Hacker News Reader

Physics can't really answer "why" questions. Physics can tell you how the universe behaves starting from some initial condition, but can't tell you "why" that initial condition is what it is, or "why" that initial condition evolves according to these laws.

This particular question also seems most nonsensical to me - nothing can be said about a "universe" where nothing exists, so why even discuss it?

View on HN

nothing can be said about a "universe" where nothing exists, so why even discuss it?

Why are there stars in the sky?

Nothing could be said about stars in the sky if there were no stars in the sky, so why even discuss it?

etc ad infinitum

Asking why there is X instead of Y, where both X and Y are things, is valid. Even asking why there is/isn't more X ("why are there no stars closer to the Sun?") is valid. We could still conceivably be having this conversation even in a universe with many more stars, or much fewer.

But the phrase "something exists" is tautologically true, while the phrase "nothing exists" is a logical contradiction (since the phrase itself and the speaker and the listener must exist). So it's logically impossible for the whole universe not to exist, as long as we can have this conversation or even thought. It's like discussing why 1+1=2 and not 0.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com