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.