Why Does the World Exist?

1. The Ultimate Question: Why Anything At All?

Here was the super-ultimate why question, the one that loomed behind all the others that mankind had ever asked.

The core mystery. The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is presented as the most profound existential puzzle. It's simple enough for a child but has perplexed philosophers and scientists for centuries. While creation myths offer answers, they typically start from something primordial, not absolute nothingness.

Historical context. Explicitly asking this question is a relatively modern phenomenon, arguably emerging with the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz first formally posed it, linking it to his Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states everything must have an explanation.

Ignoring the question. Some thinkers dismiss the question as meaningless or unanswerable. Queen Victoria warned against seeking reasons for everything, while Ludwig Wittgenstein famously declared, "The riddle does not exist." However, the author argues that ignoring it is a symptom of intellectual deficiency, as suggested by Schopenhauer.

2. Defining the Void: What is "Nothingness"?

To succeed in reaching Nothing from Something, after all, would be to solve the riddle of being in reverse.

More than just "not anything". While "nothing" is shorthand for "not anything," "nothingness" (or le néant) is conceived as a possible state of affairs where absolutely nothing exists – no objects, properties, space, or time. Philosophers debate if this state is even conceivable or logically possible.

Arguments against nothingness. Some argue absolute nothingness is impossible:

• The "observer argument": Imagining nothingness requires a consciousness to imagine it, leaving something behind.
• The "container argument": Removing everything leaves empty space, which is still something.
• The "fact argument": If nothing existed, it would be a fact that nothing existed, meaning at least one thing (the fact) exists.

Arguments for nothingness. The "subtraction argument" suggests that if a finite number of contingent objects exist, and each could not exist independently, then subtracting them all one by one leads to the possibility of absolute nothingness. Logicians also show that a universe where nothing exists is logically consistent ("universally free logic").

3. God vs. Brute Fact: Traditional Answers Fall Short.

Are we then doomed to choose between God and the deep brute Absurd?

The standard dilemma. For many, the choice is between a divine creator (God) or accepting the universe's existence as a "brute fact" requiring no explanation. The God hypothesis explains the world but raises the question of God's own existence. The brute fact view avoids this but feels intellectually unsatisfying, violating the intuition that everything should have a reason.

Critique of God hypothesis. Atheists like Richard Dawkins argue that God, as a complex entity capable of creating a universe, would require an even greater explanation than the universe itself. The idea of God as causa sui (self-caused) or a "necessary being" whose existence is logically guaranteed is challenged by philosophers like Hume and Kant, who argue existence is not a predicate that can be logically necessary.

Critique of brute fact. Accepting the universe as a brute fact feels like giving up on explanation. Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason suggests there must be a reason for everything, including the universe. A world existing for no reason seems irrational and unnerving, lacking stability or trustworthiness.

4. Science's Reach: From Big Bang to Quantum Foam.

Quantum cosmology seemed to offer a way around the singularity problem.

Big Bang's impact. The discovery that the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang) made its existence seem more contingent and in need of explanation. However, physicists like Adolf Grünbaum argue the Big Bang singularity is a temporal boundary, meaning there was no "before" when nothing existed, thus no temporal creation event to explain.

Quantum possibilities. Quantum mechanics allows for spontaneous events without classical causes. This led to the idea that the universe might have "quantum-tunneled" into existence from a state of "nothingness." Physicists like Ed Tryon and Alex Vilenkin proposed scenarios where the universe's net zero energy allows it to appear spontaneously from a quantum vacuum.

Limits of science. Even these quantum scenarios start from something – a quantum vacuum, which is a structured physical state, not philosophical nothingness. Furthermore, current physics theories break down at the Big Bang singularity. A complete explanation would require a final theory unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, but even this theory might not explain why the laws themselves exist or have the power to create.

5. The Multiverse Idea: Explaining Our Universe by Postulating Others.

Invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator.

Beyond our universe. The idea that our universe is just one among many (a multiverse) is proposed by some scientists and philosophers. Different types of multiverses are suggested:

• Infinite space implies infinite variations, including copies of our world.
• Chaotic inflation theory predicts endless "bubble universes" with varying properties.
• The "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests universes split with every quantum event.

Explaining features. A multiverse with randomly varying physical constants could explain why our universe seems "fine-tuned" for life (the anthropic principle) – we simply find ourselves in one of the rare life-permitting universes. This removes the need for a divine fine-tuner.

Controversy. Critics argue the multiverse hypothesis is speculative, unobservable, and violates Occam's razor by postulating countless entities. They question if it truly explains anything or just pushes the mystery back – why does the multiverse exist, and why do its fundamental laws take the form they do?

6. The Power of Abstract Ideas: Mathematics and Value as Explanations.

Could it be that mathematics furnishes the key to the mystery of being?

Beyond matter and mind. If physical and mental "stuff" can't explain existence, perhaps abstract entities can. Plato believed mathematical objects and Forms like Goodness and Beauty existed timelessly and were more real than the physical world. Some thinkers propose reality is fundamentally mathematical or based on value.

Mathematics as reality. Mathematical Platonists believe mathematical entities exist objectively. Some, like Max Tegmark, propose that all consistent mathematical structures exist physically as parallel universes. This view suggests reality is pure structure ("it from bit"), not stuff, and mathematics, being the science of structure, is the ultimate reality.

Value as creative force. John Leslie's "axiarchism" proposes that reality exists because it ought to exist, driven by an abstract need for goodness. This Platonic idea suggests value is a creative force, summoning into being a reality that is, on balance, better than nothing. This could explain existence and features like cosmic order and fine-tuning.

7. The Logic of Existence: Can Reason Alone Explain Reality?

Logically speaking, there might have been nothing at all.

The lure of necessity. Philosophers have sought to prove reality's existence from logic alone, arguing that nothingness is logically impossible or that a "necessary being" (like God) must exist. The ontological argument attempts to deduce God's existence from his definition as a perfect being, arguing existence is a perfection.

Critique of logical proofs. The classic ontological argument is widely criticized, notably by Kant, who argued existence is not a "real predicate." Modern modal logic versions are more robust but rely on the controversial premise that God's existence is possible, which a "canny atheist" can simply deny.

Logic's limits. Even if logic could prove a necessary being, it's unclear how a logically necessary truth (a tautology) could explain the existence of a contingent world. Logic permits many possible realities, including nothingness. It doesn't seem to mandate any particular one, leaving the choice of which possibility becomes actual unexplained.

8. The Selector Theory: Reality Chosen by a Special Feature.

Perhaps that possibility obtains because it has this special feature.

Reframing the question. Derek Parfit shifts the focus from how reality came from nothing to why reality took the specific form it did out of all possible forms. He considers all "cosmic possibilities" (ways reality could be, from Null to All Worlds). One must obtain.

The Selector concept. Parfit proposes that reality might obtain because it possesses a "special feature" (like being the simplest, best, or fullest possibility). This feature acts as a "Selector," determining which possibility becomes actual. The Selector doesn't cause reality but provides the reason why it is this way.

Plausible Selectors. Features like simplicity, goodness, causal orderliness, or fullness are more plausible Selectors than arbitrary ones (like having 58 worlds). If reality has such a feature, it's hard to see it as mere chance. This approach makes the mystery less about bridging Nothing and Something and more about identifying the prevailing feature.

9. The Proof of Mediocrity: Why Reality is Likely Just Average.

So we have a complete explanation for the form that reality takes—no brute facts, no loose ends.

Seeking ultimate explanation. Combining Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason (no brute facts) and a Principle of Foundation (nothing explains itself), the author seeks a complete, non-circular explanation for reality's form. Explanations occur at levels: reality (level 0), Selectors (level 1), meta-Selectors (level 2), etc.

Eliminating possibilities. Brute facts at any level violate Sufficient Reason. Circular explanations (a Selector selecting itself) violate Foundation. Only two meta-Selectors (at level 2) avoid these issues: Simplicity and Fullness.

• Simplicity at level 2 selects "No Selector" at level 1 (simplest explanation).
• Fullness at level 2 selects "All Selectors" at level 1 (fullest explanation).

The outcome. If Simplicity rules, there's no Selector, and reality is chosen randomly. If Fullness rules, all Selectors operate partially, resulting in a blend of all features. Both scenarios overwhelmingly lead to a "generic" or "mediocre" reality, as special possibilities are vanishingly rare compared to generic ones.

10. The Personal Mystery: Why Do I Exist?

These are, as John Updike observed, the two great existential mysteries.

Cosmic vs. personal. The question of why the universe exists is mirrored by the question of why an individual self exists. The author reflects on the improbable odds of his own genetic identity coming into being, highlighting the contingency of personal existence.

The elusive self. The nature of the "I" is philosophically debated. Descartes argued the self is a thinking substance, self-evident from "I think, therefore I am." Hume found no enduring self, only a bundle of perceptions. Contemporary philosophers like Parfit and Dennett view the self as a construction or fiction, not a solid entity.

Astonishment and illusion. Despite the philosophical arguments against a substantial self, the feeling of astonishment at one's own existence persists. This feeling might stem from a subconscious solipsistic illusion that the world depends on one's own consciousness, which is shattered by the reality of death.

11. Confronting Non-Being: The Fear of Nothingness and Death.

It is better to live in pain than peacefully cease to be at all.

Death as annihilation. The prospect of death, understood as the annihilation of the self and its conscious world, is deeply unsettling for many. This fear is not just about losing life's goods but the return to a state of non-being, which some find more terrifying than suffering.

Philosophical perspectives. Socrates and Hume viewed death calmly, seeing it as either a transition or a painless cessation. Schopenhauer, influenced by Buddhism, saw annihilation (Nirvana) as the desirable end to suffering inherent in existence. Unamuno, however, found nothingness utterly dreadful, preferring even painful existence.

Psychological resonance. The dread of nothingness can be linked to a primal desire to return to a state of unconscious unity, perhaps reminiscent of the womb or early childhood security. This contrasts with the alienation felt in the world of conscious, separate existence. The author's personal experience with his mother's death underscores the stark transition from being to nothingness.

Last updated: May 4, 2025