I just read Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story by Jim Holt. Its wonderful; will make you think, and enjoy your thinking. Almost anyone whos bothered to visit this humble blog more than a couple of times would enjoy it, I think.
Ill provide a few words of review (just cheerleading, basically) and then dip into a little metaphysics myself; but Ill warn you so you can stop reading before I go there.
The Question and the Method
The Question is Why is there anything? obviously the center of metaphysics. Because, well, maybe there neednt have been. Scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers prefer simpler explanations and shorter stories; and what could be simpler than the null universe? No dimensions of space nor time, no quantum vacuum, no planets, no J.S. Bach, no reality TV.
Many have wrestled with this problem, and many, over the centuries, have joined it to another: the existence (or not) of God. However, nobody Ive read (and I actually like metaphysics) has addressed it with Holts clarity, good humor, and open mind.
The method is, Holt lays out background and introduces the leading schools of thought, then travels around to visit and converse with their leading living exponents. Theyre all interesting people, it seems; youll be glad to have met them even indirectly.
The nooks and crannies between voyages, and between theories, are filled with personal anecdote, sometimes helpful in casting light the existential shooting gallery, almost always featuring good wine in interesting places. We also visit a canine medical crisis and his mothers deathbed.
What He Thinks
He likes Leibniz and Spinoza and Derek Parfit, of whom I hadnt previously heard, but now I want to read. He loathes Hegel and Sartre, as any reasonable person must.
Hes actually pretty convinced that his own elaboration on Parfits notion of Selectors is sound, and might even amount to a proof of why something-rather-than-nothing is necessary.
Its a good book! Read it!
Me on Miracles
I threatened you with metaphysics, and heres where they start. But this is the Philosophy-Lite section, so bear with me for two paragraphs.
Whats a miracle ? Simple: Its something we observe which neither science or logical deduction can explain.
Unless you believe that one of the theories Holt describes really proves nullity is impossible, well then, the Universe itself, and all the things in it, are a great big miracle. Because science may explain how it all works, but has no consensus about why its all here; as opposed to not. Hey, a miracle that an atheist has to acknowledge is A Good Thing, I think we can all agree.
Metaphysical Bullets
Warning: This section mentions Kant and Tantra and multiverses. But since were private-sector geeks, I bullet-list the philosophy for you.
Liebnizs argument for the Uncaused Cause has always resonated with me. We observe that everything we observe has a cause and an explanation. Why should the universe as a whole be any difference? So whats its cause? Back when we believed in an infinite this, past was less worrying; but we dont any more.
Doesnt make me feel Theist in the slightest, but its still attractive.
Robert Nozicks principle of fecundity is also remarkably appealing. It fits in a phrase, aligns neatly with the Multiverse notion, and sweeps away the worry around the Anthropic principle.
I have a Math degree; Im pretty sure that the (large proportion of) mathematicians who, like me, believe math is discovered not invented, also believe that even if the Universe were null, Modus ponens would be a reality, and that numbers would still exist even if no mind existed to consider or inscribe them.
(Geek sidebar: When I was a programmer working on the Maple algebra system, I was astounded to discover that when comparing any two things whatsoever for equality, the program would evaluate-and-simplify both sides as much as possible, and then simply see if the same object came out of the process. Because, you see, theres really only one number 2 in a computer-algebra system; or in the Universe. But there for damn sure is that one.)
Someone like sure whos pretty sure that math exists independent of the universe gets interested in problems like Kants notion of the synthetic a priori , something that is true, but not mechanically derivable using processes of pure logic. He claimed that 7 + 5 = 12 was an example, but thats because he didnt understand formal mathematics.
Ive always thought that Induction was the synthetic a priori: the (admittedly circular) notion that since the behavior of the Universe as we observe it is consistent, we should feel safe in assuming that it will continue to be. All of Science and Engineering is based on this premise, but theres nothing in the math that suggests it should be so.
Maybe I should write a book about this, but it probably wouldnt be as much fun as Holts.
Of course, a synthetic a priori is much more satisfying than mechanical formal logical deduction, but it still doesnt get you length or duration or mass or charge or any of the other things of which were built.
If, like me, youre inclined to see the Universe as a miracle, but find the notion of a personalized deity ridiculous, you might want to investigate Tantric spirituality. Its sort of messy and all over the place, but is inclined to embrace the world, perhaps even worship it. Worship, thanksgiving, and humility seem obviously good things.
You can ignore all the stuff about how the miraculous nature of reality is necessarily of Divine origin. Because one miracle is all you need, if its big enough.