being conscious, intelligent, volitional and purposeful. Clearly these are not properties inherent in existence. A rock exists without having them. In fact the vast majority of the universe (to put it mildly) does not have those properties. So what is it that predisposes the necessary existence to necessarily have those properties that are not necessarily part of existence? Whatever it might be would have to precede the creator. We can then ask why those prior influences exist. And so on.
There is also the issue that this alleged creator created a very specific universe. What factors could have led the creator to build this particular universe as opposed to any other one? Even if an absence of motives is postulated, there is still the fact of one particular universe being created. Why this one?
Yet the world exists. How come? The idea of necessary existence is an attractive one. But applying it to the traditional style creator leads to problems. One might be tempted to say that the universe exists because
it is the necessary existence. But as with the creator idea, an explanation is needed for the specificity of the universe. Why is it exactly the way it is?
As previously stated, the proposed solution is intended to address not only why anything exists but why we observe such specificity. That proposed solution is that everything that can exist does exist. Details to follow.
Implicit in the idea of a necessarily existing entity is the notion of an existential imperative.
Something must exist or nothing will exist. That is, something
must exist. Yet both the creator and the necessary universe concepts do not explain specificity without invoking pre-existing factors that would themselves require explanation.
The proposed solution is to keep the existential imperative concept (which all scenarios require anyway) but eliminate the problematic specificity issue. In short, all possibilities exist.
Let us refine what we mean by ‘possible’. For something to be possible, it must be coherent, consistent and complete.
Coherent – It must be something in particular. ‘A is A’ implies that A has some specific definite meaning.
Note: Quantum theory tells us that our naïve everyday intuitions about what a thing is are insufficient to properly understand things. In between observations a quantum is represented by a probability wave function. But it is a specific definite wave function. ‘A is A’ works at even the quantum level if we do not insist on naïve understandings.
Consistent – A is not not-A. Contradictions do not exist. This is simply the flip side of ‘A is A’ and follows directly from it.
Complete – The properties of A are meaningful only within a particular definite context. To say something is heavy or red, for example, assumes that heaviness and redness can be defined in terms of whatever context A resides in.
Anything that is not a definite something (not coherent), implies contradictions (not consistent) and/or is not describable in terms of its context (not complete) cannot reasonably be said to exist.
If all possibilities exist, then how does one reconcile that with the requirement for both coherency and consistency? If, for example, A represents the value of the speed of light, a specific definite value in accordance with the coherency requirement, how can it have all possible values? The answer is that different universes can have different values for the speed of light. (Not all universes even need to have a speed of light at all.)
If all possibilities exist, then how does one reconcile this with the idea of something being describable in terms of a definite context? The answer is that different universes can have different contexts, e.g., laws, constants, values.
Conclusion: The idea that everything that can be is, while preserving the definition of existence (coherent, consistent, complete) requires that all universes that can exist do exist. This is commonly called the multiverse/
Physics today is all about symmetries. Anti-matter was first predicted on grounds of mathematical symmetries then discovered exactly as predicted. Furthermore the principle was discovered to be universal. All particles have anti-particles. Today’s symmetries are highly sophisticated and have successfully predicted not just anti-particles but entirely new particles.
The ultimate in symmetry would be the existence of all possible forms of physics – all coherent, consistent and complete laws, constants and values. The existence of all possible universes is entirely compatible with physics and perhaps even suggested by past experience, the fulfillment of symmetry.
But is simply being possible, as defined above, sufficient to account for the fact of existence? Physics suggests that it could be. Virtual particles are constantly appearing and disappearing throughout space courtesy of Heisenberg Uncertainty. All possible particles are present in this stew. All possible particles, that is, that are allowable by the laws of physics of this universe. All those that are possible, exist spontaneously.
What are the laws that decide if a particular universe as a whole is possible? To exist a universe must be coherent (have defining parameters) consistent (not contain contradictions) and complete (maintain a consistent context). Instead of all possible particles existing spontaneously exactly because they are possible, why not all possible universes existing spontaneously exactly because they are possible?
It is interesting to consider that as in the symmetries in physics (e.g., matter/antimatter and others) if we add up the physicals constants of all possible universes (positive and negative values) the net sum is zero. In this universe we see virtual particle/anti-particle pairs adding up to zero but all possible virtual particle types existing. In the multiverse everything adds up to nothing. Why is there something rather than nothing? There is not just something, there is
everything but in the end it is also nothing.
It is necessary to distinguish the physical multiverse from other proposals such as Lewis’s modal realism, which has it that any universe that can be imagined exists. The problem with this is that we do not imagine actual real things but only incomplete abstractions. We can imagine a flying pig by taking a mental picture of a pig, sticking mental pictures of wings on it and pasting it onto a mental picture of sky. For there to be a world in which pigs fly there would need to be revisions to biology, aerodynamics and probably other factors. It might be possible for a creature resembling a pig with wings to fly if one is allowed to manipulate the environment at will. But it would not be a flying pig as we imagined it, that is, an earthly pig with wings flying in an earthly environment. Not all imaginable hodgepodges of mental images can be realized in a real (coherent, consistent, complete) world.
There are those who would say that the universe was designed for life and not life but intelligent and in particular modern man. If that were the case the universe would be much more hospitable to life. In reality it is overwhelmingly hostile to life except in rare circumstances. The universe is mostly vacuum where life cannot exist. Most of the rest is stars or interstellar dust clouds, both not capable of hosting life. A good chunk of the universe consists of black holes, definitely hostile to life. Sometimes stars have planets but from what we see most of them are not capable of life.
Some planets may not be openly hostile to life, but to actually have life on them they need to be big enough to have an atmosphere and that atmosphere must be life supporting. It must be in a region not too cold or too hot to allow moderate speed chemical reactions plus have the ingredients to support them. Carbon, oxygen and liquid water are the most likely candidates. An iron core to generate a magnetic field that keeps hard radiation out is a plus but probably not that uncommon. There are those that argue that a large companion moon is needed to stabilize axis orientation and therefore climate. That is not a certainty but if it is, that sounds rather rare.
If the universe were designed, it would be expected to facilitate life rather more generously than that, I would expect. To further narrow the purpose to intelligence, a rarity among the life that we know of, strains the argument even further.
Considering the improbability of this thing called life, it would make sense in the multiverse scenario that in most universes able to support life it would be a rare and marginal occurrence. Just like in this one. It is exactly this scarcity of life that argues for the multiverse and not a purposeful design.
The multiverse proposal has been criticized as extremely non-parsimonious, postulating a vast number of other universes. On the contrary, it is the ultimate in parsimony, with everything deriving from a single principle, that what can be, is.
A conscious intelligent volitional creator of a single complicated universe requires some form of pre-existing factors to have that particular nature and decide to perform that particular act. In short, an unexplained arbitrary ‘just so’ first existence. Plus a principle of existential imperative would be required for a creator to exist in the first place as opposed to nothing.
To say that the universe as we see it, in all its massive complexity, just happened without cause is to tell another unexplained arbitrary ‘just so’ story. Plus a principle of existential imperative would be required for the universe to exist in the first place as opposed to nothing.
The multiverse proposal requires only a principle of existential imperative, that what is possible exists. The other two require that same principle of existential imperative and other unexplained factors. The multiverse requires only one assumption. The others require that same assumption plus other assumptions that are inherently problematic.
The multiverse is not only the most parsimonious, it avoids the problems of the other two, and it is a better explanation for why we see what we see.
One final argument for the multiverse:
Arguments for a creator generally postulate a necessarily existing entity, something that cannot not be. That includes a double negative.
- That which can
not not be, must be.
If we eliminate the double negative.
- That which can
not not be, must be.
We get:
That which can be, must be.
If anyone is still awake, I would appreciate feedback.
Thanks!
The secret of happiness is this: let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile.
Bertrand Russell
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
