Leonard Mlodinow - Why Is There Anything At All? (Part 2)

Why is there a world, a cosmos, something, anything instead of absolutely nothing at all? If nothing existed, there would be, well, 'nothing' to explain. To have anything existing demands some kind of explanation. 

[rodrigoesteves]

Maybe disapointing for some, but very wise and precise answer. Our strong capacity of abstraction creates interesting questions like this one, however doesn't mean it can be found or expressed in existence out of our minds.

[nietztsuki]

This was a good, honest, and well reasoned explanation about why one should not expect a physicist to answer ultimate philosophical questions. Kudos to Leonard Mlodinow.

[AntoineVideoLibrary]

This is the best and clearest answer so far.

[Nukelover]

That was very honest. Most physicists I see answering this question won't even entertain the possibility that an answer beyond a mathematical framework has any reality or value. They just say, "Your version of 'nothing' is nonsense, " or words to that effect.

[tomdallis]

“Nothing is unstable “ only when you redefine nothing as something as opposed to “not any thing”. But when we understand nothing in the context of the question asked and the meaning of the word itself then the answer given is absurd.

[Jaime-egeb]

That was mighty interesting, I learned a lot. Humble and knowledgeable.

[TheBruces]

Nothing is just that, NOTHING! It is not a space for a bubbling caldron of sub-atomic particles.

[fullyawakened]

it's amusing how many comments are here in the spirit of "He didn't even answer the question! He took 10 minutes to say I dont know".... because apprently people actually think they are going to click a YT video and get an answer to the meaning of life LOL just wow

[leomdk]

There's nothing wrong with saying "I'm a physicist, not a philosopher, so I don't know the answer to the philosophical question", but shouldn't be avoided as though it was never asked. We shouldn't try to pretend there is no question to be asked there. It is part of the complete answer to "Why is there anything at all?", which the interviewer understands. I liked his questions. I think the physicist explained the physics questions well, as far as I can tell.

[amorfati]

He does not get the question at all: Why is there ANYTHING at all?!! (That includes energy and quantum fields etc.)

[jc]

I love Leonard M because he never takes the easy way out. In this regard, he reminds me of Feynman. I am not going to say “ it is like springs and masses”. Questions that sound simple are usually very hard.

[Cousinsjay]

Excellent discussion showing exactly how far we have come to explain the burning question that has plagued mankind. The answer is, not far, which is neither good or bad it just is.

[mattsigl]

Question: “Why is there something rather than Nothing.” Answer: “There is something rather than nothing because nothing is not nothing.” Ah! (Facepalm)

[samuelhain]

If the laws of physics existed at the beginning of the universe, the universe was NOT created from nothing

[dondattaford]

We are a particle and due to our ability through entanglement we are able to produce everything we can imagine and have experienced all this for the next particles that come into existence

[rJaune]

I really like the questions that were asked. I have always wondered why physicist's nothing had so much stuff in it. I liked the answer as well.

[alijassim]

Leonard Mlodinow: "So, you are mostly nothingness yourself".
Robert Kuhn: "A lot of people tell me that".

I couldn't stop laughing.

[ianadelstein]

Booo. This is why I advocate that Philosophy of science should be required in university

[messenjah]

Spirit IS what is true. Dismissing spirit will merely keep you in this dream of time and space, and birth and death, for a while longer. Eventually, seeking outside yourself will become so dissatisfying that you’ll turn within - to Spirit - for answers. And there your journey of awakening begins.

[movietella]

At 2:39 he said we're mostly nothing. This means both nothing and something in fact do exist simultaneously, either one observable from one perspective: at human scale we see something, at subatomic scale we see nothing. Only problem is, at subatomic scale, we won't have eyes and brains to use to observe🙂