OP, what do you mean with "first matter" and why would it, conceptually, be any different than any "first something" such as "first human"?

Also, how could it not always been there?

My limited way of asking the “information preservation question” is this:

How much information was in the universe, prior to it’s creation?

Simultaniously....

How much information will be inside the universe at the precisely last moment of time measurable just prior to the end of the universe?

Agree with veedz

'Nothing' isn't even definable, because at the point it's defined, it exists as something rather than nothing

By defining 'inside' the universe, you implicity define an 'outside' of it

By definition there couldn't be any information in the universe prior to its creation. It may be that you consider what may have created the universe to be included - Lawrence Krauss refers to 'the quantum haze from which we may have come' - in his book 'A Universe From Nothing.' (For some reason that book was criticized in some circles but I found it a decent read, you might consider reading it.) But then it has to be asked if a 'quantum haze' contains any information at all.

Outside of a dictionary definition re time - e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson described it as 'that which allows motion' - in a vid I saw which doesn't tell us what or how. I'd define it as 'that which allows a process to unfold' which is pretty much the same thing. But nobody knows what it really is, what it consists of, and all of that. Further, it may be that the universe never really ends, it just reaches a state of maximum entropy, and stays that way in thermal equilibrium for eternity.

Or something like that.

I will get a copy of ‘A Universe From Nothing’.

Thanks.

Feynman on "why?"




Dont ask why before you know what gives you geometry and therefore gravity and the properties of quantum mechanics (like quantum probability or measurement or entanglement of superposition etc) as they relate to the effects our senses observed for centuries leading to the foundations of the way we see the world which in turns is the reason QM appears strange to us!

As the poet T S Elliot says which has become my most favorite (intentional or unintentional?) physics quote by a poet;

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."

I enjoy paraphrasing this to ;

"We shall not cease exploring. And the end of our exploring will be to arrive at the same place again and see it for the first time."

What do you think of this lecture by 't Hooft?

Is nothingness only something due to the notion , that there is in fact - something.

There was nothingness before I was born, or so I didn't think.
It could have stayed that way but it didn't.

Sometimes I think, it's standard.

Once every two months or so I think - Hold up, what or why the actual fcuk is going on!!!! And moreover, why me.

Of course there's nothing and in fact less than nothing ; it become sketchy when using "something words/concepts" in bringing it to comprehension.

The contrast between the sun and earth can help.

Proceeding from the center of the earth it is comprehensible that there is a graduation from solid matter to the fluid and then to the airy and beyond ; a progression of decreased "pressure activity" which is not evident in outer space.

The sun conversely presents as its outer layer the corona which is sensibly noted but the inner layers of the sun become more tenuous and in some measure theory , based upon earthly "sensory wording/theory" is projected.

The actuality is that as one progresses into the center of the sun the pressure activity diminishes to nothing and proceeds to "less than nothing" and in fact we enter into a realm of suction effects such that the sun is not a great oven in the sky but the source of suction effects ; a cosmic reality.

If a man could travel to its center , which we cannot with sensory bound machinery, the "suction effects" become apparent.

One wag, when I presented this concept in another thread said " the sun is not a vacuum cleaner in the sky" but comprehension of the science is ascertained by proper consideration.

So that's the story as a man can be enriched and not only go broke but enter into debt ( less than nothing) and the sun reigns in like manner, comprehended by the polarities of pressure/suction.

This forum would really take off if it had more suction, imo. Wags,IDK, but having more suction would thrill the crowd.

Another way to discover nothing is to realize something is nothing, such as a fallacious stereotype which seems like something until the real thing shows up and you can sense the nothing of the stereotype in it’s reflection.

(Sometimes called “illusion”. What is a dispelled illusion? Nothing.)

You can see my point in one other way if it helps.

Nothingness cannot be experienced. Nothingness and experience are two states that cannot co-exist. And in fact, even this assumes too much. This assumes that nothingness is a state of some sort. Indeed, it comes naturally to assume it's existence, but it may not have any kind of existence or identity. To exist is to be some thing. To assume - nothingness - is perhaps unnecessary, albeit intuitive.

Prior to your birth, you or some version of you, may well have existed, at some point or place in time. You wouldn't have memories of that existence since memories are a function of the physical brain, which is a function of the physical universe you're in. Based on having no memories of prior experience it only comes natural to assume there was none; to assume - nothingness. But as described already, this assumption might be unnecessary. Experience and nothingness are mutually exclusive; we know there is experience; we assume there is nothingness - we don't need that assumption.

Okay, so we'll remove "rather than nothing" and just ask: Why is there something?

Consider that appreciation of a thought is contained within the realm of non materiality for a thought cannot be measured or weighed .

From the modern scientific perspective a thought can only be a "nothing" and therefore cannot exist, but it does.

Following, a thought doesn't have to be related to our sensory apparatus which opens up the realm of "sense free thinking".

Zeno's paradox speaks to this as he fails to accustom his thinking to the sensory reality as the problem demands.

The mathematical field of "dynamics" is unrelated to the senses and when the scientist does connect this dynamical process to his sense bound reality it morphs into "mechanics". This morphed process demands a measurement of the sensory and ergo, mechanics.

Mechanics can not be accomplished without measurement but of course the dynamical arrangement is close but wanting without measurement.

Dynamics , as thinking process, is within the realm of "nothing" by scientific standards, but is very real.

this also leads to the scholastic battle between Aquinas and Averroes (was dead during the time of Aquinas) of Nominalism versus Realism. Aquinas triumphed in this battle for he presented the idea of thoughts and thinking as "the real" where his opponents considered the thoughts as no more than names, or conveniences of the word; no more than a tag.

Modern science and in fact the thrust of modern thinking is Nominalism as evidenced in this thread.

Depends what you mean by 'why.'

If you mean the causative sense, because nothing can't exist.

If you mean the purposive sense, only theology can answer that one imo.

Because every thing that is logically possible is some thing; some thing at some point or place in time.

Picture infinite universes, upon infinite universes, below infinite universes, between infinite universes, within infinite universes, amongst infinite universes - all that is logically possible in every combination and rearrangement as logically possible. It all exists. It only can exist. It has always existed. It will always exist.

The all and everything, turns out is a lot larger than that precious piece of real estate we narcissistically insist on as a uni-verse.

Now have a cup of tea and a mini-existential crisis.

I did realise the why me question could be countered rationally with anthropic reasoning. Asking why me is like asking why a golf ball landed on a particular blade of grass out of all the blades of grass it could have landed on. An unreasonable question since its a given that it must land on a blade of grass once teed off.

But that golf scenario already has parameters in place.

If you are a physicalist, and face this question, you might look at this question in two ways. One where's there's a universe without life and the one we are currently know. You have two hard questions there but deep down believe something has to be a fundamental, namely matter.

Consciousness is fundamental, much more elegant and so I'm an out of the closet immaterialist.

Something subjective is fundamental. Hard to say what. The concept of conciousness comes with too much baggage and presumption.

Or lets not. Because if you take this line of reasoning, you could just as well bias it in the positive direction that we are rare and valuable, as opposed to small and insignificant. Nihilists be silly.

Aren't concepts mind dependent?

First it must be established that there is a mind (or you can call it consciousness) and the discussion about that is all over the place.

They do be silly. They think their cosmic insignificance somehow says something about meaning in their life. Like one needs a meaningful reason for seeking to get laid.

How would you establish anything without a mind?

No one seriously questions the existence of consciousness, because questioning things kinda requires consciousness.

No one except pseudophilosophers on 2+2, anyway.

There is no compelling evidence in nueroscientific research literature that conciousness is required for the performance of complex human behaviour. Your body and brain can do the most complex things unconsciously or subconsciously. Conciousness is also not required for learning or communication. All of these things can be performed without it. So whence conciousness? A ghost in the shell? A trick of the mind? An illusory experience?