Why does the universe exist? Why is there something more than nothing?

Because that’s how we want it, because it is, and because it’s not.I know philosophy is not easy. The very question of NOTHING meets with incomprehension. What is this NOT, is there nothing? (cf. Answer by Rolf A. Pira to Why are physicists mostly atheists?)

Imagine if we travel across the universe with a spaceship into the NOT.Where would you be then?

If we can be where that IS NOTHING, then there is something and nothing.But if NOTHING means the absence of THE ETWAS, we can never know if there is NOTHING. So we can’t go to NOTHING.

Other voices say that only through NOTHING is the DASEIN existing.So if there is no NOTHING, the DASEIN would also be obsolete. And vice versa. So the NOTHING includes the DASEIN.

Many confuse emptiness with NOTHING.LEERE, however, is not NOTHING, but only the FEELING of the crowd. So it is not NOTHING, but only so little that we cannot measure it.

In our space it is usually very empty, but there is always something.Be it gravity or dark matter, dark energy or sporadic superstrings. Thus, the NOTHING does not exist even in space, unless between the strings and Branen worlds or the mesh gaps of quantum geometry.

Sartre also points out in his work “Being and Nothingness ” that nothingness is not actually to be grasped by concepts of being.According to Sartre, the transcendent concept of nothingness can only be approximated because of the non-existence of a content, e.g. in the demarcation between a moment and the following. If we tried to imagine a border here, we would not be able to do so and that is where we find the “nothing”.

So if everything is not nothing, then you must necessarily have EVERYTHING to get NOTHING. So much for the general part.

For many natural scientists, as hypothetical realists, for example, the dimensions of space and time are such structures of an actual reality, which are indeed innate and therefore given for our individual being from the outset, i.e. as Immanuel Kant puts it a priori before and independent of all experience, but only before and independent of all individual experience.As with the Big Bang and a singularity.Does this represent a NOTHING or an ALL?

For Kant, on the other hand, space and time are merely forms of perception and have nothing to do with the “being of one’s”.According to Kant, this being of oneself is basically not recognizable, has no direct relation to the manifestations of our knowledge, so that the one we recognize does not contain, convey or depict any structure or reality of an in-mind being, otherwise we could see it in it.

Space and time would thus be characteristics of reality, which we would have recognized and acquired in tribal history, and in which we can recognize reality today through theoretical thinking, albeit ultimately only in a hypothetical way.The physicist and philosopher Gerhard Vollmer, for example, with evolutionary epistemology fundamentally questions Kant’s epistemology when he says:

“While Kantian criticism is correct to the extent that this finding is not certain, it is possible and beyond that it can be verified.” However, it is therefore no more recognisable or comprehensible.

The unanswered questions in brain research and quantum physics, however, indicate that the world is not objectively present even in its basic structures.

We only recognize what we can recognize and not EVERYTHING, so we see nothing right but not the NOTHING.We are, so to speak, DISABLED.

Leave a Reply