WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?
Leonard Hough
August 2015
Here’s my take on the recent discussion of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
I am going to do what Terry called “playing language games.” But, I’m not going to “avoid the question;” I’m going to clarify the question. The primary task of every philosopher is to examine any question that comes his way, to see if it is well formed and, therefore, meaningful. The philosopher does not want to waste his time in debates where the terms are not defined, or the premises are not established, or the statements are nonsensical.
I have a feeling that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” may have a problem or two. Let’s take a look at it:
First…A joke
Why is there something rather than nothing?”
This is actually a two-part question:
- The first part: “Why?”
------Philosophers, scientists, theologians, and the greatest thinkers throughout the whole of human existence have pondered the eternal and elusive question of “Why?”
- The second part: “Is there something rather than nothing?”
------Yes.
Now…Not a joke
(This is the part you are supposed to take seriously)
I’m offering, here, some thoughts. I hope some of you will tell me where I’m wrong, and some of you will expand upon the parts with which you agree.
I’m trying to build a case for saying that the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing,” isnot really a reasonable question at all; that it is a trick question--somehow malformed, suffering from some sort of logical fallacy or some sort of category mistake. Help me out with this, please.
Note: I’m going to set aside the problematic use of the word “why,” as opposed to “how,” because others have already mentioned that.
Instead, I’m going to focus on two other words in that question. They are: “is” and “nothing.”
Is
Philosophers must be extremely precise about the words they use. Failure to define terms always causes confusion and misunderstanding. Let’s take a look at the dictionary definitions for “is.”
- “Is” -- The third person singular present of “be.”
- “Be” --Exist, occur, or take place.
In the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing,” “is” means “exists.”
Nothing
Like many words, “nothing” can have several meanings. Here are the cut-and-pasted definitions from the online dictionary:
1.nothing;notanything;naught:(ex.: tosaynothing.)
2.nopart,share,ortrace: (ex.: Thehouseshowednothingofitsformermagnificence.)
3.somethingthatisnonexistent.
4.nonexistence; nothingness : (ex.: Thesoundfadedtonothing.)
5.somethingorsomeoneofnoimportanceorsignificance:(ex.: Moneyisnothingwhenyou'rewithouthealth.)
6.atrivialaction,matter,circumstance,thing,orremark:(ex.: toexchangeafewnothingswhenbeingintroduced.)
7.apersonoflittleornoimportance;anobody.
The definition of “nothing” that is most suited to our question is number 3: “something that is nonexistent.” Simply put, “nothing” is that which that doesn’t exist.
***
Combining “is” and “nothing”
I’m going to make the case that the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a meaningless question. I claim that it is meaningless because using the word “nothing” as predicate to the word “is” creates a category mistake that renders the question nonsensical.
Let me define “category mistake:” A “category mistake” is “the error of assigning to something a quality that can properly be assigned to things only of another category.”
An example given by Ryle, who coined the term, is that of the man who was being given a tour of a university. He was shown the classrooms, the football stadium, the library, and the dormitory. At the end of the tour he said, “This has been a wonderful tour, but where is the university you promised to show me?”
The man made a category mistake. The classrooms, stadium, library, and dormitory are discrete objects. On the other hand, the term “university” does not refer to a discrete object, but instead refers to a set of relationships among the objects. The man’s question mistakenly placed the relationship (“university”) into the same category as the objects (the buildings).
I claim that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” mistakenly places “nothing” in the same category as “something.” Specifically, the question makes the error of assigning to “nothing” a quality that it cannot have--namely the possibility of existence.
Because “is” means “exists,” and “nothing” means “that which doesn’t exist,” our question assumes that it is possible that something that doesn’t exist can, in fact, exist. Clearly, this is a contradiction.
One might properly say that there “is something,” because the word “something” specifically refers to the concept of existence. Conversely, one would be in error to say that there “is nothing,” because “nothing’ specifically refers to the concept of non-existence. One cannot properly assign the word “nothing” as predicate to the verb “is,” in the way that our question does.
Thus, the question is malformed and nonsensical. It initially appears to be a reasonable question only because words like “nothing” and “something” have everyday meanings that are in addition to the specifically ontological meanings that are employed in the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
***
So….am I right, or am I right?
~Leonard