Why is there something, rather than nothing ?

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. Krauss published a book to that effect: A Universe From Nothing.

[JimC]

In the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes where there is no "something".

That's nonsensical. If there is a universe there is something -- whatever the universe is made of. If a universe really contained nothing at all, then it wouldn't be a universe. So, there can't be an infinite number of universes that aren't universes.

If they contained zero matter, and zero energy, then there is no "something", unless you want to say that space-time is a "something"

Mind you, it may well be the case that universes with zero matter and zero energy are intrinsically impossible...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Every particle has an antiparticle. A photon has an antiphoton. etc.

You chose a really bad example! A photon has neither charge nor mass and has no antiparticle! Had you said electron, quark, or neutrino, you would have been correct.

Of course, you need to put the particles in one place and the antiparticles elsewhere, so they will not annihilate each other. If the multiverse concept is correct, then maybe we have our universe, and another universe of opposite sign material. As long as they never contact each other, no problem.

It may well be that the entire universe (or multiverse) has an exactly equal number of plus sign things, and minus sign things, meaning that the net sum of everything is nothing.

This is not true. The universe contains far more matter than antimatter, a fact which has been known for a long time but is only just starting to be explained (by far cleverer people than me).

[Forty Two]

In the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes where there is no "something".

That's nonsensical. If there is a universe there is something -- whatever the universe is made of. If a universe really contained nothing at all, then it wouldn't be a universe. So, there can't be an infinite number of universes that aren't universes.

If they contained zero matter, and zero energy, then there is no "something", unless you want to say that space-time is a "something"

Space-time is a something.

Mind you, it may well be the case that universes with zero matter and zero energy are intrinsically impossible...

Or, it may be that energy and matter are not the only things that exist. Matter, for example, is basically a state of energy. And, empty space is mostly not empty.

[Jason]

In the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes where there is no "something".

That's nonsensical. If there is a universe there is something -- whatever the universe is made of. If a universe really contained nothing at all, then it wouldn't be a universe. So, there can't be an infinite number of universes that aren't universes.

If they contained zero matter, and zero energy, then there is no "something", unless you want to say that space-time is a "something"

Space-time is a something.

So.. if "nothing cannot exist" and you've just defined space-time as "something" (along with matter/energy), then what do you suppose the universe is expanding into? "Something"?

[Forty Two]

In the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes where there is no "something".

That's nonsensical. If there is a universe there is something -- whatever the universe is made of. If a universe really contained nothing at all, then it wouldn't be a universe. So, there can't be an infinite number of universes that aren't universes.

If they contained zero matter, and zero energy, then there is no "something", unless you want to say that space-time is a "something"

Space-time is a something.

So.. if "nothing cannot exist" and you've just defined space-time as "something" (along with matter/energy), then what do you suppose the universe is expanding into? "Something"?

By definition, nothing doesn't exist. It's nothing. If it existed, it would be something. Nothing is nonexistence. Nonexistence is nothing. There can be no dimensions, qualities, or features of "nothing."

The question "what is the universe expanding into?" is a nonsense question. The Universe isn’t expanding into anything, it’s just expanding. It has no edge. There is nothing outside the universe, not even "empty" space within which to expand.

[Jason]

OK so you've just stated the universe is expanding into nothing. Therefore nothing exists as the universe could not expand into non-existence.

Incidentally the universe has a "surface", not an edge. Hyperbolic, or spherical.. I think it's spherical personally.

[Forty Two]

No, i did not just say that. I said it wasn't expanding into anything, it was just expanding. There isn't anything to expand into. If there were space or a region "outside" the universe to expand into then it wouldn't be "nothing."

[Jason]

That's some weak sauce bro. There is nothing outside our universe - at least that's what our math tells us.

[laklak]

I'm here, that's why there's something. For me. All y'all are here to keep it more interesting, for me.

[Forty Two]

That's some weak sauce bro. There is nothing outside our universe - at least that's what our math tells us.

Then you are calling modern cosmology and physics "weak sauce," because that's exactly what current thought is.

Yes, there is nothing outside our universe -- but, that isn't an empty space to "expand into." It's nonexistence. There isn't even room or a region of emptiness to expand into. It's nonexistence. The universe is not expanding "into" anything. It's just expanding.

That's not "into" an empty space... there isn't even an empty space.

[Jason]

Right. So nonexistence is what there is beyond our universe.. this isn't complicated stuff. Nothing exists - outside our universe.

Current thought is we don't know what there is beyond our universe, something or nothing, but for simplicity sake the public consensus is there is nothing. Which causes all sorts of problems for people conceptually, because they can't comprehend recursion so people simply say "the universe is just expanding". It's not correct, but it's short form for the sake of the simple masses of the public.

[Jason]

Oh and nothing does exist. By definition.

[Forty Two]

Oh and nothing does exist. By definition.

Nothingness is the absence of existence. it's not a thing that exists. It's the absence of existence.

[Forty Two]

Right. So nonexistence is what there is beyond our universe..

No, there is no "thing" beyond the universe. Nonexistence is not a thing that is beyond the universe -- it's the absence of any existence of any kind.

this isn't complicated stuff. Nothing exists - outside our universe.

Nothing, though, means "not anything" or "not a single thing" --it's nothingness - the absence of existence of any kind. i.e. there is no outside.

Current thought is we don't know what there is beyond our universe, something or nothing, but for simplicity sake the public consensus is there is nothing. Which causes all sorts of problems for people conceptually, because they can't comprehend recursion so people simply say "the universe is just expanding". It's not correct, but it's short form for the sake of the simple masses of the public.

No, current thought is that if there is anything outside our universe, then it's part of our universe. And, as such, whatever that is, it's not "outside" the universe.