ARTICLE Levels of Nothing There Are Multiple Answers to the Question of Why the Universe Exists

BY ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN

Nothing, of late, is something of a scandal. matter, energy, space and time, and all the laws and Physicists and philosophers debate the efficacy of principles that govern them (known and un - quantum physics, and the value of philosophical known); as for the mental, imagine all kinds of con - analysis, to explain why there is Something rather sciousness and awareness (known and unknown); than Nothing. 1 In the Vol. 13 No. 2 (2007) issue of as for the platonic, gather all forms of abstract ob - Skeptic, I confronted my life-long obsession with jects (numbers, logic, forms, propositions, possibili - Nothing. Entitled “Why This Universe: Toward a ties—known and unknown); as for the spiritual and Taxonomy of Ultimate Explanations,” the article de - God, embrace anything that could possibly fit these scribed my existential angst and offered some 27 nonphysical categories (if anything does); and as possible “ultimate explanations.” I suggested that for “other nonphysicals,” well, I just want to be sure while “Why Not Nothing?” may seem impenetrable, not to leave anything unclassified. Lump together “Why This Universe?”, energized by remarkable ad - literally everything contained in ultimate reality. vances in cosmology, may be accessible. While they Now call it all by the simple name “Something.” are not at all the same question, perhaps if we can Why is there “Something” rather than “Nothing”? begin to decipher the latter, we can begin to de - Why Not Nothing? What guides me here is gut crypt the former. feeling, not clever reasoning, which is why no argu - After the article was published, Skeptic editor ment has ever dissuaded me from continuing to Michael Shermer encouraged me to expand the ar - think, following Leibniz, 3 that Nothing, no world, ticle into a book. I approached the philosopher John would be simpler and easier than any world, that Leslie, who for decades had focused on Something/ Nothing would have been the least arbitrary and Nothing and whom I had come to know through “most natural” state of affairs. our discussions on Closer To Truth , the PBS televi - As I have continued to think about Nothing, I sion series that I created and host, and we set about have continued to think that Nothing “should,” in to co-edit a book of readings and commentaries on some sense, have obtained, and the only reason I the ultimate question. accept the fact that Nothing does not obtain is not The Mystery of Existence: Why is there Anything At because of any of the arguments against Nothing, 4 All? (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), long in gestation, pres - but because of the raw existence of Something—be - ents the ideas of contemporary thinkers as well as cause in my private consciousness I am forced to some others throughout intellectual history, grouped recognize that real existents compose Something. under five possible “solutions” to the “Why-is-there- In other words, an a priori weighing of Nothing v. Something-rather-than-Nothing?” puzzle: (1) a blank Something (from a timeless, explanatorily earlier is absurd; (2) no explanation needed; (3) chance; (4) perspective) would, for me, tip the balance heavily value/perfection as ultimate; and (5) mind/con - to Nothing, but for the fact of the matter. sciousness as ultimate. Thus, since I have no choice but to recognize In this article I shall explore the essence of Noth - that there is Something, I have no choice but to con - ing, or what I call “Levels of Nothing,” especially in clude that there is foundational force, selector, pro - light of recent debates and public interest. 2 Why “Lev - ductive principle or type of necessity—some deep els” of Nothing? That’s where the confusion lies. reason—that brings about the absence of Nothing. I cannot rid myself of the conviction that Nothing What is it About Nothing? would have obtained had not something special Lump together everything that exists and might somehow superseded or counteracted it. Yes, I exist—physical, mental, platonic, spiritual, God, know that seems circular—and many well-regarded other nonphysicals. As for the physical, include all philosophers say, “So there’s a world not a blank;

34 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 18 number 2 2013 what’s in any way sur prising about that?” But I just directions, temporal as well as spatial—totally can’t help feeling that they are passing right over empty of all matter and energy. the problem most probative of ultimate reality. 5. Nothing of the kind found in some theoretical formulations by physicists, where, although Levels of Nothing space-time (unified) as well as mass-energy Defining “Nothing” may seem simple—no thing, (unified) do not exist, pre-existing laws, partic - not a thing. But what’s a “thing”? I invoke the term ularly laws of quantum mechanics, do exist. “thing” in the most general possible way, and there - And it is these laws that make it the case that fore, given some possible notions of Nothing, it is universes can and do, from time to time, pop no contradiction to find “things” that compose into existence from “Nothing,” creating space- these different kinds or levels of Nothing. Teasing time as well as mass-energy. (It is standard apart these constituent things, as if scaffolds or physics to assume that empty space must sinews of Nothings, may help enrich understanding seethe with virtual particles, reflecting the un - of the nature of Nothing, yielding a taxonomy that certainty principle of quantum physics, where arrays opposing kinds of Nothing that could be con - particle-antiparticle pairs come into being and ceived and might have existed. then, almost always, in a fleetingly brief mo - This taxonomy is structured as a deconstruc - ment, annihilate each other.) tion or as a dissection, as it were, a reverse layering, 6. Nothing where not only is there no space-time a peeling, a progressive reduction of the content of and no mass-energy, but also there are no pre- each Nothing in a hierarchy of Nothings. As such, existing laws of physics that could generate this taxonomy takes its heritage from the so-called space-time or mass-energy (universes). Subtraction Argument, which seeks to show that 7. Nothing where not only is there no space-time, no the absence of all concrete objects would be meta - mass-energy, and no pre-existing laws of physically possible. (Stated simply, the Subtraction physics, but also there are no non-physical Argument works by imagining a sequence of possi - things or kinds that are concrete (rather than ble worlds each containing one less concrete object abstract)—no God, no gods, and no conscious - than the world before, so that in the very last world ness (cosmic or otherwise). This means that even the very last object has vanished. It is no sur - there are no physical or non-physical beings or prise that complexities emerge. 5) existents of any kind—nothing, whether natural Developing this way of thinking, there might or supernatural, that is concrete (rather than be nine levels of Nothing, with a general progres - abstract). sion from Nothing most simplistic (Nothing One) 8. Nothing where not only is there none of the to Nothing most absolute (Nothing Nine). There above (so that, as in Nothing 7, there are no are criticisms of each of these Nothings. My point concrete existing things, physical or non-physi - here is not so much to argue the legitimacy of any cal), but also there are no abstract objects of one kind of Nothing but rather to construct an ex - any kind—no numbers, no sets, no logic, no haustive taxonomy of all potential or competing general propositions, no universals, no Pla - Nothings, and perhaps a taxonomy in which those tonic forms (e.g., no value). Nothings are mutually exclusive. Following are 9. Nothing where not only is there none of the nine levels of Nothings. above (so that, as in Nothing 8, there are no abstract objects), but also there are no possibili - 1. Nothing as existing space and time that just hap - ties of any kind (recognizing that possibilities pens to be totally empty of all visible objects and abstract objects overlap, though allowing (particles and energy are permitted)—an ut - that they can be distinguished). terly simplistic, pre-scientific view. 2. Nothing as existing space and time that just hap - Nothings 1 through 7 progressively remove or pens to be totally empty of all matter (no parti - eliminate existing things, so that a reasonable stop - cles, but energy is permitted—flouting the law ping point—a point at which we might well be of mass-energy equivalence). thought to have reached (what I hesitatingly call) 3. Nothing as existing space and time that just hap - “Real Nothing”, the metaphysical limit—would be pens to be totally empty of all matter and energy. 6 Nothing Seven, which features no concrete existing 4. Nothing as existing space and time that is by ne - things (no physical or non-physical concrete exis - cessity—irremediably and permanently in all tents) of any kind.

volume 18 number 2 2013 WWW.SKEPTIC.COM 35 Nothings 8 and 9 go further, eliminating non - leap to imagine a world without God (Nothing 7) concrete objects, things, existents and realities. Do than to imagine a world without abstract objects they go too far? Many philosophers assert that nei - (Nothing 8). For the traditional God, that won’t do. 10 ther Nothing 8 nor Nothing 9 is metaphysically pos - sible, arguing that the claimed absence of abstract Why Not Nothing? objects and/or possibilities would constitute a logical Cosmic visions are overwhelming, but I am some - contradiction and hence abstract objects and/or pos - times preoccupied with another conundrum. How sibilities exist necessarily. This could be important is it that we humans have such farsighted under - because, as John Leslie points out, among the reali - standing after only a few thousand years of histori - ties which aren’t concrete things, or which do not de - cal consciousness, only a few hundred years of pend on the existence of concrete things, and thus effective science, and only a few decades of cosmo - cannot be eliminated, there may be some realities logical observations? Maybe it’s still too early in the that are plausible candidates for explaining the world game. Maybe answers have been with us all along. of concrete things. 7 In this way of thinking, the cru - This is a work in process and diverse contributions cial distinction is between realities that seemingly are needed. can be eliminated and realities that seemingly cannot Setting aside my taxonomy and consulting my be eliminated, rather than any particular way of dis - gut, I come to only two kinds of answers. The first tinguishing between levels of nothingness or particu - is that there can be no answer: Existence is a brute lar ways of defining nothingness. fact without explanation. The second is that at the Note that among all these levels of Nothing, one primordial beginning, explanatorily and timelessly of the “lesser Nothings”—that is, a kind of Nothing prior to time, some thing was self -existing. The with more “things” in it—is the Nothing of physicists. essence of this something necessitated its existence What physicists contemplate—the sudden emer - such that non-existence to it would be as inherently gence or “tunneling” of universes from “Nothing”—is impossible as physical immortality to us is factually fascinating and indeed may be cosmogenic, but the impossible. tunneling process or capacity is not Nothing. 8 The Various things or substances could conceivably Nothing of physicists is thick with the complete set of contain this deeply centered self-existing essence, the laws of physics, and so between physicists’ Noth - from the most fundamental meta-laws of physics to ing and Real Nothing lies a vast, unbridgeable gulf. diverse kinds of consciousness, one of which could On this taxonomic scale, physicists’ Nothing is Noth - be God or something like god. Perhaps even these ing Level 5, barely half way to utterly Nothing. If explanations are so mundane and bedrock is so physicists’ Nothing were in reality Real Nothing (i.e., bizarre that abstract objects or pure possibilities ultimate reality), the laws of quantum physics (or somehow harbor generative powers. whatever might turn out to be the most fundamental Why is there Something rather than Nothing? physical laws underlying quantum physics) would Why Not Nothing? If you don’t get dizzy, you really have to be either impossible to remove (meaning that don’t get it. eliminating them would involve logical contradic - tion) or a brute fact about existence beyond which ex - The author thanks John Leslie, his co-editor o f The Mystery planation would be meaningless. I doubt I could ever of Existence: Why is there Anything At All?, for his com - ments and suggestions. get over the odd idea that something so intricate, so involved, so organized and so accessible as the laws of physics would be the ultimate brute fact. The Mystery of As a separate consideration, some philosophers Existence: Why Is of religion argue that God is a “necessity”—meaning There Anything at that it would be impossible for God not to exist— All? by John Leslie thus precluding Nothing 7 (which has no non-physi - and Robert cal concrete things such as God but still has abstract Lawrence Kuhn objects) and crowning Nothing 6 (which has no (co-editors). Wiley- space-time, no mass-energy, no laws of physics but Blackwell, 2013. still has God and other nonphysical things) as the 328 pages. metaphysical limit of what is to be explained. 9 I find $29.95 Paperback. the move challenging. Moreover, based on the levels ISBN-13: 978- of Nothing in this taxonomy, it would seem less of a 0470673553

36 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 18 number 2 2013 REFERENCES 1. Why is there Something rather than (Skeptic , Vol. 13 No. 2, 2007, p. 36). would it take to create the idea of the Nothing?, the ultimate question, is a 8. That the universe may have popped number 3 or the truth that 1+2=3 or continuing theme of Closer To Truth , into existence via some sort of cos - the reality that squares are not round? the public television/PBS series that I mic spontaneous combustion, emerg - How could such ideas, truths, realities created and host ( www.closertotruth ing from the “nothing” of empty space even conceivably be created? Peter .com). (i.e., vacuum energy generated by van Inwagen calls abstract objects 2. Holt, Jim, Why does the World Exist: An quantum fluctuations, unstable high “putative counterexamples” to the Existential Detective Story (New York: energy “false vacua”), or from “quan - thesis that God has created every - Liveright, 2012) . Shermer, Michael, tum tunneling” (Vilenkin, Alex. 2006. thing. But if abstract objects do exist “Much Ado About Nothing,” Scientific Many Worlds in One: The Search for necessarily, then wouldn’t God’s men - American , May 2012. Krauss, Other Universes . New York: Hill and tal life be encompassed by swarms of Lawrence, A Universe from Nothing: Wang), may be the proximal cause of infinities of infinities of abstract ob - Why There Is Something Rather Than why we have a universe in the first jects, not only which God would not Nothing (New York: Free Press, 2012). place, but cannot be the reason, of it - have created but also over which God Albert, David, “On the Origin of Every - self, why the universe we have works could exercise no control? The prob - thing,” The New York Times , March 23, so well for us. Universe-generating lem posed by abstract objects for a 2012. Andersen, Ross, “Has Physics mechanisms of themselves, such as God whose sovereignty must be ab - Made Philosophy and Religion Obso - unprompted eternal chaotic inflation solute is complex and requires meta - lete,” The Atlantic , April 24, 2012. or uncaused nucleations in space - physical analysis. Consider two of the 3. Leibniz, Gottfried. 1714. The Princi - time, can only address the fine-tuning more general ways to defend God’s ples of Nature and Grace . problem of our universe by postulating sovereignty (aseity): 1) Deny that ab - 4. Arguments against Nothing include innumerable universes, perhaps an in - stract objects are real, in that num - saying that Nothing is unimaginable, finity of universes, a vast multiverse, bers, universals, propositions and the nonsense, meaningless or absurd, or in which the laws of physics must like are mere human-invented names as soon as something is possible it reset randomly in each universe, and with no correspondence in reality must exist somewhere. Some would must be, in some sense, primordial (nominalism); and/or 2) claim that ab - have God’s necessary existence as and foundational. Nor can vacuum en - stract objects are thoughts in the proscribing Nothing. ergy or quantum tunneling or anything mind of God. Van Inwagen rejects both 5. For the Subtraction Argument, see the of the like be the ultimate cause of ways; he must therefore defend the following. Baldwin, T. 1996. “There the universe, because, however hack - position that there are besides God might be nothing”, Analysis 56, pp. neyed, the still-standing, still-unan - other uncreated beings and thus 231-8. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 1997. swered question remains “from where prefers to restrict God’s creation of “There might be nothing: the subtrac - did those laws come?” “all things visible and invisible” to tion argument improved”, Analysis 57, 9. The question of whether God, assum - “objects that can enter into causal re - pp. 159-66. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. ing God exists, would be “neces - lations” (which excludes abstract ob - 2002. “Metaphysical nihilism de - sary”—which means that God would jects). Van Inwagen, Peter. 2009. fended: reply to Lowe and Paseau,” exist in all possible worlds—has beset “God and Other Uncreated Things,” in Analysis 62, pp. 172-80. Paseau, philosophers and theologians for cen - Metaphysics and God , ed. Kevin Alexander. 2006. “The Subtraction Ar - turies. The much-debated Ontological Timpe. London: Routledge. On the gument(s),” Dialectica 60(2), 2006, Argument for the existence of God, other hand, William Lane Craig rejects pp. 145-156. For the opposing view, which defines God as “a being than the view that “there might be things, that it is metaphysically not possible which no greater can be conceived,” such as properties and numbers, that there would be no concrete ob - leads to the claim that God is neces - which are causally unrelated to God jects, see the following. Armstrong, sary because necessity is a higher as their Creator.” Craig says that “Ab - D.M. 1989. A Combinatorial Theory of perfection than contingency. Richard stract objects have at most an insub - Possibility . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni - Swinburne asserts that God is a “fac - stantial existence in the mind of the versity Press. Lewis, D. 1986. On the tual necessity” but not a “logical ne - Logos,” adding, “If a Christian theist Plurality of Worlds . Oxford: Blackwell. cessity” in that the non-existence of is to be a platonist, then, he must, it Lowe, E. J. 1996. “Why is there any - God would introduce no logical contra - seems, embrace absolute creation - thing at all?” Aristotelian Society Sup - diction ( Closer To Truth ). Timothy O’ - ism, the view that God has created all plementary Volume 70: 111–20. See Connor defends God’s necessity in his the abstract objects there are.” How - also, Sorensen, Roy. 2009. “Nothing - monograph on the topic. O’Connor, ever, Craig himself resolves the co - ness,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi - Timothy. 2008. Theism and Ultimate nundrum by espousing nominalism, by losophy . Explanation: The Necessary Shape of judging platonism to be false—so that 6. As an example of an objection to a Contingency . Oxford: Blackwell. those pesky abstract objects no kind of Nothing, some would resist the 10. The relationship between God and ab - longer exist and thus no longer under - idea that there could be space and stract objects is particularly trouble - mine God’s sovereignty. Craig, William time that had been emptied of exist - some for those who believe that God Lane. 2011. “Van Inwagen On Uncre - ing things. The “relational” theories of created and sustains all things and ated Beings.” Richard Swinburne ar - space and of time assume that empty - who privilege above all else God’s ab - gues that abstract objects, which ing space and time of existing things solute sovereignty (aseity). The reason seem to contradict his concept of is impossible, because space is the is that abstract objects, many philoso - God, are fictions; the only things that system of spatial relations between phers believe, exist necessarily, which are true or false are human sentences things, and time is the system of tem - means that it is impossible for ab - (Closer To Truth). Also, Davidson, poral relations between things. stract objects not to exist, which fur - Matthew. 2009. “God and Other Nec - 7. See sections 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9 in the ther means that it makes no sense for essary Beings,” Stanford Encyclope - taxonomy of “Why This Universe?” even God to have created them. What dia of Philosophy.

volume 18 number 2 2013 WWW.SKEPTIC.COM 37