Everything – Nothing (Revision)

The earliest record of me asking myself “why something rather than nothing”, is in 2012 CE.

As far as I remember, as far as my memory is concerned, I’ve asked this question to myself was about 2007-2008 CE and 2008-2009 CE. It was during my grade 7-8, and 8-9 days. In grade 8 we had the first board exam, which was called the district level examination. I’m fond of these years of my life, it brought about a big bang of ideas and speculations and thoughts in me, specially the volcanic exciting ideas, thoughts and knowledge about the universe and existence. It was before or about this time we had installed the ‘very new in market’ Encyclopedia software in our 1995-98 CE bought Pentium II computer, that initially I had no idea about but soon became a universe of wonders and amazement to me. It was my Guru, one which inspired me and showed me the path to infinity, to Physics – the love of my life.

So, why is there something rather than nothing?

I have found many ways to look at it in my journey through space-time that began about 2007-2008, some forgot, some mentioned in my various WordPress Articles, some mentioned in various notes and posts, some not mentioned, some through rigorous internal analysis of existence, some learned from the philosophy of Hinduism (or Vedas, Upnishads, Bhagawat Gita, and others), some learned from other sources recently.

One way to look at this is to not ask this question directly but analyse about why we ask it in the first place and what does it mean or imply?

One of the things that is already, maybe implicitly, presumed and apparently understood is what “Everything” or “Something” and “Nothing” is. But then are they understood? Well, of course the traditional general ideas of ‘Nothing’ and of ‘Everything’, although the definition of ‘Something’ can be agreed upon, might be of concern and may not be agreed upon.

‘Nothing’ might have been understood as the absence of ‘something’, or rather the absence of ‘Everything’, presumably devoid of anything or gradual dissolution of things one by one or in sets/bunches/groups. One argument that questions this is that, since there are infinite of things and ‘Everything’ is the ‘infinite things’ or set of infinite things, the gradual removal of things in finite steps can never rid this set of everything or can never get rid of ‘Everything’. If done not in gradual finite steps but if ‘Everything’ is gotten rid of it altogether at once, what would getting rid of infinity or dissolution/subtraction of infinity from infinity even mean?

But what if ‘Everything’ is not thought of an ‘infinite set’, for the sake of argument, and is considered as a ‘finite set’? What then? Isn’t dissolution of ‘Everything’ possible, as we understand it?

Even if that is the case, ‘absence of ‘Everything” isn’t ‘Nothing’. It is quantified and being defined, as the “Absence of ‘Everything'”. This definition/statement/description itself defines and is something, not ‘Nothing’. This simply defines, or is, the statement that is the “Not-statement” of what we refer to as ‘Everything’. This may also be applied in the case of ‘Everything’ that’s infinite, i.e. infinite-Everything, as in the previous case above.

But in case we consider, that ‘Absence of Everything’ as ‘Nothing, and agree or not that this set can be gradually in finite steps be gotten rid of things, that are its elements, by moving through them and denying each and every one of them, for example, then what that implies is dealt in https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/statementverse.html. Basically, if each and every thing that exists – the elements of set ‘Everything’, is denied, then since they are all that exists, then one must either be considering one among all the other things that exist in set ‘E’, or the other. This is because there is no ‘other’ than or other/external to the set ‘E’ or things in set ‘E’, as it is basically everything, and that which also exists. So, anything that is considered or considerable in in ‘E’. External to this is basically Nothing, which does not exist i.e. is fundamentally non-existence/non-existent. Unless, however, one considers it as, or there to be something external to ‘E’, that is the ‘other’/’Not-st’ of elements of ‘E’, but then ‘E’ cannot be ‘E’ as it does not include this entity, OR if ‘E’ is ‘E’ then this entity must be the element of ‘E’.

Now, let’s take a different approach to this subject. It can be seen and also from above up till here that, ‘Nothing’ is undefinable. Also from the article cited above, we can note that ‘Everything’ is also undefinable. So, when ‘Everything’ and ‘Nothing’, the two fundamentals, at least of the question, is undefined, what does the quest, “Why something rather than nothing” even mean?

Yet another argument or take that I put forward here is this:

The argument on question about, “why something rather than nothing”, is that ‘Nothing’ is simplest or that it is simpler when ‘Nothing’ than it is with ‘Something’. I.e. when asked why nothing rather than something or why should one think that there should be nothing and not something, the argument is that ‘Nothing’ is simpler, or that it is simple that there be ‘Nothing’ than there be’Something’.

Now, it could be simply argued back that there be ‘Nothing’ is not ‘being’ at all, therefore ‘Nothing’ cannot be or there can be ‘Nothing’. So in a sense, there is ‘Nothing’ is to say there is nothing, i.e. there “isn’t”, because that there be ‘Nothing’ is not be at all or that there is non-existence. Also there is no ‘Nothing’ is to say there is ‘Nothing’ because that there be ‘Nothing’ is not be ‘Nothing’ as is presented in the article cited above.

But, an argument based on “simplicity” can be put forward in the counter to the argument that, ‘Nothing’ being simpler/simplest must prevail:

Since ‘Nothing’ is undefinable, it would be more appropriate to ask “Why something?” or “Why anything?”, rather than “Why something and not nothing?”

When asked, “Why something and not nothing?” or rather “Why something?”, which would be appropriate than the previous question given ‘Nothing’ is undefinable, a reason is inherently being sought. Also, particularly, the reason/justification for ‘something’ is sought, though maybe implicitly and directed particularly to ‘something’ more implicitly.

Now, this is a demand for some reason or ‘something else’ as a reason for, and in addition, to that ‘something’ that is already present. Does this not present and extra complexity as opposed to the simplicity? Isn’t this a demand for that extra ‘something’/answer/reason/justification that only adds to the already present ‘something’/complexity? If there is a reason, it would just add to the complexity. So, the simpler thing would be that there be no reason at all, just this ‘something’ as a justification for itself, a brute fact, and ‘Nothing’ as a reason, or nothing as a reason in addition.

But, of course, one could argue that it would be even simpler if there weren’t even this ‘something’ that already exists as a brute fact. Then one can in response also question why simplicity should prevail? Which again if had extra layer of reasons to support it, would add to the complexity. Also it can be asked, why not complexity? Whose layer of reason would, by the way, again add to complexity. But then why not?, and so on… But again, complexity could prevail without any reason.

Vouching for simplicity and not complexity might require justification. But again, the best answer is no justification and therefore complexity can also prevail without reason, both being complementary with respect to themselves and the “Not-statements” of each other, negating each other out; the main idea discussed in detail here : https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/arbitrary-existence.html

But let’s continue with the argument before taking simplicity as a defining basis or standard, for the sake of argument:

Since the non-existence of that “already existing something” would be the simplest case, why not not even that ‘something’? The reason, if any will just increase or maintain the complexity, so even in this basis of simplicity, the argument is that there be no reason or that we at least avoid any reason as to not increase the complexity of the matter. Because relatively this ‘brute fact something’ is simpler than this ‘brute fact something’ plus a reason for why there is no simpler “not even this something”, i.e. why there is no simpler state of “not even this something”.

Now, it can argued that, yes the absence of the brute-something might seem simpler but it is not. This is because it is also something – a state, which is not ‘nothing’ or absence of brute-something. This state then is that brute-something. So the complexity has not changed/reduced. By the way, this argument has appeared before as well. Also, this is not ‘nothing’ because it is defined/definable, as argued previously way up, and ‘Nothing’ is that which is undefined/undefinable/indescribable.

Now let’s, for the sake of argument say that this ‘absence of brute-fact-something’ is not a state or is rather undefinable and is ‘nothing’, even then, because it is indescribable, it simply cannot be described/experienced or realized. Also the question arises, as ‘nothing’/indescribable, isn’t it infinitely complex? Is it infinitely complex and infinitely simple as well?

But again, let for the sake of argument, look at this only through the lens of simplicity. So, for now we have the ‘brute-fact-something’, and which is also the simplest as compared to any thing/reason in addition to it:

Now, there is only one way in which the simplicity increases & is the most, where there is no addition to this ‘brute-existence’, and the ‘brute-existence’ is also dissolved: It is, actually, and wondrously, the idea already presented : https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/existence-with-no-justification.html OR https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/arbitrary-existence.html (which is also mentioned/cited above) OR https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/statementverse.html OR originally here: https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-nature-of-nature.html

That ‘brute-fact’ being the simplest as of now, this is negated by the ‘Not-statement’, and vice-versa. Also, the so called ‘absence of even this brute-fact’, in the question ‘why something rather than nothing’, is the ‘Not’-Statement of that ‘brute-something’, and vice-versa.

So, if this ‘brute-fact’ is say A, then B is not A i.e. Not-statement of A, so is C, D, E, and so on, and vice-versa. And with this, each complements and negates the other, and so A exists, A doesn’t exist, B exists, B doesn’t exist, C exists, C doesn’t exist, D exists, D doesn’t exist, and so on.

Now, a question might arise that, for example let’s take A, B for convenience, doesn’t B in addition to A create complexity? Isn’t this a much complex structure? Isn’t complexity added because something, here B, is added?

The answer is no. This is because, and mentioned again and again, each complements or is the ‘Not’-Statement of the other, and one is the non-existence of the other, one is not the other. For example in case of A, B, A is the Not-statement/complement of B, B is the Not-statement/complement of A. A is the ‘Not’ of B, B is the ‘Not’ of A. A is the non-existence of B, B is the non-existence of A. So, one existence negates the other existence as it is the non-existence of the other, and vice-versa. So on the contrary, it doesn’t add but reduces. So, this reduces the complexity, increases the simplicity and makes possible what is the simplest, not just simpler. And, by the way, this is what ‘Nothing’ is, or rather ‘Nothing-Everything’ or Nothing = Everything. Also, it may be said that the simplest explanation is no explanation or Nothing. The detailed descriptions has been written in articles cited above.

Now, one observation that is worth mentioning, which will maybe dealt in later articles, is the nature in which to explain a particular thing, say for example A, we require some B, which if the above articulation/idea is not taken into account, is an addition to there being A and to the complexity associated with A. This of course is not the case in the above idea as A is the ‘Not’/complement/non-existence of B, and vice-versa. However, there are many such instants in which explanation or justification of one (example A) requires, or maybe is thought to require, some other layer of reason/justification (say B), which adds to the complexity. This requirement or need for an explanation is inherently so in our thought process or intuition, and one feels like justifying it or the need to justify it, even if it builds the complexity and reduces the simplicity.

One might consider ‘[$, %]’ in which one argues that in the perspective of ‘$’ since ‘%’ doesn’t exist, the addition of % justifying $ is is an additional thing that involves higher complexity and also that % cannot be justified as it does not exist or that its existence cannot be verified. So, bringing in % to justify $ is an additional complexity and in which the existence of % cannot be justified/verified, which therefore is kind of a belief/faith in % for the sake of justification of $.

By the way, I suggest that any thought or intuition or convinced approach to entity whose existence seem obvious but has in actuality no existence, is a kind of belief simply because that entity does not exist and such existence is non-existence. Such entity(s) maybe entity(s) whose existence may or maybe not be ‘so hard thought’.

There are full of examples everywhere. Examples maybe the idea of deities, or gods, or religious ideas, or theoretical ideas in sciences, philosophy or metaphysics, or axiomatic and structural and systematic ideas or theorems and proof based and other ideas in mathematics. To mention specifically, the ideas that are involved in explaining anything, for example; the theoretical ideas in Physics. To be more specific, the examples maybe, the idea such as traditional/classical idea of Wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics (which is one of my favorite ideas), idea of extra-dimensions, ideas of strings in string theory, even ideas of Newtonian theory or any other non-Newtonian classical theories, even the ideas of causality and the past-present-future relations, the idea(s) of motion/dynamics, etc. Or any mental picture or set of ideas and ‘soft realities’ (traditionally referred to as thoughts or any ‘mental’ realization) that exists or is created to explain the ‘hard realities’ (traditionally referred to as ‘physical’ or ‘external’ realizations).

These are entities that may not have or may not be ‘actually’ or ‘really’ real/existent. These require an additional information/thing/existence which may or may not be verified, and also increase the complexity. We deal with this all the time, just so that we can form a ‘complete’ structure that, even though has some parts that are not actually/’really’ real/existent, builds a kind of completeness/closure or certainty. These ideas may also have or bring about and maybe associated with a sense of what we refer to as ‘fundamental truths’, truths that are absolute. This in turn is associated with the sense of ‘Absolutism’ and ‘foundational’ and ‘Ultimate’, which in turn relates to or is about ‘Permanence’ or Immortality or infinite survival/survivability – an eternal existence.

This holds relevance to the creature of survival and a fundamental requirement and need to exist/survive infinitely. But, even this idea by me maybe a subject to the ‘need to explain/justify’ and the ‘need for immortality’ and securing one’s existence as much as one can and possibly or potentially to infinity. But again, this maybe the subject to the same, and so maybe this, upto here, and upto here, and here, and here, and so on …..

The prime an the only objective of ‘Existence’ is to exist. This is by definition. Everything that then exists is just an extension of this. Everything that, what we call ‘happens’, is the extension of this as those ‘happenings’ are just existence or what exists. Now, this involves and also can be understood that ‘existence’, be it any, tends to extend its existence or itself as much as possible in general, and as much as possible with respect to time or with respect to the existence of time or the existence called time (or rather space-time or anything that exists or any existence) in specific. So, any existence is about and tends to become immortal, i.e. preserve itself or its existence as possible, and maintain itself (its existence) to infinity, maybe with respect to time or any other existence (that, however, is not the ‘other’/’Not’ of or with respect to itself). Also, it certainly does extend its existence to infinity with respect to itself.