Why is there something rather than nothing? In fact, could there have been nothing? Finally, what does “nothing” mean?
Medium and Message
In order to get at this problem it is helpful to consider the medium we are expressing ourselves in. These marks form up letters which in turn form words and sentences. For any signification, either on paper or in thought to be possible, there has to occur a distinction between something and something else.
This insight is succinctly expressed in modern language by noting that beyond letters and marks on paper is the essential element of information; without information, no marks, no meaning and no distinctions can be made whatever. Usually we think of information as being about some entity, or about something else than the marks expressing it, but when we get right down to it, even distinguishing one mark from another provides us with information.
Let us call the information inherent in all communication primary information. For instance, the primary information in these letters are things like being able to distinguish light from dark, and edges from continuity. The perceptual system makes these distinctions to enable us to recognize the letters and words that are written down.
Primary information is primary in an essential sense; there is no way to think or conceive of anything without the primary information inherent in this conception. In common language it is easy to think of the primary information inherent in the signifier as inessential to the message being communicated, and usually this is correct. But when it comes to fundamental questions, primary information is of essential importance.
Nothing and Primary Information
In the context of understanding “nothing” I believe primary information is an unavoidable consideration. For when we use natural language we may express nothing as the absence of everything, that there are no more things left. In introductory books on the metaphysics on “nothing” we may find puzzled remarks on the status of the truth “that there is nothing” in this nothing, and wonder whether this nothing is something after all.
The issue is more fundamental than truth however, for the notion of truth is dependent on primary information while the reverse is not true. To have any information whatsoever there needs to be a distinction between A and not A, between 1 and 0. This is just what information theory starts out with. Information comes in bits, and for each bit of information, there is always the excluded possibility that exists as a shadow. We cannot gain information by flipping a coin that has no backside, we cannot gain information without excluding a possibility.
Thus, inherent in the very notion of primary information is the notion of excluded possibility. Real information thus requires real possibilities really being excluded. Make of these possibilities what you will, but to the extent that information is real, the possibilities are real, even if not actual. In this we have established a seed that can challenge current orthodoxy.
It remains to be understood why primary information is essential to characterizing nothingness. It is easier to think that the absolute exists without our having to involve primary information. Clearly primary information seems to do with our communication, our thoughts, our consciousness of the world, and not to do with the world itself.
Paralyzing though it might seem, we can’t have any notion of the world without primary information, and this becomes clear when we consider nothingness. In introductory books on the metaphysics on nothingness the topic of understanding nothingness comes up as a puzzle of no more significance than the general understanding of non-imagistic thoughts and meanings. The idea is that even if we can have no clear and distinct idea of it, we can still reason and philosophize deeply about it.
This seems to me avoiding the central issue that we are trying to think about “nothing” from the standpoint of “something,” i.e. signifying “nothingness” by “N”. In the limit, the only proper thing to say about nothing is exactly nothing, but that still leaves open how it is possible to say nothing, and here only the notion of primary information can save us if we are to remain free from obscurantist philosophy that leaves the topic in complete darkness.
For philosophy the task is always to understand, and to understand in this case means not only to leave the topic in silence, in darkness, but to understand silence and darkness itself, to speak about silence and shed light on the darkness, not fearing that this blasphemous clarity will obliterate the sacred mystery but rather that it will help enlighten us.
To understand the nothing in this case means exactly to distinguish it from something. This is true understanding, not to leave the better half in the dark and hope for the best, but to see their mutual unity. Information theory has long since understood the duality of a Bit, and it is high time we understand the duality of IT. For IT without Bit can only be shrouded in pietistic darkness.
Objections
The clear objection is that we must not confuse our medium of expression with the world. This objection echoes in the mind, and insists. Yet, let us again see clearly: Without primary information, there is no distinction between anything - without primary information, nothing is apparently the same as something. Or, if we wish to remain safe: Without primary information, there is no distinction in thought between anything. Or, if we wish to remain as safe as possible: Without primary information, we cannot distinguish between anything. I take it at least that this last point is granted axiomatically.
Granting this last point it follows that without primary information, which means excluding possibilities, we cannot distinguish nothing from something. In turn, without excluding real possibilities, we cannot really distinguish something from nothing. In the limit, without nothing being a real possibility, we cannot distinguish something as something, and without something being a real possibility, we cannot distinguish nothing as nothing.
In our everyday understanding of nothing, this point is grasped easily and without resistance: When I try to imagine nothing, I remove all the contingent actualities present in the medium. If I try to grasp a space of nothing, I remove all the possibilities that are actual in that space, until I remain with pure potential, no-thing being actualized.
Nothing short of mysticism will think that this does not generalize. For if nothing is not really, and essentially, the absence of a potential something, then it would be impossible to imagine it. This also means that it is wrong to think that we cannot imagine possibilities. On the contrary, we have a clear idea of possibilities, if we have a clear idea of anything, for having a bit of primary information is exactly to exclude real possibilities.
In sum, to deny primary information is to miss the most elementary fact, that anything actual, if it is to be understood, if we are to have any information regarding it, will have to exclude real possibilities. That excluding real possibilities is a thorny ontological issue is another matter entirely, and to give up on real intelligibility simply because the ontology looks strange or mystical is to surrender philosophy to the obscurantist pietists.
The same is true of sacrificing real intelligibility to preserve the absolute as wholly other. In the self-deprecating mode of secular, humanist skepticism, it has been common piety to leave the Gods to the Gods and not to think that Limited Human reason can grasp the absolute. Paradoxically, the drive to disinfect the absolute with Human Limitation, has caused absolute obscurantism both in Philosophy and Science at large. It has also caused an influx of nonsense into debates about the absolute because darkness breeds darkness, and when light is withdrawn out of piety, shadows will return to all.
Acceptance
Once we accept the essential nature of primary information it follows that the scientific philosophy IT from Bit not only provides a great unifying framework for physics itself, but that it helps make sense of the ancient question: Why something rather than nothing?
It does this by throwing light on the nature of nothing and something, namely, that they are both in a mutual relationship of intelligibility: We cannot think one without thinking the other. And if we are to accept that philosophy has anything to say of the absolute, it is the following: That the reason we cannot think one without the other is because, ontologically, one implies the possibility of the other.
It is hard to make this step from epistemic to ontological conclusions, but in this case the alternatives are worse. Let us see why. If we do not accept that one implies the possibility of the other then we have to accept that one can exist necessarily. For only if one exists necessarily, can the possibility of the other be rejected.
The remaining idea is thus that one can exist necessarily. If either exists necessarily, then we cannot think it as there is no possibility that it excludes. If there is no real possibility of something, nothing cannot then in reality be distinguished from it. If there is no real possibility of nothing, then something cannot in reality be distinguished from it.
In the most salient alternative, that something is necessary, we find that not only will nothing be impossible, but something would be unthinkable in a real sense (because nothing would not be a real possibility we could exclude). Worse, there would have to be some reason that something is necessary. What could such a reason be? The only reason could be a priori, that it is necessary that something is necessary. But this makes it not only unthinkable, but also leads to an infinite regress.
In sum, either we accept that something and nothing are mutual possibilities where information is the broken symmetry that reveals the bit of existence as against a really possible inexistence. Or we have to accept that something is necessary on grounds that are themselves not reasonable (grounds grounding grounds to infinity or circle), and an idea of this something without real intelligibility (with nothing to distinguish it).
In the latter option we end up dogmatic for taking a necessity on grounds that themselves are not grounded, and obscurantist for claiming that something not distinguished from anything else can be meaningful. By contrast, in the former option we remain non-dogmatic by relinquishing the requirement for ground itself, holding a rational opinion that there cannot be a reason for everything, as it leads to regress, and anti-obscurantist for claiming that only by really distinguishing something from nothing is either grasped in the light of understanding.
Non-Dualist
Let it be known that non-dualism means seeing information as a whole, i.e. seeing 0 and 1 as part of a mutual distinguishing relationship, and the understanding is the light that reveals this relationship in their unity.
As we have seen, non-dualist thinking with regard to one of the fundamental epistemological and ontological issues is rational compared to the irrational thoughts of dualist thinking, that divides the world in two and cannot find its way back home, sacrificing both understanding and rationality for the deceptive solidity of the actual, that it takes on blind faith.
With non-dualist thinking, the thing in itself is no longer something to be taken on blind faith: The absolute is now understood in its essential nature - the absolute possibility of change. Each of us can feel existence, but this very feeling excludes the very real possibility of non-existence, which is inherent in all change, the very nature of time itself.
Thus consciousness, because it is part of existence, is also in mutual opposition to non-existence, and the very information we gain through experience, excludes possibilities that were not actualized, including death (nonexistence) itself. This absolute feeling is the absolute itself, having no reason but being free to do anything.
This is also the heart of mystical insight, which is not obscurantist but illumination, to identify ourselves with groundlessness and not to insist that being is this or that lest we hold on to what no longer exists or long for what does not yet exist. For the absolute is absolutely free, and is not bound by anything or any necessity, and only by understanding ourselves as that, bound to nothing, will we see everything in the truth.
Addendum
Nothing remains constant, and yet: Nothing remains constant. This is the essence of Time and the absolute: Everything can change. The eternal flame is the ancient understanding of this truth, and through time dogmas have insulated themselves from the flame in various ways, trying to hold on to some secure establishment and necessity.
The fundamental issues have been divided and divided again and again with sharper and sharper tools, and yet lacking in the essential attribute of understanding, which then divides into object and subject, something and nothing, without any possible hope of reuniting them.
The hope of solving a problem on the level of mind that created it is pure folly, as trying to cut a knife with itself again and again finding that it is not sharp enough when the truth is that even the belief that it can cut itself is irrational, and the unwillingness to face it obscurantist ignorance.
With IT from Bit ontology and non-dual thinking we finally have a means of addressing the most pressing issues, including the nature and origins of reality, the nature and origins of representation, and the origins and nature of consciousness. In this article I have focused mostly on the nature and origins of reality, by means of the origins and nature of representation.
In a future article I will explain in more detail the origins and nature of consciousness. As it turns out, these so-called mystical insights give us the most clear grasp on issues that have previously eluded us, mocked our finitude, and made the best of us into pietists.
Concluding Remarks
If you made it this far, I really hope you enjoyed this essay! I have had these thoughts for a while but I have never had any incentive to write them out. Hopefully some of you will read it and at least be inspired to find your own way in thinking about these in fundamental issues.