Sean Carroll - Why There is "Something" rather than "Nothing" 

I absolutely love and admire how Sean Carroll avoids giving long, vague answers and is always strict and clear. True Scientist. inspirational.

It may be that there's no such thing as "nothing," and that it is simply an abstraction of the human mind.

It’s amazing to me how so many physicists don’t understand Leibnez’s question. Saying the universe is a Brute fact is the same as saying there is literally no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. “Why not?” Doesn’t really get at the question. If you think the brute fact answer is a good one, ask yourself this question: why should we think the universe has no explanation? Especially since everything else that exists has an explanation. If the universe having an explanation troubles you, saying it has no explanation should be at least equally troubling. Kudos to Kuhn for challenging Carroll’s answer, which most people would just buy without any question because he’s so well spoken.

Sean Carroll as always bold and precise even semantically

“Modern science is based upon the principle, ‘give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it, from nothing, in a single instant.” - Terence McKenna.

I've always been fascinated with this question. And no matter who is asked, there usually seems to be an explanation without an answer followed up with I don't know. And personally, I like that. If it could be answered, that mat be the scary part

i completely buy his theory. Makes a lot of sense and its so simple its beautiful and elegant

"yea, I'm just not going to deal with that question" is a more honest and succinct way of answering the question.

This is mind blowing to ponder. Time is infinite in both directions.

In his last answer, Sean Carroll's voice reveals his extraterrestrial origin. I'm not sure he's to be trusted.

He is a great interviewer.

In my experience when people are eager to express how much " they don't care" about a philosophical topic it's because they're afraid to look.

I think it's probably impossible for there to "be nothing". And I'm talking about the the kind of absolute nothingness often addressed in philosophy, since scientists mean something very different when talking about nothing.

I think the point is that the classical concept of "nothing" does not exist in physical reality. It's impossible for "nothing" to exist. There is *always* something.

It would be easier if these scientist just admitted they have no idea

Why is there anything? It's a question that surpasses human understanding and probably always will, which makes it the most mind-blowing question ever. Dr. Carroll knows about as much as anybody else when it comes to answering this.

Many of us have been forever touched by, and struggling with, the same 'why is there something rather than nothing?' bug as Robert Lawrence Kuhn (an authentic human being and a genuine intellectual). I would be far more interested in knowing Kuhn's own views on the subject---as someone who has a personal connection to, and 'feels' the essence of the inquiry in his core---than listening to all these other people's lame (albeit seemingly elaborate) attempts at dodging the question. Bravo Mr. Kuhn! And please keep the flame alive. Humanity might yet/eventually encounter a new path by which to explore this issue, besides those traditionally extended by mysticism, religion, philosophy, and science, as long as we keep the curiosity flame alive.

The "laws of physics" are not a separate system than the universe (or space/reality, etc.) The laws of physics are a description of the properties of reality. They are specific to the "stuff" that inhabits our known reality. They describe the way the stuff in our reality behaves based on its make up.

by the way, time is a parasite....that is to say, time derives its meaning from whatever exists....without existence of something, time cannot be measured.

Sean Carroll is very no-nonsense. I love that.

The way I see it is this; Something and Nothing are two inseparable sides of the same thing and due to their very nature, they are EXACTLY where they are supposed to be. "Something" is everywhere and "Nothing" is nowhere.

Sean Carroll's lucidity is amazing.

6:34 Some alien is talking to us via Sean's body.

His last statement was just perfect. I don’t care if it was possible that there was nothing at all. I care much more about the world we live in. Ie. your question is irrelevant.

That was a lot of words simply to answer the question of why something rather than nothing with “I have no earthly clue. What is, is. Full stop.”

This is the kind of question best left to the philosophers rather than scientists, who have much better things to do.

In my opinion the only way to resolve this question is to recognize that 'something' and 'nothing' must not be two distinct entities but rather abstractions of a deeper underlying state or description of reality that both of them emerge from.

Best answer to Kuhn's question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Sean Carroll: "Why not?".

if we begin with nothing, nothing comes....no matter how much time we afford it, there would always be nothing. ultimately we must concede that at least something (matter) was, having the power of being in and of itself, or there is a source of being in and of itself whose power created what is (matter). there is no tertium quid.

Time is infinite in both directions..... OMG does that mean we have to go through this again :O

Sean Carroll has always been great to listen/watch/read. This is a very interesting take on the question.

Plato had a very sophisticated answer to this question 2300 years ago... did everyone forget what the theory of Forms was for?

Let's smoke weed my bros, this trip is the real deal and it's heavyy

FINALLY a coherent and satisfying answer to this primordial question; Bravo Mr. Carroll!

Simply put. Even nothing is something so there's no such thing as nothing.

I'm really happy people are asking the question. I wish I could give you answers.

End of video: Leibniz said to not care about the question was an indication of an intellectual shallow person. Also, kind of an insulting thing to say to the host. Why did he come on the show then?

The bottom line of what Sean Caroll is saying here is this, we are probably not going to get an answer for the question - "why is there something rather than nothing?". So that line of questioning should be discriminated against and classified as a "wrong question" and hence "should not be asked".

It's a Universe about "Nothing." :}

I've watched this guy ask this question to many physicists. They all say the same thing, the term "nothing" is vague. When one says "nothing" in normal conversation then the word "nothing" has meaning but in a scientific conversation about physics the term "nothing" is very specific. It's a mixing of the term nothing that causes this philosophical dilemma.

"There could have been nothing." - Sean Carroll Would love to see his workings on that.

there is nothing we just are beings who perceive nothing as something....

One thing he got right... "Something" always existed... And its also true that the way "our" something is the way it is has nothing of importance towards the ultimate first "something" ... For "it" could be so different from everything we think to know, that we could never be able to understand "it" ...

People are amazed that the is something rather than nothing, but the more I think about it that idea that there could be absolutely nothing is just as preposterous as the idea that there could be something.

my answer is simple and filled with with truth. I don't know the answer, and neighter do you , but we are here so you believe what you want to believe and i'll believe what I want to believe, lets just not hate each other for differing thoughts, if we do then we are both wrong, peace makes us better people, hate makes us regret living..

It would have been shorter if Sean simply said "I don't know". The basis of the "something from nothing" argument is that in an absolute vacuum sub-atomic particles can be detected popping in and out of existence. However, just like at a magic show, just because you don't know where something came from or went to doesn't mean it came from and returned to "nothing".

Here's my idea: What exactly is nothing ? It could be defined as the absolute absence of "everything". And in that everything you have an infinite number of somethings. So In order to have nothing none of the somethings of that infinite list should exist which is not possible because it's an infinite list containing infinite possibilities. So inevitably something has to exist. So basically we are associating the idea of infinity. one could always argue why the idea of infinity came up but I think it does not reflect any mathematical idea but instead comes due to our inability to completely include all somethings .This may or may not be an answer and may have inherent flaws, but we never know. Even if we find a convincing answer we can never ever prove it because it's like drawing the picture of a building from the inside without looking from outside. But I think that the question is more important than the answer because by asking we have expanded ourselves to all levels of existence. Even if our universe is some giant simulation or a backyard experiment of some super intelligent being it applies to them too. So the question is always alive.........:)

Carroll's response is very frustrating. When he concedes that something is not necessary, he concedes that there might have been nothing. But that's the question! WHY is there something rather than nothing?

What if there is/was no start or finish to the universe? What if it has always been?

First -- the end of our universe creates a substrate which could respawn this universe. Second and I think more on point is that given "absolutely nothing" the "something" that could occur from that is something than "can" occur from nothing -- which is a "quantum set of laws" that spawns itself. It "self creates" from nothing -- since it did -- and what must it have been like -- well we can see it now.

This region began 13.7 billion years ago but the cosmos may have always existed! 😛

Here is the thing: if before the big bang, there was literally nothing....I mean non-existence ... Then you can't even ask "what happened BEFORE " because time did not exist. "Before" is a temporal word, and so without TIME, that question makes no sense at all. Ya know?

The universe is kinda like my dad one day it dropped me off and said don’t ask questions by

The existence of a First Cause, God, is a brute fact.

There is experience, not something. Not nothing.

"Nothing" can have no property that would rule out "Something".

If there ever was actually _nothing_ (in the strictest definition of that word), that would have been a permanent state and we wouldn't be here.

Sean: let me answer it short and clear Jordan peterson: let me do it otherwise

Pretty ignorant for someone they don't care about the question. It's most fundamental.

Saying I don’t care does not answer the question, it simply says that either you are avoiding to answer or you are arrogant.

The ancient Greeks knew this long before we had Hubble, theory of relativity and big bang theory. Aristotle already realized, back almost 24 hundred years ago, that being could not come out of not being, so there had to exist an unmoved prime mover, a being that was all act (realization) and zero potentiality; and that an infinite chain of causes was a logical contradiction, so there had to exist an un-caused first cause. That first unmoved mover, the un-caused first cause, he called it God. I know that might be a hyper-allergenic word in certain circles, but the famous stagirite felt comfortable using it because he realized that there are limits to the capacity of our knowledge, so there must be a different dimension of being that we cannot comprehend. The great Stephen Hawking said it, "if the origin of the universe happened within space and time, I will be able to explain it" for we know with a mind that is bound by time and space. Before dying, he didn't want to give up and came up with an explanation that doesn't explain anything: "there's no possibility of God in our universe". And he's totally right! Because, according to Pauline teaching "the universe exists in God", and it's only logical to conclude that the content cannot contain the container. But many people find it intolerable to consider that we exist in such a state of dependence from a being that we can neither comprehend, analyze nor measure, and so we prefer to say things so completely devoid of logic as that the universe is infinite, that an infinite succession of moments could ever make possible the very present moment. Why, if the very present moment exists that means that the infinite succession of moments has an end, in other words is finite. Or, saying that time is infinite is tantamount to saying that it has to travel through an infinite succession of moments in order to arrive to the present moment. Ergo, the present moment does not exist, and it never existed. Since we exist in time, neither do we exist. We're all just an illusion. Ah, but it has to be nobody's illusion! These are the kinds of absurd conclusions that we must accept because we fear too much accepting that we are limited and our existences are contingent and totally dependent.

it's refreshing to hear all perspectives of our being.

6:05 it doesn’t make logical sense that there could “be” absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing, would essentially not be, I.e. non existent.

Does anyone else start getting sea sick as the camera moves around so much? Is this art? How does this technique help the message?

The interviewer sure looks like Einstein.

There is something rather than nothing because there always was something, if there wasn't always something then there never would have been anything.

Sean Carroll sounds pretty solid

Its not like we wouldnt be able to make statements about why the something exists rather than nothing. Just saying "well, it simply does" is not a good answer at all.

Who knew that Josh Homme was so well informed about cosmology. :P

Give this guy a Nobel Prize!

6 minutes and 57 seconds of quantum nothingness.

I’m a little surprised that a physicist in particular would say non-existence has no privilege over existence, when science is kind of guided by the principle that it is. Scientists don’t tend to say there are as likely as not to be invisible angels dancing on the head of a pin for example.

This interview is probably or possibly an unsolvable paradox.

My answer to this question has always been this: Given eternity and infinity something was bound to happen.

Something is so much more interesting than nothing.

There could not have been "nothing" because the concept of "nothing" is a human invention that evolved from the idea of the absence of certain things or classes of things from a certain prescribed environment (example: Q. What is left in the cookie jar?. A. Nothing. I ate them all.) This concept of "absence" of certain specifics became generalized to the point where it could represent "the absence of everything" - a concept without a referent. This was a process, essentially unconscious, of gradually extending a concept beyond the human scale, where it made a certain utilitarian sense, into a realm where it made no sense, and was worse than useless, a classic "misuse of language". I find it interesting that even Sean Carroll is unaware of this.

Great video, great locale, great interviewer, great questions, amazing guest, poor audio.

The scenery is so beautiful

Someone simply pushed the "Start simulation"-button.

I can honestly say to you this guy is one of the best people at avoiding the facts..... he talks the talk and he beats around the bush and he flummoxes people with intellect and unscientific complexities.... where'as he just needs to say I don't know.

If law of physics exist then who created them? Quantum partical must come from something or someone.

c = λ⋅ν is the guiding principle for devices from cell phones to MRI machines E = h⋅ν = h⋅c/λ is a cornerstone equation in quantum mechanics. It explains the inner workings of solar cells, LED. where: E is the energy of a photon (joules), h is Planck's constant (6.626e−34 joule-second), ν is the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation (measured in hertz, Hz) c is the speed of light in a vacuum (3e8 meters per second). λ is the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (meters). When λ is nearly nothing (zero), you get everything.

Sean Carroll knows his stuff. Like Penrose, the Universe as we know it today, popped into existence via theoretical particles, and thus is expanding into its old, cold, empty former self. It has always existed, and will always continue to exist. It's our definitions and terminologies that are wrong.

Because we're here to see it.

"Is that [the Uinverse and the laws physics] necessary ?" It surely is necessary for us to ask the question. This question is biased because there wouldn't be anyone to ask it if there was nothing.

I think the most direct answer to that question is "Was there nothing before there was something?"

The weird camera work is totally distracting...

The "brute fact" to which the sense of the question refers should not be confused with our descriptive models of the universe. To attack the answer in terms of the primacy of "physical laws" or "physical universe" is to make a regression to the kind of problem with which theoretical physics treats (and which was initially noted by Carroll); the "something" in the "deeper question" is and can only ever refer to the total givenness of experience, and not to formulations which appear to be reflections of it. We may ask ourselves the question, "Why is there *something* rather than *nothing*?" This may cause discomfort in the same way that asking "What is it like to be dead?" does, because we cannot talk about 'nothing' (speaking is 'something') yet the counterfact is implied in our experience. In an analogous way, we may ask (in a fundamental sense), "Why these laws and not others?" with the same import, since in a universe with fundamentally different laws we would not be able to ask the same question. Thus we may say: "We cannot speak of 'nothing', because the counterfact is subsumed by the fact"; and analogously, "We cannot speak of an alternate universe, because we would not be able to say: "Here are laws which are different than ours" in such a place; and ultimately, "We cannot speak of counterfacts outside the plenum of experience."

I knew when I did shrooms!!! ... but then I forgot immediately after :(

Since we know that something exists, the question could be is non existence possible? Saying that the laws of physics existed before anything existed is nonsensical as the laws of physics are a description of existence. IOW, how does specific action exist before there is anything to act? Ideas about something can not take precedence over the something. The laws of physics are an integral aspect of material.

He was doing so well and then just ended up saying "I don't care". Dissapointing to hear a scientist say that.

His answer is: It just is. That doesn't seem to be a very satisfying answer. I think he is too hasty to preclude that there may be some kind of explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing, and I find it odd that a scientist would not be interested in such a possibility.

I love how Sean Carroll is a down-to-earth type guy, he will happily say "we don't know (*yet*)" over and over when questioned about topics where his field of competence can't quite answer those questions in a objective way. More people in the science field should take some hints from his "no-bs" behavior.

If you start to feel motion sickness because the camera never stops moving, just keep your eyes on the horizon.

Sean is correct. However I want to make a point, the universe's inherent quality is existence, meaning that there has never been a "time" in reality where its state was "nothingness". As a matter of a fact the idea of nothingness is a concept in which we have created, it's not real, it's simply an abstraction.

He's saying something but it is actually nothing. Now I see how something and nothing can co-exist !

If nothing doesn’t exist then they have to be an eternal uncreated thing. They is no other way around it.

Matter has an age. There is no eternity of matter.

Some questions are unanswerable.

Maybe the term ‘nothing’ is like ‘infinity’ - they represent ideological boundaries and/or potentialities.