On 5/7/2012 6:42 AM, Pierz wrote:
The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I was 
a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes thinking 
about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense it 
is a non-answer, a simple ackowledgement that there is no logical reason why there has to 
be a cause of 'everything' even though everything may have a cause. Krauss's argument - I 
admit I haven't read the book (yet), so I am speaking of what I understand rhe hist of 
his argument to be - may be interesting physics/cosmology, but I agree with the critics 
that it doesn't really get to the bottom of the proverbial 'turtle stack', and it 
shouldn't claim to, because such a bottom turtle is in principle impossible.

John Clarke claims that a 'nothing' that contains the laws of quantum mechanics 
and the potential to produce time, space and matter is a very pitiful something 
if it is a something at all. But I think it sneaks a lot more into its pitiful 
somethingness than at first meets the eye. Not only the laws of quantum 
mechanics, but the laws of logic and mathematics without which quantum 
mechanics could not be formulated or expressed - as Bruno woukd be quick to 
point out.

The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue contradictory statements. The 'laws' of quantum mechanics also follow from simple assumptions about the world having symmetries (c.f. Russell Standish's "Theory of Nothing" and Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos") and having a symmetry is a kind of 'nothing', i.e. having no distinguishing characteristic under some transformation. Stenger's book is more detailed and explicit than Krauss'.


I really must read the book to understand how this vacuum can be unstable in 
the absence of time - doesn't stability or instability depend on time by 
implying the possibility or otherwise of change? But even accepting this it 
seems to me that in order to reason about the properties of this vacuum (e.g., 
its instability or otherwise) means that the vacuum must exist. Getting what 
seems like extremely close to non-existence is still a million miles (actually 
an infinite distance) from actual non-existence, because what defines the 
distinction between non-existence and existence is not anything to do with 
being extremely minimal. An extremely small number, say 10 to the -100000, is 
extremely minimal, but still not zero, and still an infinite distance, in a 
sense, from zero.

Krauss's argument may satisfy the cosmologist's desire to see the cause of the universe 
reduced to something extremely simple, but it does not satisfy the wondering child or 
philosopher who is thunderstruck by the strangeness of there being any existence at all, 
however simple or rudimentary its origins. It's wrong to say such a child or philosopher 
is caught in a pointless mind loop trying asking how something that does not even have 
the potential to produce anything can, nevertheless, produce something. Of course that is 
absurd. The question in my mind as a wondering child was never 'How did the nothing that 
must have come before the universe produce the universe?' It was my mind chasing the 
chain of causation of things and realizing that, whatever that chain looked like, I could 
never trace it all the way back to absolute nothing - so why this mysterious beingness? 
The fact is it's beyond reason. Call it a gift or a miracle and you're as close to it as 
anything. God is no answer, mind you - he's just another spurious bottom turtle. God, 
laws of quantum mechanics: it's just different attempts to stop the rot of infinite 
regress, hammer in a wedge somewhere and say "Because".  Why do the law of 
quantum physics exist? Because. Why does God, the UD, the Buddhist void exist? Because.

As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there 
being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being is 
not a countable way of being. It's the absence of being - obviously - so can't 
be presented as one among a myriad of possible configurations of the universe.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to