h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's 42.

S.

Yes It may as well be, since the answer's probably beyond language. Douglas Adams was certainly on to something there!

To be serious, Douglas wasn't far from Heidegger in his concerns - which is why I wrote the article. The beauty of H's question is that it crystallises so many similar questions, such as 'what does it all mean' and 'what's the answer to the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything?'

And one of the things that I really enjoy about HHGG is that it 'shows' the experience artistically and indirectly, (through informed fantasy and comedy), in a superior way to any forlorn attempt at answering the question directly. I think Deep Throat's answer shows awareness of this.

Sorry to go on,

Grime

That's...er...Deep Thought. Bit of a Freudian slip there.........


grime

You're quite right.
It is something not quite quantifiable.
Hey, would you like to read an essay I've written about something similar? Well, not too similar. And it's incomplete as yet.
But I would like your opinions on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A671159

S.

Sure. I'm on my way. Get back to you later

Grime

The question is why is it all something instead of nothing. That is because nothing is so bloody boring that it takes something to keep from going completely out of our minds.

Doesn't the answer lie in the fact that there is something? If there wouldn't be anything, the question wouldn't be asked. Because there is something, and that something is capable of rational thought, the question is asked. Since the question is something, this means there is something because there is something.
I hope this makes sense

In order to answer the question, I think we need to have a better idea of what nothing is, because "nothing" is quite simply not a part of human experience. Thus far, there have been only two known instances of "nothing" which are in the vacuum of outer space, and the "spaces" between subatomic particles. Furthermore, it has been surmised that even the "vacuum" is in fact made of "something". Therefore, its not much of a stretch to say that perhaps one day we'll find some sort of "something" occupying those spaces.

In summation, before we answer "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" we first need to answer "Does 'nothing' exist?"

Well, If 'nothing' is defined as the absence of existence, then the answer must be no.

I think the nothing in the question "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" is of a deeper meaning than the aparent emptiness at a certain location. Because these 'holes' are formed by the existence of things around them. The nothing on a higher level does not only mean there is nothing in a certain place, the place itself doesn't exist, nor do any observers to note this.

New slant on the issue: the notion of anything presupposses the existense of nothing. Therefore the term "anything" should be interpreted broadly as including "nothing" as its subset.
The question itself has absolutely no bearing on philosophy.Rather it is an entertaining exercize in circular all-encompassing logic.
Philosophy as a metascience should led by example all other derivative practically-minded sciences. It should rather be the Bud of the World bursting forth into the petals of Scince, Arts and Reason and Enlighnment. Instead it is curretly being prostituted by obscure-sounding charlatans of post-modernism and their precursors(see Sokal Hoax in the Postmodernism article in the Philosophy section of H2G2) as I learnt today to my great abhorence and entertainment. It is all right to take this fuzzy pronouncements as the drolly continuation of the Proceedings of the Pickwick Club, yet to lend credence to such thoughts is indeed calpable to me.
Philosophy should predicate itself on the postulate that there exists the Objective Outer World with its Objective Laws (both things cumulatively denoted as Truth) , implemented by God. And it should proceed to lay down the general approaches as to how to percieve that Truth. That is to say that the Assumption that "Truth Exists, with our Understanding of It being fragmented, evolving and always incomplete, that Understanding, in turn, derived by our consistently logical theorising validated by Practice", is the only valid assumption which should be the bedrock of Philosophy. All other assumptions should merely be corrolaries to that First Assumption. And the assumption of whether there exists anything or nothing is not. Modern Manifold Philosophies,had gone astray from this veritable Philosophy of Truth,and are now beyond redemption and in a piteous condition of perpetuating themself in Stone,whilst they deserve by way of a justice only a section in humorist papers.

There is a theory arising out of quantum physics called (I believe) the anthropic principle. It goes like this:

A system can properly exist only if it is observed.
Therefore, the Universe can only exist if it is, at some point in its space-time continuum, observed.
The only thing we know of that can observe is organic life.
Therefore, a Universe can only exist if its conditions are such that organic, observing life arises within it.
Thus we -- as living, observing, beings -- created the Universe just as much as the Universe created us. We and the Universe are an inseparable pair, each necessary for the existence of the other.

This would explain quite a bit about why things are the way they are, as opposed to some other way. The laws of physics and the types of matter and energy in the Universe must be conducive to organic life. But that still leaves the Ultimate Question: Why anything instead of nothing?

Here's my theory on this: Perhaps our terms "anything" and "nothing" are too absolute for describing the Universe. They work well for the human experience ("I have nothing to eat," "He will eat anything") but who's to say the Universe works in that way on the higher, more abstract levels we're probing?

If it's true that we and our Universe bring each other into existence, maybe we and our Universe only exist in terms of each other. In a sense, we corroborate each others' existences; but maybe we do not really exist in absolute terms. We and our Universe could be merely theoretical, existing only in an of each other, without affecting any ultimate "anything" or "nothing."

Does anyone understand that? I'm not sure I entirely get it myself, but it's an idea that has occurred to me and I'd like to know what other people think about it.

- Fallingwhale.

There is a theory arising out of quantum physics called (I believe) the anthropic principle. It goes like this:

A system can properly exist only if it is observed.
Therefore, the Universe can only exist if it is, at some point in its space-time continuum, observed.
The only thing we know of that can observe is organic life.
Therefore, a Universe can only exist if its conditions are such that organic, observing life arises within it.
Thus we -- as living, observing, beings -- created the Universe just as much as the Universe created us. We and the Universe are an inseparable pair, each necessary for the existence of the other.

My Commentary: Have you ever heard of Mssers Varela and Maturana - Chilian-born philosophers? That is exactly what they (surf the net entering their name and either their works or discussions thereof are sure to come up). While they write pondorously in general, yet there also are very good explanative books on the subject written by them: for example "Tree of human understanding". Also see www.trans-psych.org.uk.(cognant school of thinking called Transendential Philosophy)

This would explain quite a bit about why things are the way they are, as opposed to some other way. The laws of physics and the types of matter and energy in the Universe must be conducive to organic life. But that still leaves the Ultimate Question: Why anything instead of nothing?

Here's my theory on this: Perhaps our terms "anything" and "nothing" are too absolute for describing the Universe. They work well for the human experience ("I have nothing to eat," "He will eat anything") but who's to say the Universe works in that way on the higher, more abstract levels we're probing?

If it's true that we and our Universe bring each other into existence, maybe we and our Universe only exist in terms of each other. In a sense, we corroborate each others' existences; but maybe we do not really exist in absolute terms. We and our Universe could be merely theoretical, existing only in an of each other, without affecting any ultimate "anything" or "nothing."

Does anyone understand that? I'm not sure I entirely get it myself, but it's an idea that has occurred to me and I'd like to know what other people think about it.
My Commentary: an analogy might be to hand here.While I look in the mirror I am conscious of the reflection of my image and that of the objects about me in background. What I do not think of at that moment is how much what I see in the mirror is a by-product of the particular properties of visible- wave-lenghts light.Shut out the light and the Universe part that I see is dissolved! Then, what I see is the light which I get, and how could I know from which object does it reflect itself? And yet something exists. For example, in ultra-violet or infra-red light,how different the picture of what we see would be if we could just observe it in that spectre? (and visual sensing is the most important part of sensory perception,though Embedded Cognition school of Phycology teaches us that it is unfair to split up general sensory experience into its particular modalities). No doubt this has prompted those who think along Kantian lines, to categorize same object as "thing in itself" and "thing for us". Yet "thing for us" is the best approximation to the "thing in itself". The perception conducive to the "thing for us" is engendered by evolutionary processes in living forms.And if you accept evolution theory then you accept that such a perception is optimal for a given set of circumstances which living forms came to inhabit.(That I believe is the shortest possible summary of Varela,Maturana and similar ideas).
Thus, our Knowledge is incomplete and hidebound and ever shall be, but it develops as the evolution progresses and allows for the better mastery over itself (Philosophy) and the outside world (Other sciences). And in this way the ever closer union of "thing for us" and the "thing in itself" is attainable. Duality dissolves into unity. Great Synthesis of the opposites occur. And the truth is found. And then another coil of dialectic spiral is traversed, The Search proceeds again, yet on another higer more immaculate level. Where certainty was,there is but a "mist of the dissolving dream" in its stead - misty as the morning life and just as promising. Truth can only ever be approximated to...
And claiming that it can only be approximated to is not the same as denying it flatly. Those post-modernist philosophers my previous posting fulminates against are merely blind not to see it, or, worse,their chair provides well for them, they are content in their current moral blindness and stupor, and thus lead the society that relies on them into the ditch. As potent cure against their curent constipation I recommend them to go and dredge the bottom of the Thames or apply themselves to gardening for the present, time of the year being benefical, and hopefully in the fullness of time it will bear much needed fruit.

Of course, even though it makes good philosophical sense and makes us all feel as if we're important, the anthropic prinicipal is bullshit. It makes absolutely no logical sense at all, it is what I like to call a "feel good" theory (like the earth is the center of universe, or there is no other life in the universe) in other words a theory that makes humans feel important, rather then the truth which is that the universe, or multiverse, doesn't give a pair of dingos kidney if we live or die. Have a nice day

It is akin to I think therefore I am
In the absence on anything thought would be impossible including
Why anything rather than nothing
Therefore as there is something
The question does not sensibly arise
Because if nothing it could not be asked
There is a deeper level maybe
It is like many philosophical translations of religious thought - such as Plato's cave if we are in an unreality then why might that to be heaven it is unlikely we get told we are in an afterlife? Ditto he matrix or anything which is not what seems to be the case is the case.
It is ultimate because it is a metaphysical step before deciding to stop asking questions and put a full stop after the word god.
In this context god equals a convention at which thought ends but was supplanted by well who made god then?
The questions go on and we cannot be certain there is anything but life demands that we behave as if the apparent reality is the case most of the time
I suppose this is the dilemma at he heart of the issue for H
Not just controversial in the Normal intellectual sense but of course also politically.

But you still don't know the Question.

And if you do, you can't explain the Question and Answer, clearly and concisely.

I might, though.

Just ask.