I'M ASKED FROM WHERE
DOES CLOSER TO TRUTH COME? FROM "NOTHING", I SAY. LET ME EXPLAIN. I WAS A CHILD, NOT YET 13 -
LYING IN BED AT SUMMER CAMP WHEN AN ABRUPT
AWARENESS FRIGHTENED ME. WHAT IF NOTHING EXISTED? WHAT IF NOTHING EVER EXISTED? NOT JUST NO PLANETS,
NO PLANTS, NO PEOPLE. BUT, NO ANYTHING! NO MATTER. NO ENERGY. NO SPACE. NO TIME. NOTHING FOREVER! WHY DOES ANYTHING AT ALL EXIST? MY WHOLE LIFE I'VE WONDERED. I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH, ALL CLOSER TO TRUTH, REFLECTS THIS WONDER. I CONFRONT MY OBSESSION
BY EXPLORING "NOTHING". WHY IS THERE SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING? WHAT IS NOTHING? PHILOSOPHERS AND
SCIENTISTS OFFER THEIR VIEWS. I IMMERSE MYSELF IN NOTHING. RICHARD, WHEN WE THINK
OF WHY THERE IS ANYTHING, THERE IS NOTHING MORE
ASTONISHING, NOTHING, THAN THERE IS SOMETHING. THAT NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN
THE MOST LOGICAL POSSIBILITY. I SHARE THAT INTUITION. IT IS EXTREMELY PUZZLING. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? WELL, ALL EXPLANATION CONSISTS
IN TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING SIMPLE AND ULTIMATE FROM
WHICH EVERYTHING, ON WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE DEPENDS. IT'S VERY STRANGE THAT WE
THINK OF NOTHING AS THE SORT OF DEFAULT BECAUSE WE'RE
NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. WE'VE NEVER LIVED IN A
WORLD IN WHICH THERE IS NOTHING. YOU HAVE DISCOVERED THE
PRESUPPOSITION THAT MAKES THE QUESTION OF WHY IS THERE
ANYTHING AT ALL, SO VEXING, BECAUSE NOTHING DOES SEEM
SIMPLER THAN ANYTHING ELSE. WHAT WOULD COUNT AS AN
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION? OF COURSE WE CAN'T DESCRIBE IN
A WAY THAT NON-EXISTENT THINGS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER
TO PRODUCE EXISTENT THINGS; IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME
SORT OF ANSWER IF IT HAD AN ANSWER AT ALL. THAT IS JUST THE KIND OF
QUESTION THAT WE WILL BE STUCK WITH WHEN WE
HAVE A FINAL THEORY. NO MATTER HOW MATHEMATICALLY
CONSISTENT AND LOGICALLY CONSISTENT THE THEORY IS, THERE
WILL ALWAYS BE THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WELL PERHAPS THERE'S
NOTHING AT ALL; NOT EVEN EMPTY SPACE BUT JUST
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. CLOSER TO TRUTH, AT ITS CORE,
IS MY QUEST TO UNDERSTAND THIS ULTIMATE QUESTION - WHY IS THERE
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING? I SOUGHT THE PHILOSOPHER JOHN
LESLIE, WHO FOR DECADES HAD BEEN ASKING - "WHY IS THERE A
UNIVERSE, NOT A BLANK?" I'VE DEVOTED ALL MY
CAREER TO TRYING TO LOOK INTO THIS QUESTION. I THINK THERE'S TWO GENERAL
SORTS OF QUESTIONS WHICH SCIENCE CAN NEVER ANSWER. AND ONE OF THEM IS WHY ARE THERE
ANY LAWS AT ALL IN THE WORLD? AND THE OTHER IS WHY THERE'S
ANY WORLD OTHER THAN A BLANK? I THINK OUR BELIEF THAT LIFE IS
WORTH LIVING COULD BE INFLUENCED BY THE ANSWERS WHICH WE
BRING TO THESE QUESTIONS. JOHN AND I MET IN 2006, AND OUR
CONVERSATIONS ARE FEATURED IN MANY CLOSER TO TRUTH EPISODES. SOON THEREAFTER, WE
DECIDED TO CO-EDIT A BOOK ON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION. IT'S CALLED, "THE MYSTERY OF
EXISTENCE: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL." A PRIME ISSUE IS WHETHER
THE CONCEPT OF "NOTHING" EVEN MAKES SENSE. MANY PEOPLE NOW WOULD
SAY THAT THE QUESTION, "WHY ISN'T THERE NOTHING?" IS A MEANINGLESS QUESTION. ONE THING THEY MIGHT BE SAYING
IS THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF CONTRADICTION IN THE IDEA
OF THERE BEING NOTHING. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
POSSIBLE ABSENCE OF EVERYTHING, YOU HAVE NO TRUTH-MAKER TO MAKE
IT TRUE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT EVERYTHING BE ABSENT, BUT
THEY HAD THIS SLOGAN, THIS IS VERY POPULAR AMONG
PHILOSOPHERS THESE DAYS THAT TRUTHS ALWAYS REQUIRE
TRUTH-MAKERS, AND TRUTH-MAKERS MUST BE IN THE
END EXISTING THINGS. SO THAT IF YOU WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THE TRUTH OF THE LAW OF PHYSICS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD
TO HAVE ACTUAL PARTICLES GOING AROUND AND OBEYING THE LAW OF
PHYSICS, OTHERWISE YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING. MAYBE THERE'S A LANGUAGE
CONFUSION THAT'S BUILT INTO THE QUESTION SO WHEN I'M WORRYING
ABOUT WHY NOT NOTHING, I AM WORRYING ABOUT A
MEANINGLESS QUESTION. SURELY THERE'S NO CONTRADICTION
IN A BLANK BECAUSE IN A BLANK THERE'S NOTHING TO
CONTRADICT ITSELF. AND THE OTHER PERSON SAYS, "WELL
YES, THERE'S A CONTRADICTION HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE SUPPOSING
THAT IT COULD BE REALLY THE CASE THAT THERE WAS A BLANK BUT
REALITY ALWAYS INVOLVES THINGS." OR THE PERSON WOULD SAY,
"THERE'S A CONTRADICTION HERE BECAUSE GOD HAS TO EXIST
AND YOU'RE SUPPOSING THE CONTRADICTORY SITUATION
OF GOD BEING POSSIBLE BUT GOD NOT EXISTING." WHEN YOU HIT THESE
COUNTER ARGUMENTS, YOU ASK FOR MORE DETAILS. YOU SAY, "WELL WHERE
IS THE CONTRADICTION IN GOD NOT EXISTING?" AND SUPPOSE THAT THE ANSWER
COMES TO YOU, "WELL WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THAT, WE'RE
TOO HUMBLE TO KNOW THIS, IT'S TOO MUCH OF A MYSTERY, BUT
IT'S ESSENTIAL TO OUR FAITH," AND SO ON. AND THAT ENDS THE CONVERSATION. IT TENDS TO. PHILOSOPHY IS A VERY DIFFICULT
AND FRUSTRATING FIELD AND I WISH I'D BEEN A NOVELIST INSTEAD. NOTHING IS NOT MEANINGLESS. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING. I FEEL THIS DEEPLY. BUT FEELINGS BETRAY. SO WHY NOT NOTHING? I NEED A CLEARER
UNDERSTANDING OF "NOTHING". I ASK PHILOSOPHER
PETER VAN INWAGEN. PETER, IF THERE WERE
"NOTHING," WHAT WOULD THERE BE? TO SAY THAT THERE IS
NOTHING IS TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING. AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. MAYBE YOU COULD ALLOW THE
EXISTENCE OF ABSTRACT THINGS IF YOU BELIEVE IN THEM LIKE NUMBERS
OR MATHEMATICAL OBJECTS LIKE THAT, MAYBE THE QUESTION WHY IS
THERE SOMETHING RATHER NOTHING IS THE QUESTION WHY ARE THERE
CONCRETE THINGS OR MAYBE NOT. A VAST EMPTINESS
IS A VAST EMPTINESS. FOR THERE TO BE NOTHING, IF
THERE WERE REALLY NOTHING, THERE WOULDN'T BE POINTS IN SPACE THAT
WERE A CERTAIN DISTANCE APART, EVEN A VACUUM, IF THERE IS
REALLY NOTHING THERE ISN'T EVEN A BIG VACUUM. JUST THERE ISN'T ANYTHING. FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU MIGHT
MENTION THERE ISN'T THAT. IF YOU ASK WHY IS THERE
ANYTHING, WELL YOU CAN'T APPEAL ANYTHING IN
ADDITION TO ANYTHING. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING
IN ADDITION TO ANYTHING. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT
SUCH A DIFFICULT QUESTION. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A
NON-ORDINARY QUESTION. SO IS ABSOLUTE NOTHING, LITERALLY NOTHING,
EVEN POSSIBLE? I ASK PHILOSOPHER
TIMOTHY O'CONNOR. SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT
THERE IS NOTHING, AND IMAGINE THAT THAT POSSIBILITY WERE SO. OF COURSE, WE WOULDN'T INHABIT
THAT POSSIBILITY; NOTHING WOULD. SO, HAD THERE BEEN NOTHING, THEN
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, SINCE NOTHINGNESS IS NOT
NECESSARY, WHICH WE KNOW, BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING, SO
THAT THEN WE HAVE AN EXISTENCE PROOF THAT SHOWS US THAT
NOTHINGNESS IS NOT NECESSARY. SO, IF THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING,
BUT STILL IT WERE POSSIBLE THAT THERE BE SOMETHING, THERE WOULD
BE NO GROUND FOR THAT ALLEGED POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING. EVEN IF THERE WERE ABSOLUTE
NOTHING, THERE WOULD AT LEAST HAVE TO STILL BE POSSIBILITY. YOU CAN'T GET AROUND
THAT NO MATTER WHAT. YOU CAN'T GET
AROUND THAT, RIGHT. SO, THERE'S AT LEAST
THIS POSSIBLE TRUTH. SOME PROPOSITION, SOME
FACT, SOME FEATURE OF REALITY. BUT THAT'S NOT
ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS. IT'S A VERY EMPTY
REALITY, JUST THESE PURE POSSIBILITIES OF SOMETHING. I FIND THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE
NOTHINGNESS A PROBLEMATIC IDEA. WHEN DEALING WITH "NOTHING,"
CAN ANY EXPLANATION MAKE SENSE? I ASK OXFORD PHILOSOPHER OF
RELIGION, RICHARD SWINBURNE. I THINK WE CAN ANSWER THE
QUESTION WHY IS THERE A PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, AND I THINK THE ANSWER
IS IN TERMS OF GOD HAVING MADE IT AND SUSTAINED IT. BUT AT THE QUESTION WHY IS
THERE ANYTHING WOULD INCLUDE THE QUESTION WHY IS THERE A
GOD, AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN ANSWER THAT. INDEED, I DON'T THINK IT HAS AN
ANSWER, BECAUSE INEVITABLY, YOU CAN EXPLAIN X BY Y, AND Y BY
ZED, AND ZED BY A AND SO ON, BUT THIS IS GOING TO COME
TO A STOP SOMEWHERE. THE ONLY QUESTIONS WE CAN ANSWER
IS WHY THERE IS A PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND WE OUGHT TO
POSTULATE THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION, WHICH LEADS US
EXPECT THE PHENOMENA, AND I THINK THAT THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD IS THAT. THE "GOD ANSWER"
IS A POPULAR ONE. NOT THAT POPULARITY
MEANS TRUTH, OF COURSE. HOW MIGHT THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD DEAL WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF NOTHINGNESS? I ASK FATHER ROBERT SPITZER, A
JESUIT PRIEST AND PHILOSOPHER. NOTHING DOES SEEM
SIMPLER THAN ANYTHING ELSE. EXCEPT FOR, PERHAPS,
ABSOLUTE SIMPLICITY. BUT THAT'S NOTHING. WELL, NO, I WOULD MAINTAIN
ABSOLUTE SIMPLICITY IS THE POWER WITHOUT INTRINSIC OR
EXTRINSIC RESTRICTIONS. THAT SOUNDED LIKE
A LOT OF SOMETHINGS. WELL, ACTUALLY NOT A LOT - IT'S SOMETHINGS. I WOULD JUST SAY SIMPLY THIS,
I WOULD SAY, WHY ASSUME THAT NOTHING IS THE CONDITION
THAT DEMARCATES AS IT WERE, THE ETERNAL EXISTENCE
OF EVERYTHING, ALL RIGHT? LET'S SUPPOSE FOR JUST A MOMENT,
THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE ABSOLUTE SIMPLICITY. WHAT GIVES US THE PROBLEM IS
REALLY FINITE REALITIES BECAUSE FINITE REALITIES THEN IMPLY
SOMETHING BEYOND THAT FINITUDE IF YOU REALLY HAVE AN
UNRESTRICTED REALITY, WHICH IS NOT A LOT OF SOMETHINGS,
IT'S A PERFECT UNITY. THEN PERHAPS PERFECT UNITIVE
REALITY, SOMETHING WHICH EXISTS THROUGH ITSELF, IS THE
PRIMORDIAL AND THAT NOTHING, NOTHING IS ONLY THE RESULT OF
OUR REFLECTING ON WHAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES
OF FINITE REALITY. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IF I WERE
GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN NOTHING BEING THE MOST SIMPLE AND
AN UNRESTRICTED, UNBOUNDED SIMPLISTIC REALITY BEING
THE PRIMORDIAL EXISTENT, I WOULD PICK NOTHING. YEAH, I CAN SEE WHY YOU'D DO IT;
BECAUSE OF COURSE YOU'D THINK, WELL, THERE'S NO
PRESUPPOSITIONS IN NOTHING. BUT WHAT I WOULD WANT TO SUGGEST
IS THERE ARE NO PRESUPPOSITIONS IN PERFECT SIMPLICITY,
A PERFECT UNITIVE, UNRESTRICTIVE POWER EITHER. IF YOU REALLY DID HAVE SOMETHING
THAT WAS TRULY ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE, HAD NO INTRINSIC OR
EXTRINSIC BOUNDARIES WHATSOEVER, WHICH WAS A COMPLETELY
UNCONDITIONED REALTY, THERE WOULDN'T BE A SINGLE
PRESUPPOSITION THAT ATTACHED ITSELF TO THAT REALITY. WOULDN'T I ASK
WHY DOES THAT EXIST? ACTUALLY YOU WOULDN'T
HAVE TO BECAUSE IT WOULD EXIST THROUGH ITSELF. THAT'S AN ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION. BUT I STILL HAVE TO
ASK THE QUESTION. YEAH, YOU - IF IT'S NOTHING, I DON'T
HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION. - IF YOU UNDERSTOOD IT IN
ITSELF, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS PRESUPPOSITION-LESS,
AND THEREFORE, THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION,
THE PROBLEM IS A LIMITATION TO OUR UNDERSTANDING. SOME PHYSICISTS CLAIM TO HAVE
ANSWERED THE QUESTION NATURALLY, WITHOUT GOD OR
ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL. QUANTUM PHYSICS, THEY SAY, CAN
EXPLAIN "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?" THAT THE DEBATE BECOMES
IMPASSIONED HIGHLIGHTS THE PROBING AUTHORITY
OF THE QUESTION. I MEET PHYSICIST AND
ATHEIST VICTOR STENGER. WELL, THE ANSWER IS THAT
THE UNIVERSE IS NOTHING. IT'S KIND OF A
CRYSTALLIZED NOTHING. WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS A PHASE
TRANSITION THAT WENT FROM NOTHING TO SOMETHING. LIKE FROM WATER TO ICE, YOU GO
FROM A STATE OF HIGHER SYMMETRY TO A STATE OF LOWER SYMMETRY,
OF ONE WITH MORE STRUCTURE. AND IN PHYSICS, IN NATURE, THAT
TENDS TO BE THE WAY THINGS GO. THE MORE SYMMETRIC STATE IS
ACTUALLY THE LESS STABLE STATE AND SO THEY TEND TO GO THROUGH
THIS TRANSFORMATION TO SOMETHING MORE STRUCTURED THAT HAPPENS TO
BE THE LOWER ENERGY ARRANGEMENT OF THE MOLECULES, SO, LET'S
JUST IMAGINE WHAT I CALL A VOID. IT'S A REGION OF SPACE WHERE YOU
REMOVE ALL THE PARTICLES, ALL THE ENERGY, AND SO YOU
HAVE NO PARTICLES PRESENT. YOU HAVE NO PARTICULAR DIRECTION
IN SPACE SELECTED OUT, NO PARTICULAR ORIENTATION IN SPACE;
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A VERY SYMMETRIC SITUATION, AND NOTHING
IS MORE SYMMETRIC THAN NOTHING. AND SO THAT'S A SITUATION THAT'S
GOING TO ACTUALLY BE UNSTABLE. SO, IF THERE EVER WERE SUCH A
SITUATION, THEN THE CHANCES ARE GOOD THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY
TRANSFORM BY NATURAL PROCESSES TO A LESS SYMMETRIC STATE WHERE
THEN YOU HAVE STRUCTURE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE. BUT, VICTOR, THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS, OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, ARE NOT NOTHING! HOW TO EXPLORE FURTHER - PLUMB
THE DEPTHS OF THE QUESTION - WHY IS THERE SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING? I CANNOT GET THIS
QUESTION OUT OF MY HEAD. I SPEAK WITH OXFORD
PHILOSOPHER JOHN HAWTHORNE. JOHN, ON OCCASION AT NIGHT I'LL
WAKE UP IN A COLD SWEAT THINKING THAT THERE COULD
HAVE BEEN NOTHING. WHY IS THERE SOMETHING? THERE ARE A FEW
QUESTIONS BURIED IN THERE A BIT. I MEAN ONE QUESTION IS
COULD THERE HAVE BEEN NOTHING? AND WE CAN ANSWER THAT,
AND THERE'S A YES OR A NO. AND THEN WHICHEVER WAY WE GO WE
COULD TRY THE QUESTION WELL WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, OR
WHY IS THERE NOT NOTHING? SO, WE CAN SAY COHERENTLY THAT
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A TOTAL WORLD WITHOUT ANY
PARTICLES, THAT'S EASY. THAT'S EASY. OKAY. COULD THERE HAVE BEEN NO FORCES,
I THINK IT, I WOULD FEEL THAT YES THERE COULD
HAVE BEEN NO FORCES. EXCELLENT. OKAY. THEN YOU GO UP TO COULD THERE
HAVE BEEN NO SPACE AND TIME. AND IT'S A LITTLE HARDER. THAT'S HARDER. I MEAN MAYBE WE COULD
ROLL IT INTO SPACE/TIME. FINE, FINE. SO COULD THERE HAVE
BEEN NONE OF THAT? I MEAN IT CERTAINLY SEEMS SO. OKAY, OKAY, ALL RIGHT. I MEAN YOU FEEL THAT THE
BURDEN'S ON THE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT THERE HAS TO BE - SPACE/TIME. SPACE/TIME. THE NEXT STEP IS ABSTRACT
OBJECTS, WHICH ARE NUMBERS WHICH IS THE EASIEST ONE. OR TRUTHS. TAKE THE TRUTH THAT THERE'S
EITHER NOTHING OR SOMETHING. RIGHT, RIGHT. COULD THERE HAVE
NOT BEEN THE TRUTH THAT THERE'S NOTHING. SO, YOU KNOW, SO IF YOU THINK
THERE ARE THINGS LIKE TRUTHS OR PROPOSITIONS, THEN IT'S QUITE
NATURAL TO THINK THAT THEY - HAD TO EXIST. - HAD TO EXIST. SO YOU MIGHT THINK WELL IT
COULD HAVE BEEN MAYBE NOTHING CONCRETE, BUT EVEN IF THERE
HAD BEEN NOTHING CONCRETE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TRUTH
THERE'S NOTHING CONCRETE, SO THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT
WILL HELP YOU GO BACK TO SLEEP AT NIGHT. YOU MIGHT SAY ALL SIDES SURPRISE
YOU TO KNOW THERE ARE A SMALL MINORITY OF PHILOSOPHERS
WHO THINK EVERYTHING EXISTS NECESSARILY; THAT YOU, EVEN
YOU AND THIS TABLE COULDN'T HAVE NOT EXISTED. EVEN GIVEN THE
CONSTRAINTS OF EVOLUTION AND CONTINGENCY UPON CONTINGENCY? YES. SO YOU COULD HAVE NOT BEEN
CONCRETE, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN LIKE AN ABSTRACT MARBLE
AND THAT'S THEIR PICTURE. THE PICTURE IS
ROUGHLY NECESSARILY EVERYTHING EXISTS NECESSARILY. AND YET SOME THINGS EXIST
CONCRETELY BECAUSE THEY'RE PICKED OUT OF THAT YES, SO, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE
CONCRETE NECESSARILY, BUT IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT YOU
ARE THAT CHANGES BUT NOT WHETHER YOU ARE. OKAY, HOW DO POSSIBILITIES WORK? THAT IS WAS ALWAYS POSSIBLE THAT
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A UNIVERSE EVEN IF THERE WERE NONE. A QUESTION ALWAYS IS WHETHER
THESE ARE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTS. I MEAN SO-CALLED NOMINALISTS IN
MATHEMATICS WILL AGREE THAT ONE AND ONE IS TWO, BUT WILL
SAY THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT OBJECTS EXIST. SIMILARLY THERE'S A KIND OF GUY
THAT SAYS, "OH NECESSARILY IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE SOMETHING"
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S THIS THING, A
POSSIBILITY, THAT EXISTS. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO HOW ARE YOU ON
EXISTENCE OF POSSIBILITIES? ARE THEY, THINGS THAT ARE REAL? I'M THE SORT OF
PERSON THAT LIKES TRUTHS AND FALSEHOODS EXISTING. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE
ARE WINGED PIGS, AND THAT SEEMS LIKE A CLAIM, THE SORT OF
THING THAT'S TRUE AND FALSE. AND THAT'S AN EXISTING THING? YEAH. THE CLAIM? YEAH. THE CLAIM IS AN EXISTING - - IT SEEMS QUITE NATURAL AND
INTUITIVE TO ME TO THINK THAT INSOFAR AS YOU'RE GOING TO
BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CLAIMS, THEN YOU SHOULD THINK THAT
THERE, AND EXIST NECESSARILY. I THINK THAT'S THE
DEFAULT PICTURE ABOUT A LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS. GOD CAN, AS IT WERE,
ERASE THE CONCRETE BUT CAN'T ERASE THE WHOLE SHEBANG. IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET
RID OF POSSIBILITIES, CLAIMS, TRUTHS, THEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. BUT WHATEVER WOULD CONSTITUTE
MAXIMUM NOTHING, BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION;
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING? I ASK PHILOSOPHER PETER FORREST. I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE SORT OF
ANSWER TO THAT AND IT'S A BIT OF A CHEAT, THAT WHY IS THERE
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
NECESSARY AND THEN THERE IS SOME EXPLANATION AS TO HOW YOU GET
THE THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARY FROM THE THING
THAT IS NECESSARY. NECESSARY BECAUSE IN ORDER TO
REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING,
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE NECESSARY IN THE SENSE OF BEING
INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. THE TWO RIVAL EXPLANATIONS IS
GOING TO BE THE NATURALISTIC IDEA THAT WE JUST HAVE
THESE NECESSARY LAWS THAT BRING EVERYTHING INTO EXISTENCE, ON
THE ONE HAND, OR THAT WE HAVE GOD WHO AS AN AGENT
BRINGS THINGS INTO EXISTENCE. BUT NEITHER OF THESE ARE
NECESSARY IN THE SENSE REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE IS
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING. SO IT'S A BIT OF A FUDGE WHAT
WE CAN SAY IS THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY IN
SOME SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SENSE, AND BOTH GOD OR THE
LAWS OF NATURE COULD BE CANDIDATES FOR THOSE. HOW SO? WELL, I'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN IN
THE CASE OF GOD, IF THERE ARE ABSTRACT OBJECTS INCLUDING
POSSIBLE UNIVERSES, WAYS THE UNIVERSE MIGHT BE, THEN
THESE THINGS THEMSELVES ARE NECESSARY BEINGS. SO THESE POSSIBILITIES INCLUDING
AS IT WERE, BLUEPRINTS FOR ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSES. NOW THE THING IS THIS,
THESE KIND OF BLUEPRINTS ARE NECESSARY BEINGS. OUR UNIVERSE ISN'T A NECESSARY
BEING, BUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A UNIVERSE LIKE OURS
IS A NECESSARY BEING. BECAUSE WE CANNOT IMAGINE, IN
ANY POSSIBLE WAY, THAT SUCH A POSSIBILITY DOESN'T EXIST. THE ACTUALITY DOESN'T HAVE
TO EXIST, BUT THE POSSIBILITY HAS TO EXIST. THAT'S THE IDEA. OKAY. NOW, THE POSSIBILITIES BY
THEMSELVES WON'T EXPLAIN WHY THERE IS ANYTHING ACTUAL, BUT
WHAT A THEIST WILL DO, IS TO SAY, "WELL YOU DON'T NEED
MUCH IN ADDITION TO THESE POSSIBILITIES," ALL YOU REQUIRE
IS SOME ACT, A CHOICE AMONG POSSIBILITIES, AND
THAT CHOICE IS CONTINGENT. SO THE ULTIMATE EXPLANATION
FOR THINGS IS THE RANGE OF PREEXISTING, NECESSARY
POSSIBILITIES, AND THIS ONE SIMPLE ACT, THE CHOICE. SO, ALTHOUGH WE HAVEN'T
EXPLAINED WHY THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING, WE'VE
EXPLAINED WHY THERE ARE THINGS IN TERMS OF ONE ULTIMATE
MYSTERY, THIS ACT, THIS CHOICE. BUT, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE
PHYSICAL LAWS, IF YOU TAKE THEM TO BE THE ULTIMATE THINGS, ARE
ONLY GOING TO BE COMPARATIVELY SIMPLE, THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO BE ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE. WHEREAS A SORT OF ACT, IT IS
BECAUSE IT'S GOOD THAT KIND OF CHOICE HAS IN IT A KIND OF
SIMPLICITY, WHICH I WOULD CLAIM, THE LAWS COULDN'T HAVE. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE
ADVANTAGEOUS OF ULTIMATE EXPLANATION IN TERMS OF AGENCY
OVER ULTIMATE EXPLANATION IN TERMS OF LAWS, I DON'T THINK
WE CAN EXPLAIN WHY THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER NOTHING. BUT I THINK THE BEST WE CAN DO
IS TO EXPLAIN IT RELATIVE TO TAKING AS UNEXPLAINED THE
MYSTERIOUS, A SIMPLE FACT OF A CHOICE GIVEN THAT
THERE IS THIS PREEXISTING DOMAIN OF POSSIBILITIES. THAT'S THE THEISTIC ACCOUNT. WHY IS THERE SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING? WHAT IS NOTHING? NO THING. BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT
KINDS OR LEVELS OF NOTHING. WHY "LEVELS" OF NOTHING? THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION LIES. I HAVE NINE LEVELS OF NOTHING. FROM SIMPLE NOTHING
TO ABSOLUTE NOTHING. EACH NOTHING
HAVING LESS AND LESS. BY NOTHING 5, THERE IS
NO MATTER, NO ENERGY, NO SPACE, NO TIME. BUT THERE ARE
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. NOTHING 6 - NO LAWS OF PHYSICS. NOTHING 7 - NO GOD,
NO CONSCIOUSNESS. NOTHING 8 - NO ABSTRACT OBJECTS
- THIS MEANS NO NUMBERS, NO LOGIC, NO TRUTHS,
NO PLATONIC FORMS. NOTHING 9 - NO POSSIBILITIES. NOTHINGS 1 THROUGH 7 REMOVE
EXISTING THINGS, SO THAT A "NOTHING" I MIGHT CALL "REAL
NOTHING" WOULD BE NOTHING 7, WHICH HAS NO CONCRETE
THINGS, NOT EVEN GOD. BUT SOME ARGUE THAT GOD IS
"NECESSARY" - MEANING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD NOT TO EXIST,
THUS CROWNING NOTHING 6, WHICH INCLUDES GOD, AS
THE ULTIMATE LIMIT. AS FOR THE NOTHING OF
PHYSICISTS, NOTHING 5, WHERE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS GENERATE
NEW UNIVERSES "FROM NOTHING." WELL, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
ARE NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING. THE NOTHING OF PHYSICISTS IS
THICK WITH FIELDS AND FORCES, BARELY HALF WAY
TO ABSOLUTE NOTHING. SO, NOW, HOW TO EXPLAIN - "THE
MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?" THAT'S NEXT ON CLOSER TO TRUTH.
