Why Is There Something Rather THan Nothing?

“Why is there something rather than nothing? It’s a classic puzzle that’s getting a lot of attention now. Sean Carroll has just posted his opinion on the arXiv—he’s decided there’s no answer. Here’s his abstract:

It seems natural to ask why the universe exists at all. Modern physics suggests that the universe can exist all by itself as a self-contained system, without anything external to create or sustain it. But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation.

If you’ve been reading this blog, you’ll know that I don’t agree with Sean. I explained my position on why something exists in one of my first posts, which I called, “All the Metaphysics You Need to Know.” Here’s the story. The abstract concept we call existence exists in itself, independent of any other entity. Also, it is conscious. Existence and consciousness are just different names for the same concept, but you have to be careful here, as I’ll explain momentarily. According to Sean, nothing exists necessarily, but he’s wrong.

I guess it’s not surprising that people have a hard time understanding how an abstract concept, which is supposed to exist only in our heads, can exist in itself and be conscious, but unless physicists get this, they will end up frustrated like Sean and will never understand the universe. In fact, all of physics—including the Standard Model of particle physics and the Concordance Model of cosmology--can be derived rather simply from this beginning, a subject to which I’ve devoted the better part of this blog.

When René Descartes wrote, “I think, therefore I am,” he was trying to express the fact that a thing exists in itself if and only if it is conscious, that is, existence and consciousness are the same thing. But, like many dualities in this complex, relativistic universe, there are two ways to look at this, and although both are correct, they aren’t entirely compatible. If you look at that “I” that confirms your existence because it thinks, you can notice that it has two aspects. Looked at one way, it never changes; it’s timeless. But on top of that timeless or atemporal base, there are changes every second. What does that signify?

The bottom line is that the universe has both temporal and atemporal aspects. The atemporal or logical universe consists of all of the concepts that are implied by the existence of existence, all at once. There’s no time in this universe. Past, present, and future exist all at once. In the temporal or physical universe, concepts flow in time sequence. We can only see the temporal universe because time is essential to our existence. But physicists think the atemporal universe—they call it the “block universe”—may be the real one. In fact, both universes are the real universe, seen by different observers. Who sees the block universe? It’s that atemporal, necessarily existing aspect of existence. It’s only in that universe that existence and consciousness are identical; temporally, they’re different.

Like the particle/wave duality, the temporal/atemporal universe duality is an example of Niels Bohr’s principle of complementarity. Physicists don’t seem to understand this principle, or maybe they just don’t like it. They think that only one view of the universe can be correct. But again, unless they get this, they’ll continue to be hopelessly lost.