The Question That Keeps Me Awake At Night

You need to have something rather than nothing because if there was only nothing then it would be quite boring.

My earliest memory is being around 6-7 years old and standing and staring into my family's aquarium tank. As I stared into the deep blue water I would image what it would be like if the room I was standing in didn't exist, if my house didn't exist, the street I lived on, the neighborhood, my city, my state, my country, the earth didn't exist. My tiny mind would carry that out as far as I could fathom and I'd find myself in a stater of absolute nothingness and it felt so freeing. I used to be able to simulate that thought process intentionally as I grew up but as I got older it started to fade, no longer a possibility for my mind to accept. This video makes me want to try to find that feeling again.

'Something' is not the opposition of 'Nothing'. This is the fundamental flaw in approaching the question of existence. Yes, my approach will be buried under thousands of comments and +2 years of time, so it most probably will not be read anyway. But here I go, just for fun, or the sake of it.
First and foremost: Will science ever answer the question of existence, like A=BX ?
*No*. It's as simple as that.

When you're disappointed now, all I can offer is an intuitive approach to our inability to answer this question.
Now, because it is mentioned here in the video - is the universe maybe mathematics? Not some term, but mathematics itself?
No. That's bullshit. Brilliant bullshit, but still bullshit. We will see later, why.

Is the universe a simulation?
This does not solve any problem, does it? Our universe could be a simulation (not very likely), but in the end you need a hardware to run the simulation. A 'real' universe. And we are talking about the real thing, not about a (possible) stack of simulations.

So what are we scientists doing?
We want to create knowledge. Some of us say, we are searching for the truth. Nope, we don't. We are building and testing models about something we call 'reality'. And there is a fundamental understanding among us, that something like an 'external' reality exists. We cannot prove it, though. Hence, there are many models about reality, how independent it is from us, and so on.

Scientific models of reality - or knowledge - must (among other things) produce predictable results. This is what knowledge is all about. The next total solar eclipse in Austria will be on September 3th 2081 and will last for 5 minutes and 33 seconds - this kind of predictions. And when eclipses happen in the predicted way, we can say we have a good model of the reality of solar eclipses.

The most important tool for modeling is mathematics. With an axiomatic system, we can formulate and propagate laws of the reality. However, and this is important - these laws are derived from our models. They are not the reality. Mathematics is granular. Reality isn't. We can approach the relation between radius and circumference of a circle with every accuracy we want, but will never reach it in full.

Every axiomatic system relies on definitions. We define axioms, and start building and modeling from there. This has implications which Kurt Gödel discovered in the beginning of the 20th century. In a nutshell - every axiomatic system, that is powerful enough to talk about itself and reality, runs into an endless regression of incompleteness. This means, every model based on mathematics we come up to describe reality will have holes. Will be incomplete. There is no way to escape. It's like trying to see your brain. Or having a mirror that reflects everything in the room. Our models are always weaker than reality. Not because we are stupid, but because it's impossible to get around Gödel's incompleteness.

What are definitions? Why do they cause that trouble?
When we go back to the Latin root of the word, it literally means drawing a border around an item. Everything inside the border belongs - or defines - the item, everything outside does not. Easy. But maybe you see something happen here. A definition creates existence. It breaks symmetries. It is granular.

To sum it up. Now that you know what a definition is, try to define NOTHING. Draw a border around NOTHING. Or try it with the opposite - EVERYTHING. The universe is EVERYTHING per definition. But we cannot define EVERYTHING. We cannot build an axiomatic system about EVERYTHING. We cannot build an axiomatic system about NOTHING. And in the end, we finally might understand somehow, that EVERYTHING and NOTHING fall together - they are the same.

Your answer to this question can't be found in science. It's only a tool to understand HOW the universe works.

This is the reason belief is so important to each one of us and WHY we believe what we believe. The only certainty is that there is truth out there, and each one of us is on a personal journey (which takes action/effort)closer or farther from the ultimate truth.

We DO know; the BOOMERanG experiment proved it came from nothing. It's because you don't understand Quantum Physics enough. When you reach a higher level of not understanding QP to a lessel extent, then this question won't keep you up. There is something rather than nothing because nothing is inherently unstable in QP. Furthermore, don't ASSume that time is as we perceive it. Something might arise out of NO PHYSICS LAWS and make them retroactively apply - because our perception of how time works is demonstrably a fraction of what's going on.
The question that keeps ME up is "Why hasn't anyone stopped by to give me a lift OFF this INSANE mudball?"

Stay curious. I love this.

I don’t mean to posit a god of the gaps, but this is why I became practically pantheistic. There’s something truly strange going on with this question and while I’m sure it’s measurable and observable in some way, it surpasses us. I don’t think that has to mean there’s a theistic God person, but there’s something fundamental to reality and we will never have an answer to it

You should look into the argument from contingency for God's existence.

Nothing is NOT.

By very definition (or formula, as you say it), the universe cannot self exist . . . it's a logical impossibility . . . however, by its very definition (formula) God can self exist . . . and self-existence is not circular reasoning. Logically, , a self-existent God must exist. It is as simple as you saying, I think . . . therefore, I know I exist. Mathematically speaking . . . I must exist because my consciousness exists. Likewise, Mathematically speaking . . . a self-existent God must exist because something exists. It is the formula of everything. A self-existent God is the formula for everything.

Fascinating. I have always thought about this. You always end up reaching something that exists just because it exists. Which is actually very similar to the concept of God.. maybe God is in fact existence itself, the basis of reality. I became satisfied with this answer

infinity is beyond all understanding

So the answer is pi?

Maybe space is just the nothing that something somehow decided to happen upon. 😂

That pathetic Trump keeps me up at night

Although deeply interesting, i dont consider these to be scientific questions anyway - they cant be answered through observation or empirical data. These are philosophical questions that perhaps for now, can only be answered through philosophical means

I think the reason this bothers us is because we are limited to space and time , God is not hence we could never understand the "why"

But i can imagine that the reason could very easily be - just a playground for us - type of thing. Or a test.

All questions will be answered, keep seeking, keep exploring

I've shifted my thinking somewhat. I think we need to stop assuming that the cosmos or universe or whatever you call it came or emerged out of nothing and the task was to ask how or why. That is the question usually presented. How is it possible that anything, any form of existence, however you describe or define it, could come into being.
A shift of focus is needed. It isn't that the existence of anything seems so unexplainable or impossible, but we have to assume that the cosmos, the universe, everything that is, is a product and is within a cosmos that is eternally bubbing and broiling and changing and producing this and that form and particle and universes of all sorts. It is nothingness, absolute nothingness that simply cannot be. No matter how far down you go no matter how tiny, the stuff of the cosmos is still an energetic brew bubbling and broiling like the proverbial witches' cauldren. Or as someone once put it, "It's turtles, all the way down."

Yeah, whenever I find myself pondering this question I just swallow Russells bitter pill and then marvel at how lucky we are that our puny little primate brains can even entertain such lofty thoughts.

Oh please, stay thoughtful and curious, always!!
There is a lot still to be learned from our universe, and if one day we last long enough, we finally find the theory of everything, we will find out that it is the theory of almost everithing.
Because since we are a part of this universe, we may be able to crack the rules of it, but i belive that we cannot even concieve what rules are out there before, after and outside of our universe.

If one is truly to stay CURIOUS, then one must stay OPEN to whatever the answer to the questions posed in the video might be. Specifically, it seems illogical to rule out God - because no matter one's feelings about it, God still remains one of the possible answers to that question so it seems a fool's game to reject that answer upfront while simultaneously continuing such a deep inquiry. Stay open. Perhaps God is not the same as religion i.e. man has made religions out of God but God exists outside of man's religions.

I don't think the question 'Why' is relevant but I do know how it was possible that the universe came into existence from nothing. However, working it out was more a case of missing the obvious than scientific endeavour.

This is in the same spirit as ancient cosmological arguments for God. It seems to me that either the universe exists without cause, in which case the existence of the universe is mysterious, or a creator God exists without cause, in which case, the existence of the creator God is mysterious. It also seems to me that if you consider the possibility of a unconscious creator God, then there is no difference in practice between God and self-existing laws of nature. In this case, the laws of nature = God. This should not be surprising, because the scientific method was developed by people who believed in a rational creator God. That's why they expected there to be laws of nature in the first place. The scientific method came out of a religious feeling.

The existence of mathematics does not seem strange to theists/deists, because they expect reason to exist independently of matter, since reason comes from the mind of God, who predates the material universe. Atheists are sometimes puzzled by the existence of transcendent mathematics, since they see things in terms of matter.

Goedel's theorem would point towards the laws of physics being like an onion. If there can't be a system that is both complete and consistent, then there will always be one more layer to peal for consistent theories. This is troublesome to me, however, because this seems to point towards the idea that maybe existence itself is either incomplete or inconsistent. But there seems to be so much harmony in nature, this would be a strange result.

If the material universe itself has no cause, then the universe itself is like how ancient theists imagined God (being eternal and uncaused). If the material universe has a cause, then it stands to reason that that cause is utterly unlike anything we have experienced (how can the cause of space, time, and matter, itself be composed of space, time, and matter?). Also, if there is an uncaused cause, then this points towards something like "free will". It seems to be a part of the definition of free will that it causes without itself being caused.

When looking for ultimate causes, I see only 3 choices:
1. An uncaused cause (pointing heavily towards the idea of God)
2. An infinite regression of causality (you can never get to the end of it, like the onion that was talked about in the video)
3. Circular causality (like somebody builds a time machine to go back in time and start the big bang)

The only thing I feel we can be fairly certain of is that SOMETHING exists outside the scope of human reason. It seems to me that the existence of a creator God is a plausible explanation.

Maybe a bit late, but I'm curious as to why accepting the possibility of brute facts existing can be correlated with losing curiosity? Can both not coexist?

The universe is governed by laws. You are all naught-listers. Not me though. I'm from the government. I'm here to help 😇

"From whence" is redundant. "Whence" means "from where".

Nothingness is total absence of consciousness

The “brute fact” this discourse seems to dance around is that of Existence itself.

Uncaused. Existence is simply uncaused. Prior to even space-time, prior to the universe — or to “multi-universes” — Existence exists, not in time, not in space, but it simply *is*, prior to, and subsistent to, All. Any spatial or temporal notion cannot apply to it. It just is.

There is no “nothing” somehow “non-existing” apart from Existence, since Existence exists and admits of no negation, no “nothing” over against it. (“Nothing” is just a figment of our language, denoting the absence of a thing, such as the absence of a coin in my pocket. “Nothing” is a spatial notion; existence is not spacial.)

There is no outside to Existence, no absence of it, no “néant” that either complements or supplements “être”. Physics, and everything attaching to it, belongs to the domain of “the universe”, to space-time, to the objects of our perception and comprehension, which “partake of” existence, or “manifest” existence, or “embody” existence (metaphors only cripple our comprehension!), but are not actually Existence Itself!

Here we have to do with ontology, τὸ ὄν, Being / Existence in and of itself. Mathematics, numbers, theories, axioms, laws, Nature, causation — all of this belongs to the universe — an epiphenomenon of Existence, if you will — but such considerations have no relevance to the question of WHY Existence *exists*.

That is the brute fact to which there is, and can be, no answer — apart from the fact that the emergence of the universe from that brute fact poses the question to which there is no answer. The mind can only grasp its reality when it has been seized by the true terror of this question.

Thank you for such a fine video! Really enjoyed it. Greeting from the UK.

brute facts are facts that kick you head so that u appear to yourself as a vacuum cleaner eating itself. the real and ultimate "brute fact" is that we as a species at this point are incapable of stepping "around" a "round" pole. not 360...180._as in a round about...sometimes questions don't have to be answered...they can be bypassed.

When I ponder on it, it seems to me that "absolute nothingness" is simply impossible.

Rather that the absence existence one could ask for the absence restraints and laws. This asks why are there laws to the universe at all? The answer I find most likely is that there are no laws. Rather than nothing existing, everything exists, including our universe. The question then becomes why do we find ourselves in this universe? That I don't know. This universe needs to be complex enough to allow thinking beings to ask that question, and perhaps Occam's razor explains why the laws of physics see to be rather simple.

I would also add that just because and axiom like "the universe exists," seems the most reasonable to us does not mean we cannot assume it is false. I strongly suspect there is no meaning/purpose to life, but I assume there is one because if there is a purpose, then finding it and following it are important, where as if there no purpose then my actions do not matter, and I lose nothing by following my assumption.

We live in a universe of causality, certain laws of physics, and static mathematics. I often consider that we are attempting to apply current universal laws to a time when the laws of physics were fundamentally different.

For example, at the exact moment of the Big Bang, did 1=1? Did causality have the same structure as today?

If not, then you will never be able to reach a conclusion, without first uncovering the original physics and laws that governed the event. We are perhaps using the wrong “language”, or even asking the wrong question.

I was 9 when I started to think about this. It drove me nuts.

Mankind’s search for truth . Could it set us free

Why? Wrong question. Given the undeniable fact of our universe's existence, the first question should be, What is existing, and how did it come to be? This is a strictly scientific inquiry and the answers, just like the laws of physics, will be the same for any other intelligent creatures anywhere in the universe.
The second question can be why. This is a human question, a philosophical, metaphysical, mystical, religious, cultural, racial or tribal question. The quest is for meaning, purpose, identity, belonging, comfort. The myriad answers are pretty much equally plausible but some have greater (and powerful) personal, social and cultural significance and historical utility than others. Take your pick. Believe in this or that. Who cares? You care and those who you identify and associate with care. The why is the tie that binds and it will bind whether you all believe in the tooth fairy or a supernatural being or destiny......your choice.

That guy forgets to address that believing in God allows us to believe that when we die, then and only then will we be able to understand the question of "Who created God"?

Someone may take credit for a discovery but it is only something that allowed itself to be revealed.
Get out of your own way and allow yourself to be worthy of the insights.
I'm stupid as a rabbit and get lucky with carrots.

i know the answer, but it involves conspiracy

This doesn't mean that there are questions that can't answered by science. It does mean that every answer provided by scientific study inherently has one or more questions contained within it

Remember, it's turtles all the way down

So let's say that we have an infinite number of universes that were very kindly created by our buddy Math (or Maths, if you prefer). Which number is our universe?

No matter how hard they try, a squirrel will never be able to comprehend algebra. We are just animals too. Who’s to say we’re even capable of fully comprehending the universe?

Just because you can't find for the value x doesn't mean you should leave it blank. Some of the greatest problems were solved because people assumed there must be a value to x and made an educated guess. 🤓

As a kid I would try to impress my grandfather with what I did that day telling all I did, then he would ask, "Have you moved a mountain with your hands? Let me know when you do."

We like to think how intelligent we are and when we come across something we cannot answer many say well we can't answer that question so why bother trying.
That's not how we got to the moon or even into space in the first place.

This question makes me think of Godel's theorem "in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved".

Meanwhile religious people dancing in the background:

To the question of "what was 'there' before the bang?" I always wonder well, "the singularity" that burst forth EVERYTHING (time/space), was that singularity itself WITHIN a space that held/contain it? "Where" was this singularity "when" it exploded? Of course we'll never know but, if "nothing" held/contained the bang place/moment, is nothing "something" and...omg I can understand the potential for INSANITY becoming the condition of who wonders such...😂😂😂I absolutely love your channel and work Doc. keep it up, absolutely inspiring stuff!!❤👍💯😊