Why is there something rather than nothing? (Humans)

by dhw, Sunday, March 20, 2011, 17:15 (4996 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT suggests that an answer to Leibniz's question might be:
 
"Nothing cannot be understood without something. 
Or in other words, you cannot know the difference between nothing and something. They both describe the same thing. One cannot conceive of nothing unless there IS something..."-Well, this makes a change from "time" ... or does it? I agree that nothing cannot be understood without something, and that one cannot conceive of nothing unless there is something. For one thing, understanding and conceiving are not possible without something (someone) to do the understanding and conceiving! For another, understanding always requires a context, and so nothing would require a something to make it understandable. However, I do not agree that there is no difference between something and nothing, (i.e. that they're the same). If we take as an image a sheet of paper, it's blank if there's nothing written on it, and it's not blank if there's something written on it. The paper itself is something, and it actually enables us to understand the difference between nothing and something. -Similarly, I'd say: "Good cannot be understood without bad, and one cannot conceive of good unless there is bad." On the other hand, I would not say: "You cannot know the difference between good and bad. They both describe the same thing." -But I don't think Leibniz's famous question concerns understanding or conceiving. His theme, I believe, was 'The Ultimate Origin of Things', and the whole argument seems to me to boil down to David's First Cause. From my seat on the fence I'd say the 'Ultimate Origin of Things' remains as unknowable as it ever was, and so Leibniz's question remains unanswerable.