One of my university professors said once in a class: The world could have not existed, and the chances of it not existing were infinitely greater than the chances of it existing. — Amalac

Physicists at CERN in Switzerland have made the most precise measurement ever of the magnetic moment of an anti-proton – a number that measures how a particle reacts to magnetic force – and found it to be exactly the same as that of the proton but with opposite sign. The work is described in Nature.

“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” says Christian Smorra, a physicist at CERN’s Baryon–Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment (BASE) collaboration. “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is.”

Universe shouldn’t exist, say CERN physicists.

I'd be interested in how you find it supports you (if this is the correct term) in life. — Tom Storm

Talking about that here would really be shanghaiing the thread. I'm skeptical that a thread just about the Tao Te Ching would be of interest to enough people last very long. I'll try and see if it goes anywhere.

Cool

I don't agree with the idea that nothing exists is non-sensical or meaningless for the following reason.
If we're to ever give a satisfying answer (satisfying, at least in my opinion) to the question, we have to accept the idea that there might have been nothing and then figure out how there can be something now. — Roger

So, we must presume that the question makes sense, because otherwise we couldn't find a satisfactory answer to the question. Well, yeah. One can't find a satisfying answer to a nonsensical question. But what would be more satisfying? Massaging the terms until the question becomes trivial? For example, let's just say that "nothing" is the same as "everything" - Boom! Done! Is this really a satisfying exercise? Even if you stretch it over two paragraphs?

Yes. I've made your argument many times. Usually I am ineffective in getting the point across. It comes up a lot in discussions about the multiverse. — T Clark

It's a bad argument, because it blithely presumes probabilities in the absence of any context. It's cargo cult math.

By the way your professor was being vague and imprecise when (s)he spoke of "infinitely more likely." I don't know what that means and neither did they. That's why I like the example of a trillion coins. That's an experiment that's physically realizable. We don't need to appeal to infinity to see the essential mystery. Any particular sequence of coins is extremely unlikely, but some outcome must occur. — fishfry

Like I said in my OP, I think the reason he, like Martin Gardner, says that is beacuse of an argument like this:

Their opponents, however, could retort that their intuition is that the «scenario» of the universe not having existed is «simpler» than the «scenario» of the universe having existed, and therefore more likely. From this, they could then say that it is always more likely for anything to not exist, rather than for it to exist, and that this is also true for the whole universe. This seems to also be the position of Martin Gardner in «The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener» where he talks about the ontological argument, he says: «There is nothing that exists, Hume said, including the entire cosmos, whose non-existence entails a logical contradiction. The idea that everything would be simpler if nothing existed may leave us in deep anguish, but there is nothing inconsistent about it.» — Amalac

In a response to another comment I gave an example: A universe that was just like the actual one, but where a rock didn't exist would be simpler than the actual universe, and therefore more likely to exist than the actual universe. And a universe where both a rock and the sun didn't exist was even more likely, since it's even simpler. And so, if we continue like that, we could say that the simplest and therefore most likely (infinitely more likely) scenario was that nothing existed at all.

Unless we are to say that it does not follow that something is more probable just because it's simpler, or we deny that it is simpler.

Like I said in my OP, I think the reason he, like Martin Gardner, says that is beacuse of an argument like this: — Amalac

I don't think your post addressed what I said. A universe without a particular rock is a little bit simpler than the one with it. But it's not "infinitely" simpler. It's the vague and meaningless use of "infinitely" that I'm objecting to.

It seems you didn't read the whole thing:

And so, if we continue like that, we could say that the simplest and therefore most likely (infinitely more likely) scenario was that nothing existed at all. — Amalac

They would not argue that a universe without a rock or without the sun or the milky way is infinitely simpler, they would argue: the less things there are in it, the simpler the scenario is. And it reaches its simplest state when there is absolutely nothing in it, where infinitely many things don't exist (or at least where a huge amount of things don't exist).

They would not argue that a universe without a rock or without the sun or the milky way is infinitely simpler, they would argue: the less things there are in it, the simpler the scenario is. And it reaches its simplest state when there is absolutely nothing in it, where infinitely many things don't exist (or at least where a huge amount of things don't exist). — Amalac

The phrase "infinitely more likely" is incoherent. It's meaningless. And worse, it obfuscates thought. It's a phrase that literally short-circuits precise thinking. It's wrong at every level.

Why do you think its incoherent and meaningless?

You say it's wrong at every level, so perhaps you could mention why it's wrong at a few levels at least. Since as you can see, for some people the argument I mentioned appears perfectly natural.

Why do you think its incoherent and meaningless? — Amalac

What does it mean? Infinity has particular technical meanings in math. If you're using it as a synonym for "lots and lots" or "really really big but still finite," you're making an error that leads to weak and confused thinking.

I am not the one using those terms, but rather my university professor.

But you are right in that it probably doesn't make sense when taken literally.

Perhaps he was trying to say: It was far more likely for the universe not to have existed, since such a scenario is far simpler than the scenario in which the actual world exists, for the reasons given before.

What would be your response to that then?

I am not the one using those terms, but rather my university professor. — Amalac

I understand that, and I'm objecting to the usage.

But you are right in that it probably doesn't make sense when taken literally. — Amalac

Then we're in agreement. And the reason I mention it is that it's all too common for people to use "infinite" as a substitute for "really really big, but finite." And it's confusing and wrong to do that. Physicists do it a lot, even big-name professional physicists. I saw Leonard Susskind being interviewed once about the multiverse, and he was asked whether there are infinitely many universes. He answered, "There are 10 to the 500 types of universes". But that's a perfectly finite number. And I read one of his papers on infinity once and he made the same error, confusing a large finite number with infinity. And he's a big name in physics.

Perhaps he was trying to say: It was far more likely for the universe not to have existed, since such a scenario is far simpler than the scenario in which the actual world exists, for the reasons given before.

What would be your response to that then? — Amalac

That this is exactly how he should have phrased it!

I forgot to get back to you on this. I read your essay. I enjoyed it. You and I definitely see the world differently. But then, that's no surprise. — T Clark

It is great when someone sets an example as to how feedback can be given with respect even if we are in disagreement. Thank you, and in indeed, we disagree!

It is great when someone sets an example as to how feedback can be given with respect even if we are in disagreement. Thank you, and in indeed, we disagree! — Gus Lamarch

I appreciate your comment. I try to be a good citizen of the forum. Often I fail, but I keep trying.

Wayfarer, your professor did not consider why there is something rather than nothing. If he had reformulated it as follows: either nothing existed or something existed. Since nothing does not exist, something must have existed which created the universe. Therefore, something always existed. Actually, it was a no-thing---immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual.