Can Something Come From Nothing?

Can Something Come From Nothing?

It feels about time that age-old question “why is there something rather than nothing?” should notice it’s old age and finally die off. While the question seemed all-important and pertinent to the ancients, what we now know about the nature of the universe renders it obsolete.

The reason why I believe the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is nonsense is because we have no idea what “nothing” is, so how can we reason and discuss with it?

The Argument

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a question that implies that it is a more natural state that there be nothing rather than something. For the question to be a significant one we must assume that nothing is the default, so the fact that something exists demands an explanation. If nothing existed, then there would be no need of any explanation.

But what reason do we have to make this assumption? Why do we think that nothing is the default state of the universe? A saying attributed to Aristotle common in classical physics is that “nature abhors a vacuum” – that there is no such thing as nothing in nature. In modern physics, the saying still seems to be true. It seems to be the case that everywhere in the universe there exists something.

Look around you now, is there anywhere you can point and identify nothing? You are most likely surrounded by objects, all of which are something. What about the space in between objects? Well this is filled with invisible gases, these are certainly something. What about the space in between the particles of these gases, or the emptiness of outer space? Surely there must be some void there? Well modern physics suggests to us that all of this space is alive with fields and virtual particles, so anywhere you care to point there is something there.

Looking beyond current physics, many speculative theories of quantum gravity propose that spacetime is discrete in nature, and that the universe is network of some kind of events or objects with causal links between them. In this picture there are no “gaps” in the universe in which nothing can reside.

My point is that we have absolutely no acquaintance with nothing. We don’t know how the void behaves, so why do we assume that it has the property of being the default state of everything? Why do we think nothing existing is more probable than something existing when we have only ever encountered something and never nothing?

It seems perverse to me that we live in a world in which nothing does not exist, and yet think that the existence of things is not the default state of the universe.

I don’t mean to suggest that the search for an understanding of why there is something rather than nothing is redundant. I just mean to say that it seems irrational to jump to the conclusion that the existence of something is a miracle that can only be attributed to something capable of producing miracles – such as a God. 

6 thoughts on “Can Something Come From Nothing?

Add yours

  1. Since the big bang was discovered there have been rumblings from the religious that scientists have lost their minds and believe this whole enormous cosmos came from nothing which started to expand about 16 billion years ago. In a sense it also arose because of Edwin Hubble who suggested the universe was a huge explosion , which he used to explain the measurable expansion of the universe.
    These suggestions are no more astonishing than the suggestion that God started the ball rolling.
    The human mind believes every effect has a cause and stumbles at the idea of a primal cause. Once we school our minds to accept that maybe we can have effects without causes the problem vanishes and research can comfortably carry on.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I 100% agree with you here, if there’s one thing I’ve found myself wanting to convey recently in my blog posts, it’s that intuitive concepts like cause and effect and nothingness should not be relied upon without question.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Of course there are mysteries that the Big Bang doesn’t have a complete explanation for, but there’s nothing that flat out contradicts the Big Bang. We can see fully formed mature galaxies 10 billion light years away because the universe is expanding. Just because you see a fully formed galaxy 10 billion light years away, it doesn’t mean it was fully formed 10 billion years ago. The expansion of the universe means that calculations involving ages and distances become much more complex – it really is a headache doing them!
        The Big Bang is a theory with many aspects, some of the things we think about the Big Bang may change in the future, but the key aspects will likely remain fixed. The core of the Big Bang theory is that the universe has been expanding outwards from a singularity about 14 billion years ago, and it is very unlikely that anything will contradict this.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I think it is reasonable to say science discovers relationships that are there to be found by investigation . Scientists don’t make things up they look at the evidence and seek for an explanation. Sometimes things cannot be explained in a satisfactory way and greater advances are needed to enlighten us. A simple example of this is scientist were unable to explain where the enormous energy of the sun was coming from until atomic fusion was discovered along with the fascinating fact that mass ( material ) could be turned into energy.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to kersten Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: