Cosmology and Intuition
Why is there something instead of nothing?
This baffling question may be impossible to answer in a definitive sense, but attempts have been made. A less baffling and more familiar variant of the question is simply “why does the universe exist?”, and the most widely accepted answers range from “for no reason whatsoever” to “because God wills it”. Both answers leave much to be desired, which compelled me to seek a more solid alternative.
What is meant by “why” in both of these questions? “Why” can be used both in the causal sense and in the teleological sense (the “purpose” of there being something). For now, I am more concerned about the causal sense, so that is what I will attempt to answer.
What would be the point of this? I, like many others, want to make sense of my existence, and of existence as a whole. Through mental exercises, we can have some notion of how far we can go using logic and intuition alone, when addressing questions that are beyond the scope of science.
First, we need to explore the possible scenarios. The simplest truth that all rational minds can agree with is “something exists”. That is before we even assume that a reality outside our own minds is a part of this “something”. We assume such an external reality because the alternative is solipsism: “only my mind exists”. Even if one accepts solipsism as a possibility, it is not a rational or useful assumption, and requires several other equally unverifiable assumptions to be plausible in any way. Still, while “something exists” is true with absolute (100%) certainty, “something other than my mind exists” is at best an extremely likely assumption (99.999999...%), because we can’t really know anything other than our own experiences.
Once solipsism is ruled out as a viable option, we are left with two major mutually exclusive scenarios:
1) At one point there was nothing, and then something came into being (ex nihilo).
2) Something has always existed.
Scenario 1 is a popular stance among materialists, and much less so among the religious. My main problem with scenario 1 is that it’s what I call intuitively unacceptable: it makes no sense. But that is not a very satisfying answer, so I’ll try to elaborate.
All things are, as far as we can tell, caused by something else. This isn’t merely something we observe; it is something we intuitively assume. Someone will then say: intuition is flawed, not everything needs to be intuitive. I agree, but only to an extent.
The best theory we currently have for describing the behavior of matter is the Standard Model of particle physics, which is based on Quantum Mechanics. It is highly precise within a certain scale, but it is also known to be an incomplete picture of reality, hence the search for a Theory of Everything. Quantum Mechanics, or rather a particular interpretation of it that assumes it to be truly fundamental, is often used as a “proof” that things can be uncaused, because of its inherently probabilistic nature. Those who hold this particular interpretation will say that things can arise from nothingness, as a result of random quantum fluctuations.
The problem with this argument is that quantum fluctuations require a quantum field, and a quantum field is not “nothing”. It will never be “nothing”, no matter how many Physicists say so, because a quantum field is modelled by a mathematical construct with a set of properties. We all have a notion of what “nothing” is, and it most definitely does not include a mathematical model with preexisting rules.
The part that comes from intuition is this: for something to happen, something must allow it to happen, while excluding other possibilities that clash with it. If you say that this universe came from nothing, the following questions arise: why this universe, with this set of physical laws, with this set of particles? Why did it happen when it happened, instead of at any other time? Why doesn’t it happen again?
There can be no satisfying answer to these questions, because there is nothing about “nothing” that explains why these things must be the way they are. “Nothing” does not favor one outcome over another, and therefore any outcome demands an explanation. However, the answer that I did get from those who tried to convince me was the following:
“It doesn’t need to make sense.”
Isn’t it interesting? Most people who follow science will do so because, in their minds, the scientific explanation makes more sense than the alternatives. Of course it does, for most things. But as soon as people encounter something that cannot be adequately explained by their worldview (scientific or not), the need for things to make sense vanishes altogether. We just need to blindly accept things and stop questioning.
Well, I disagree. Something can’t emerge out of absolute nothingness, because there is no way for it to occur that is logically possible and intuitively acceptable. And I know that intuition has its flaws, but some intuitions are stronger than others, and intuition is the last resort we have when all other available models fail.
The alternative and far more likely scenario is the second one: something has always existed. This is where things get complicated, though.
This “something” that has always existed doesn’t need to be our current universe, and it most likely isn’t. The original definition of universe is simply “the totality of all things”, but that is not how the term is typically used nowadays. A more accurate definition would be something like “all things bound to the same set of physical laws to which we are bound”. A subset of this would be the observable universe, or “all things with which we can interact”.
Science reveals patterns about the things we can interact with, using things we can interact with: our instruments and the observations they allow. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the rest of the universe follows similar constraints to those of the observable universe: the same particles and constants of nature. It is less reasonable to assume that all of existence follows the same constraints. As I said in a previous text, science tells us absolutely nothing about any potential reality we cannot interact with.
Why is this important? Because it doesn’t matter whether or not any universe we cannot interact with is “useful” to us in a scientific sense: utility is not a necessary component of the truth. What seems more plausible: that all of existence follows the same set of constraints of our own universe, or that these constraints were determined by something else? The latter certainly seems more plausible, because any set of constraints demands an explanation (which cannot be “nothing”, as we’ve discussed).
The following scenarios now merit consideration:
I. Our universe is part of an eternal chain of universes, each of which create one or more new universes.
II. All possible universes exist.
III. There is an eternal and primordial form of existence that causes universes such as our own to exist.
All of these have their strengths, but each one also raises further questions when considered in a vacuum. I believe that the truth is actually a combination of I, II and III, and I’ll explain why.
I’m not considering all available scenarios, such as a cyclical existence (the same universe begins and ends eternally), because these other scenarios have weak explanatory power. Any decent explanation needs to address the matter of why the restrictions that are in place are what they are, and not merely state that the same restrictions have always been in place. “Why this universe, and not another?” is a legitimate question to ask, and cannot be ignored in this context.
Scenario I works in theory, if one assumes that it is possible to create new universes. Creating self-contained realities with their own set of rules is fairly simple, when we take games or systems such as cellular automata into consideration. The problem is that these systems are not self-sufficient: they inherit the same limitations of its parent universe, on top of being bound by their own internal rules. They are not “true” universes, in this sense, but simulations.
But some will say that our own universe may be nothing more than a simulation: a system running within some sort of device that exists in a greater, less restricted universe. This greater universe, in turn, may be a simulation running inside an even greater and even less restricted universe, and so on. If such a chain of simulations exists, it needs to end at some point: there will be a base, primordial universe that is not simulated.
An alternative is the possibility of breaking the rules: creating a new universe that is not bound by our own laws of physics. How would this be possible, though, given that all our tools and devices are bound by these laws? It may not be impossible, but doesn’t look very plausible either. It would require us to access a power greater than that of the physical world: a power that is, essentially, divine.
Then there is the matter of consciousness: how can consciousness be simulated? Where does it come from? Consciousness is far too big a mystery to address in this text, and I already addressed it in a previous text, but it needed to be mentioned regardless.
In short, there are versions of scenario I that seem more plausible than others, but none of them seem to be sufficient.
Scenario II postulates the existence of some sort of multiverse. The one that is most popular among some physicists (and despised by others) is the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It was conceived as a means of explaining the apparent hole that is left by the collapse of the wave function: why does it settle into a single state, instead of any other of the known possible states? The answer given by this interpretation is that these other states do in fact exist, each one in another universe that is a “fork” of the base universe from before the collapse.
The implication is that there would be a new universe to account for every possible state of every particle. It would be an infinite number of universes for the collapse of the wave function of a single particle, and every subsequent collapse would create an infinite number of new universes. Infinity on top of infinity, ad infinitum. That is a lot of universes. It gets even stranger when we consider that our single current universe may be infinite itself, and may contain infinite copies of ourselves, along with infinite variants.
None of this actually proves that the Many-Worlds interpretation is false, as cumbersome as it may seem. The actual issue with it is that it involves a set of assumptions that aren’t necessary, and it may not be the best or simplest explanation for the phenomenon it intends to explain: Bell’s theorem only disproves hidden variables that determine a system’s state before measurement, but not others. The scope of this interpretation is also very limited: it only accounts for universes like our own, with a similar or identical set of laws. That these laws are in place is still left unexplained.
If there is a multiverse, it may as well contain universes that have absolutely nothing to do with our own and are entirely disconnected. This is actually less unintuitive and bizarre than an existence in which only our own universe can exist, with only this set of laws, particles and constants.
What can explain this type of multiverse, though? These individual universes must still have come from somewhere. What is the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and unexplained constraints?
The answer is simply “Chaos”. Not the chaos of Chaos Theory, but Primordial Chaos: unrestricted potential. This idea is so intuitively powerful that even ancient mythologies have adopted it, though this fact has nothing to do with why I believe it’s a good idea. If we accept that there was never a state of existence which can be described as absolute nothingness, then the best possible thing that can take the place of a true beginning of existence is this Primordial Chaos, because it requires no further explanation. There are no baffling unexplained constraints, because there are no constraints.
This ties into the idea of a “Mathematical Universe”, which states that all that can be mathematically described can and will exist. This is not a necessary implication of Primordial Chaos, because some forms of existence clash with others, and some are inherently unsustainable or paradoxical. Given an infinite, eternal and unrestricted Chaos, however, any form of existence that does not result in self-annihilation will inevitably exist.
This also provides a viable answer for scenario III, which states that there is an eternal and primordial aspect of existence beyond our own universe. But we also need to look at some of the implications of this Chaos, as well as some alternatives.
It would be disingenuous not to mention God as a possibility for this eternal and primordial part of existence. It is also necessary to point out that some versions or interpretations of God lead to fewer absurdities than others. Most Theistic interpretations of God are simply a reflection of the biases, personal tastes and values of whoever invented them, which is why I don’t find these interpretations to be useful in this context. Other interpretations are worth considering, and that is what I’ll do next.
If we consider that Chaos is the most primordial form of existence, we must also consider the types of existence that will necessarily emerge from this Chaos: namely, Order. Unlike Chaos, Order is constrained by a set of rules, but this constraint will not necessarily be perpetual or unbreakable: it needs only be sufficiently stable for a given time. We can think of it in terms of Natural Selection, but on a cosmological level: there will be an infinite quantity of bubbles of Order within Chaos, but some forms of Order will be more persistent and will eventually supersede others.
The implication is this: the strongest form of Order that can be conceived of will necessarily exist as a result of infinite and unrestricted Chaos. This form of Order is also known as “The Ultimate” or “The Absolute”. It is the form of Order that dominates all others, the apex of existence. Infinite orderly complexity is a trait of it, which implies that it may be conscious as well. In fact, it will necessarily be aware of all things such an entity can conceivably be aware of, such as all other forms of Order, and it will be able to create its own forms of Order, with a given purpose. Whatever purpose this may be is something beyond the scope of this text. A version of this entity is described in my own Sci-Fi books, but it’s ultimately just my interpretation of what it could be and how it relates to the mystery of consciousness as a whole. One might even argue that the true Absolute is not just the ultimate form of Order, but the optimal balance between Order and Chaos: unrestricted potential given a particular direction and purpose, a type of “Meta-Order”.
Our universe may emerge from pure unrestricted Chaos, but it may also emerge from a stronger form of Order. Neither option seems particularly more likely than the other. Eternal Chaos implies the existence of not only this ultimate form of consciousness, but also of horrors of which we can hardly conceive. And yet, all of this still makes more sense than an existence in which only our own, very restricted observable reality can exist.