Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Showing only those parts of the discussion that lead to #533 and its comments.

See full discussion·See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.
Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·#3133
4th of 4 versions leading to #533 (4 total)

What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·#525
Only version leading to #533 (2 total)

I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.

If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the latter has been physicalized in the first place.

(Logan Chipkin)

Criticism of #3133Criticized2*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·#546
2nd of 2 versions leading to #533 (2 total)

Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right? Rules itself out.

Criticism of #525
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·#530

Is non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?

(Logan Chipkin)

Criticism of #546Criticized1*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·#532

If non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.

Criticism of #530 Battle tested
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·#533

I would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.

(Logan Chipkin)

Criticism of #532Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·#534

That’s not a counterargument - so maybe that’s it, after all.

(Logan Chipkin)

Criticism of #533