Why should there be nothing rather than something?

Question

While this question sounds like this one, bear with me and I'll explain why it's more of a revised version of this one instead (and to be honest I wasn't sure if I should've just edited it, but I think it'll need a complete rewrite and would be better off to just post a new one instead).

So, when people ask the question "is there something rather than nothing" (which some would claim to be "the root of philosophy") it seems like they assume that "nothing" is the 'default' status, while "something" would require an explanation - and an extensive question on this would be Does a negative claimant have a burden of proof?

Now, what I'm asking is, why - on the epistemological level - would we ask the question that way (putting "nothing" on the root of it) rather than, for example "why would there be nothing rather than something"? Why do we assume that nothing comes first and something has to "fill the void"? In other words (those in my original question) - isn't "nothing" and "something" equivalent on the epistemological level? (maybe Spinoza on God would be a good example, although I'm not exactly sure how much of this is my own interpretation and how much is what Spinoza actually meant because it's from memory - when Spinoza puts God and Nature as equals, the theological equivalent would mean that you can either take God as completely ontological, meaning "everything is God", or you can take God out of the equation - because you can say that Nature is exactly it. This would mean that "God" or "without-God" [similar to "something" and "nothing"] means exactly the same epistemology-wise - although definitely not the same theology-wise).

I hope this is clear enough. Tell me if you think this question should be closed and the original edited instead.

Edit:

I just want to emphasize the statement in my question by phrasing it a bit more radically - why do we even ask the "why there is something rather than nothing" question? Why isn't it obvious that this question is meaningless because there both "something" and "nothing" are equal? In maybe a bit odd example - isn't it the same as asking why is the result of some calculation is 1 instead of 0? And although it may have philosophical significant, is it really that big as it is usually being portrait to be?

Answer 1

Why should there be nothing ? If there is nothing, this needs no explanation unless something should be there. If there is a void, there just is a void : a void needs no sufficient reason for its existence unless something should be there.

By contrast, if there is something then we do need a sufficient reason for its being there. Did it self-create ? Was it brought into existence ? If so, by whom or what and why ? If there is something, this does need explanation.

Tentative but that's my answer to your cleverly reversed question. Nothing I say depends on any supposed temporal priority of nothing - that nothing 'comes first'. If I'm trading on anything it's economy of explanation. But this is a place where false moves are ruthlessly exposed, and quite right too : so if I'm wrong we're both sure to know and pretty soon.

Answer 2

Entropy. Where did it all come from? In just over 7000 times the current age of the universe, the last star will extinguish, ending the stelliferous era and dramatically decreasing the universes habitability, in one more step in an apparently endless decline. Statistically, based on current physics, we might expect infinitely more times of a decayed state, a 'heat-dead' universe, than an active stelliferous one.

The anthropic principle requires, that for us to be here now discussing this, there has to be a mechanism to start things off, and it had to be in such a 'fine tuned' way, in this timeline/universe, that sufficiently complicated states could occur for biological evolution and minds to occur, observers. Given the 22 constants that needed to be exactly at or 9+ decimal places close to their measured values for this to happen, it is speculated many universes may have happened with different laws, but there was no possibility for an observer to ask questions, so it is like they don't exist, are beyond a kind of mental event horizon. Of course, that would make the current something even less likely than the average nothing, even though it places us by necessity in this bit. The question becomes, why is there this kind of complex something, rather than simpler more chaotic and stabler states which from our perspective is equivalent to nothing.

isn't "nothing" and "something" equivalent on the epistemological level

In Taoism, the signifier 'nothing' is just one of the ten thousand things. Emptiness (slightly different) is seen as intrinsically full of potential, and fully containing The Way; whereas arising things inevitably limit that potential in some way.

In Buddhism the Dharmakaya is a kind of background of potential for liberation, on top of which infinite causal chains have been giving rise to new subjective beings for eternity. Everything is seen as contingent and lacking in self-nature, so I guess the potential for liberation and arising things are non-dual. Being and nothingness are one.

In Sanatam Dharma or Hinduism there is the great cycle of the breath of Brahman (the ultimate reality), in which shiva began the cosmic dance of creation.

Everything is a kind of nothing. Everything and nothing are sides of the same coin. And cyclical change between something and nothing. Some of the long standing answers. What answer we choose probably says more about our cognitive biases, than it does the universe, though.

Answer 3

If somebody claimed to be smart but didn't have an answer to Why is there something rather than nothing?, it would be easy to make them look foolish for not having an answer to this simple question.

Why can't we just reverse the challenge?

Something rather than nothing is a category broad enough to be verified by absolutely anything. If you were to ask, why is there nothing rather than something? ...you would be the one looking foolish, because your first example ("There is nothing") is so easily falsifiable.

Why isn't this symmetric?

Explanation is when we can see why something is or how it came to be, from a past state of not being.

To me, this suggests that explanations favor something over nothing. As long as we are in the business of explaining things, even a difficult something is better than a pure nothing.

After all, what would be the null hypothesis to nothing?

Some thoughts on nothing

It seems to me that we can confirm that asking "why?" is biased toward something by examining the Buddhist practice of using koans. When a koan is functioning, the demand for logic and the constantly asking of "why?" ceases, bringing a person's mind closer to nothing, non-self, emptiness.