24
votes
In your opinion, why is there something instead of nothing?
Pretty self-explanatory. Why are there things? If things be because of them other things then why them other things be then?
Pretty self-explanatory. Why are there things? If things be because of them other things then why them other things be then?
I don't know.
This gets harder when you have kids. My son asked me where we go when we die... I told him back to where you were before you were born. That's the best that I got.
Such an interesting question.
My goal is to give my kid a framework with which he can figure out the answers himself.
I frankly told him that nobody knows for sure, but that people have lots of ideas.
I explained to him the alternate ideas on why we exist (big bang/evolution, religion etc.) and asked him what he thought.
I tried to explain that no one really knows what might have caused the big bang or how the creator came to be, but again, there are many ideas (multi-verses, always existed.)
I also told him no one knows what happens when we die, but again people have many ideas (heaven, reincarnation, nothing.)
Then I asked him if he remembered anything before he was born, and when he said he didn't, I said I thought death would probably be like that, but again, we dont know for sure.
Right now, he seems to think death is like sleeping, which is a beautiful thought. I hope I didn't ruin it for him when I said I didn't think we would dream during death.
"Nothing" doesn't exist in reality. It's a human concept. The fact that "nothing" is the simplest thing for us to describe says more about our way of describing things than anything fundamental about the universe.
Interesting. How else could we describe "nothing" then, according to you?
I think the whole idea of "description" is fundamentally flawed. Language lets us share a rough understanding of the world, but when we push it too far, there's a tendency toward either triviality (meanings depend on definitions, so choosing the definitions determines meaning) or paradoxical self-reference (meanings depend on other meanings, which ultimately end up depending on each other).
In normal, day-to-day usage, the word "nothing" is self-descriptive—"What do you want tattooed on your forehead?" "Nothing." So the question is, why do you want to describe it any further? What "language-game" are we playing, and what's the goal?
Well, you said that "the fact that "nothing" is the simplest thing for us to describe says more about our way of describing things than anything fundamental about the universe." So, I interpreted you thought there were more ways than the way we describe "nothing" now. And I was interested in to find out more descriptions of "nothing" Because a description is a way of looking to a object. A perspective. And the more perspectives you can use, the more you can see. That was my goal, that is why I wanted to describe it further.
I mostly agree with your first pharagraph, so I have not much to say about that.
Ah, alright. Here's a perspective: one way to formalize this kind of description is in terms of mathematical logic. The "empty theory" is the simplest formal theory, which has no rules about how any of the objects relate to one another.
The smallest model of this empty theory is nothingness. But the largest model of this same empty theory is "everythingness", where every object exists and is related to every other object in every possible way. So then the question becomes, not just "why not nothingness", but also "why not everythingness", and what's the difference?
But maybe my original point wasn't clear—I don't think there's necessarily a better way to describe "nothing". My point was that maybe there's a better way of understanding the world in general that doesn't involve concepts like "nothing". I have no idea what this way might look like, though!
Well, maybe "everythingness" does exist? I mean, every object in the universe that is there does exist. And we all relate to each other. I relate to you now, by talking and typing, by sharing ideas. The sun relates to our earth, our earth relates to other planets. Our own galaxy relates to other galaxies by gravity as I understand it, and so on. So each object in a galaxy relates in a certain way to other objects in other galaxies.
Or maybe I am wrong, and "everythingness" is like the universe so fully crammed that there is no space to live? (Maybe that is also an answer why there is no "everythingness") (Hmm, second thought: maybe the "everythingness" was the cause of this universe? The singularity before time and space? I don't know)
I also have no idea. Maybe "nothing" is impossible as how we think it is. Thanks for your answer!
Everything is a human concept.
According to our current scientific understanding, the universe and everything that exists had a beginning about 14 billion years ago. How would you describe what existed or didn't exist before that time? If it wasn't "nothing", then what was it?
You cannot. Time began at the Big Bang.
To evaluate events "before" that moment you would have to be a being that transcends our Universe, and can witness its origin from outside our space-time (i.e. before would make sense in such a being's time, but not ours).
But you're assuming the existence of something, even when the universe didn't exist: "a being that transcends our Universe" is not nothing. That's something. That either negates the OP's question entirely by implying that there was never a "nothing" which spontaneously produced something, or it pushes the question up a level by requiring us to explain how this transcendent being arose.
"a being that transcends our Universe" is simply a way to illustrate my point. I am not assuming its existence, I simply state that if you want to use before in the context of the Big Bang, it could only make sense for an observer "external" to our Universe - because from inside, that's where time begins.
I'm not even saying there was "nothing" before the Big Bang; there simply is no before.
Fine. I'm not going to argue that semantic point because it's not really relevant. Whether there was time or not, there was a without: there was a non-existence without a universe present. And the universe appeared, creating time and space. If the universe has a beginning, it has not existed forever. What existed when the universe did not? If it was nothing, that leads us back to the OP's question: how did nothing produce something?
I wasn't answering OP's question, but yours:
I contend there is no answer to that. It's like asking what is the color of darkness - the concept simply doesn't apply.
To my understanding, the Big Bang is a hard limit to existence, just like c is to motion. Beyond those you only have God and Startrek, respectively.
OP's question is different, "why does anything exist?". To that I have no answer, I suppose nobody has.
Sure, we can use the word "nothing" to describe that situation if you want. But in that case, there's no problem—"nothing" is scientifically proven to become "something" very quickly and violently! The problem is how we associate our intuitive understanding of "nothing" (a lack of anything) to this very alien situation at the beginning of the universe (which seems to have had a little more going on than that).
Okay. That does negate your previous answer, though, that "nothing" is a human concept.
Only in the context of that "nothing" existing in a universe that itself exists. I think that we might need different words for the vacuum which spontaneously and randomly produces virtual particles within a universe, and the non-existence that was around when there was no universe. Without a universe present, does nothing spontaneously become something?
Looks like you gave an answer to the question I just asked to you.
So "nothing" is a vacuum spontaneously and randomly producing virtual particles. (What do you mean with "virtual partices?) I would say that even those particles exist, are something. Unless we define "something" as a universe in which the particles are more than the sum of their parts.
Looks like we constantly stumble on the impossibility to define nothing, that alien idea of non-existence. I think that stumble is a hint that nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot be nothing.
I fear "nothing" is outside the realm of definitions, maybe because definitions are in the realm of existence?
Sorry if I am rambling.
Yes. However, I don't assume that an in-universe vacuum is the same as an out-of-universe whatever. I believe that those two things are different. Unfortunately, a lot of people use the same word - "nothing" - to describe these two different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Time is as much an internal property of the Universe as space is. There is no before. Asking what was before is akin to asking where it's located.
"nothing" does exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/holes/
a hole consists of nothing itself, but the concept was understood in all cultures. It's fun.
Because if there wasn't, you wouldn't be able to ask the question. All of this is so that you could hit submit.
Also known as the anthropic principle. Probably the best answer to this question we're capable of at the moment (maybe ever), even if it isn't really much of an answer.
But there was, so I did. Why was?
The universe may be as great as they say. But it wouldn't be missed if it didn't exist. - Piet Hein
This is one of those questions that if i think about it for too long, or if I am not careful, I start freaking out.
I think that we are not yet capable of perceiving the true nature of reality, and are therefore woefully incapable of coming anywhere close to a likely accurate explanation or model of the origins of existence. Maybe after we've explored beyond our own galaxy a bit (or at least beyond our little spit of sand in this tiny backwater solar system), we'll be better equipped.
But if I really had to guess, knowing that any guess I make is going to serve more as a stand-in than anything likely reflecting actual reality, the easiest and perhaps most comforting thought is that a superpowered sentience did it in order to experience itself through relativity. Causality would not be universal in this scheme, so the existence of the being does not have to precede it creating itself and everything else.
fam
To something or not to something. Whether 'tis nobler to something something...
I propose that in the beginning, there was ~Tildes. And the ~Tildes was with Us, and the ~Tildes was Us.
So you could say that in ~Tildes there began Something, and the Nothing comprehended it not...
We don't know. It's as simple as that.
There are no things, there is just existence itself which takes all kinds of interesting shapes. Think about it: how is the keyboard in front of you separate from the rest of the universe? How are "you" separate from it?
I am seperate from it, because I exist of the same building materials in a different manner. I am not made by humans (in the functional sense, I mean, I am definitely made by humans in the biological sense) and you cannot type on me.
Are these differences enough to speak of a seperation between the keyboard and me?
(nice username by the way, appropriate for this subject)
Those are only concepts. Neither you nor the keyboard can exist separate from the rest of the universe, so neither is separate from the universe. All those differences are only thoughts, which are also inseparable from the universe. Nothing can exist of its own volition, no matter how it was "made", except for existence itself. And nothing is ever made or destroyed, there is only being that takes various shapes, constantly transforming from one to another. (Part of ) "you" may very well have been a keyboard before or may become one in the future.
Thanks! I'm glad I was early and could get that name! :)
A wizard did it, and that wizard is God.
Or Satan.
You already nailed it on the head. It was clearly Gandalf.
Who said there is something instead of nothing? Space is an entire vacuum of nearly nothing; as it infinitely expands in size and scope, eventually it will become so large and so dark that matter will no longer be able to interact with itself. We will eventually have a universe of a few particles of something (matter) in vast seas of nothing (relatively speaking). At that point, when matter can no longer interact with itself, can you really say there is something, when you have no way of knowing it exists or interacting with anything else?
If you're asking why matter exists to begin with, then it's pointless to speculate in a philosophical context. That matter exists is one of the fundamental properties of the universe, and you can't philosophically speculate why it exists any more then you can speculate why 1 + 1 = 2. There's no reason why it is or isn't, it just is.
Well, I see what you mean. But right here and now, we are alive, we exist, we are something. Unless you argue we don't really exist, like we are a dream of a supernatural being (though, that being then exists), there is here and now something.
And even matter that does not interact is there, so there is something, in its most fundamental form.
Maybe you are right in that it is pointless to speculate on the origin of matter, but it is often out of unanswerable questions that we find answers, not to the question we were asking, but to other questions we maybe never thought to ask.
1+1= 2 It is self-evident, but the logicians Russel and Whitehead did prove in an enormous book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica) that 1+1 is indeed 2.
Not necessarily. Are you familiar with Schrödinger's cat? Basically, it shows that if you can't make an observation on something, from your perspective, you can't know if it's in one state or another. Imagine a watch falling into a black hole for example; once the watch has passed the event horizon, it is impossible for light to escape from it, and therefore, for you as an observer, to see what happens to it. You would only see it stop mid-fall, and then slowly fade away. So what happens to the watch? Is it still intact, or ripped apart by the black hole's gravity (i.e no longer exists)? It's impossible for you to ever find out or interact with it to see what happens. Therefore, from your perspective, you can't say for sure if the watch exists or not. This same situation will eventually apply to anything in a far enough future; if you are the only matter in your location, and you'll never be able to see or interact with other matter because the fabric of space is expanding faster then light can travel, you'll never be able to conclude or tell whether you are the only remaining matter or not. So if you're asking whether you can tell if anything other then you exists, then the answer is, eventually, no.
If you're talking about why anything exists at all, which I think is more what you mean, then again, it's simply fundamental fact it is. In the logical proof of 1+1=2 for example, you can go to any part of that proof, and ask, "why is this the way it is?", and you'll get another proof, and then you do so for that, and eventually you'll reach a point where you're asking yourself something like "why does True = True"? And there's no reason why or explanation for it; it's simply an assumption you have to make.
However, you do exist: "cogito, ergo sum", and all that. And the you that wonders whether anything else exists is made of matter. Therefore, matter does exist.
So... why? Why is matter? Why does matter exist?
Ah, I see what you mean. I think I muddled up my answer a little bit by confusing if you can tell something exists, and why it does so. My answer for why matter exists is, it's a pointless question philosophically, because there's no way to ever tell. It's the same thing as wondering what exactly happens to something once it's inside of a black hole; does it get teleported elsewhere? Does it cease to exist? Is it converted directly into Hawking radiation, or is that a side effect of something else? Seeing as it's impossible for light, or any other source of information, to escape from a black hole, from our perspective, there is no way to tell what goes on inside a black hole, so you can't make any meaningful guesses or conclusions about what goes on inside. All you can reasonably guess, based on our model of physics, is that it did indeed go in.
True, if the watch disappears, I never can know if it does exist or not. However, if the watch exists, it knows that it exists, in the sense of that the atoms that it is made of, are still there, bond to each other.
But I think I can tell if anything other than me exist. When I look in the eyes of my dog looking to me, I see myself there, but I see also somebody else there, looking out of those eye. Another intelligence than me sees me. You could maybe say that another way of knowing that you exist is that others see you and react to you. I am not found of Descartes' attempt to ultimately define existence only in terms of the own self. It feels too limiting to me.
I am no expert on philosophy, so I apologize if I say something blatant wrong.
About being possibly the only matter in universe: I could maybe know in a certain sense that the universe, the space in which I exist, also exists? So I know there is something else than me that exist?
There was nothing, nothing, without end, but the nothing got bored of itself, and splitted itself in energy, matter and anti-matter.
It is this, the desperate wish to experience and to be experienced, that created the something out of nothing.
How does nothing have agency? How can nothing experience boredom? How can nothing split itself? How can nothing do things?
Does a stone that balances on the edge of a mountain and then rolls off, and generates energy in its fall have agency?
But, my answer was more a tongue-in-cheek metaphor for my belief that through a inherent tendency something always develops out of nothing. The wish of existence to exist, is so strong it overcomes and comes out of nothing.
There's a difference between a rock which falls, and your version of nothing which gets bored, which splits itself, and your version of existence which wishes itself into being. You're assigning motives to things that can not possibly have motives. How did nothing get bored? How did the first particle of matter wish itself into existence before the ability for existence to think (brains) could possibly have arisen?
You are taking a metaphor literally. A metaphor can assign motives to things that (maybe) cannot have motives.
I don't know enough of the universe to answer such a question literally. (Does anyone?) And tales or metaphors are useful tools for questions like that.
For me, to give an example, the wish of the first particle of matter to wish itself into existence before thinking (by the way, we cannot be sure if having a brain is necessary to be able to think. Brain is in itself, as far as I know, just matter with electricity) is a metaphor for my belief that there is a law or something, a, I repeat, a natural tendency for something to rise out of nothing.
I think I cannot be more literal than that. I admit it is not a satisfying answer.
Thank you.
I believe not.
Does not mean a literal answer is the only answer we need to have to this question, though. It is such a huge question. (or small, depends on how you look to it)
Do you believe that there is a "law" that something has to exist out of nothing or not? If not, are you saying there are "nothings" out there then in a weird multi-verse way?
Nope.
Nope.
I'm saying: "We don't know. Simple as that." I'm comfortable with our current ignorance. I believe that, some time in the future, our descendants will learn how our universe came to exist, but we will not probably know this within the lifetime of anyone living today.
Those two "nopes" seem contradictory, though. if there is no law that something has to exist out of nothing, then "nothings" are possible.
But I agree with you, we are currently too ignorant to find an answer to that. "There is as yet unsufficient data for a meaningful answer"
They're not. You're assuming that my saying "no" means I'm taking a stance. I'm refraining from taking a stance: I don't believe there's a law that something has to exist, and I'm not saying there are "nothing" out there. I don't know, so I have no belief and I'm not saying anything.
Ah, I understand now. Thank you.
Imagine universes as planets, instead. On Earth, we ask - "Why is there life on Earth?". On Mars, there's nobody there to ask.
And, sure, there's a mechanistic answer as to how exactly life on earth came to be - but that's all. There's no greater reason, no intelligent cause.
At best we might eventually learn some general rules - life exists because the right circumstances arose for a self-propagating process to start, and those, by their very nature, will continue whenever possible.
But there is no satisfying answer to the question as to why the right circumstances arose on Earth, of all places. And I think there is likewise no satisfying answer to your question.
Relevant SMBC
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-07-08
There are things because we perceive them. Are they real? Does that matter? We perceive them so they are real.
No. Fucking. Clue.
This is one of those things where it's so far out of our capability to understand that I'm pretty comfortable going "iunno" and moving on. It seems silly to even grasp at.
Why is there stuff? Idk. Why does there have to be a why? Causality itself would need a why too, if we accepted that stuff needs a cuz.
Wow man. Can i have some of whatever you've been smoking? Seems like good shit
A related question is this: Even if no matter or energy existed, would mathematical objects like the Mandelbrot Set still exist? I say the answer to this question is yes, which would mean it's impossible for nothing to exist because at the very least there are mathematical objects that can and do exist independent of any matter or energy.
I disagree with that. Mathematics is really just a series of assumptions and logical reasoning done by humans. Let's take the square root of -1 as an example. It was once commonly accepted by people that such a thing could not logically exist, because it violated a basic definition of multiplication (that two negatives multiplied together give you a negative in return). Nowadays, i is commonly used in many contexts, and is accepted as a valid mathematical concept. So which of these is true? Is i valid and part of mathematics, or is it not? And the answer is, neither is absolutely true; it's whatever set of assumptions you make and choose to accept as true. Therefore, "math" as a single and independent entity, doesn't exist; you're just choosing some basic and fundamental properties, and then extrapolating from there. If we accept that it's impossible for an integer to go over 1000, then we would have an answer for the Collatz conjecture, infinity would no longer exist, there would be a fixed amount of prime numbers, etc. So you can see, these mathematical concepts and entities aren't immutable at all; change the assumptions, and you change the outcome.
Do you mean a positive in return? Because if two negatives mutipled results in a negative, is then not the square root of -1 perfectly possible?
I don't think it is matter of accepting whether it is possible or impossible for an integer to go over 1000. I could, with difficulty, but I could, gather 1001 coconuts. So we need an number that goes beyond 1000 to account for that. Seems immutable to me.
Ah yeah, sorry, positive. Two negative numbers always gives you a positive answer, we normally accept that it can't give you a negative one, so by definition, a square root for -1 (or any negative number for that matter) should be impossible to make.
Ah, but this is a universe with nothing in it, remember? There are no coconuts. You can speculate about gathering them, but then this would break one of the fundamental assumptions of your universe; that there are no coconuts in it. However, even if you did have 1001 coconuts in your universe, math is not tied to or dependent on the physical world. You could say you have 1000 + 1 coconuts, or you could accept that you can't describe the number of coconuts, that you can't use your model in this situation. But notice the amount of could's we're using; this is all possibilities. And by definition, something that can exist, by definition, doesn't exist yet, or else it wouldn't be "could", it would be "is". If nobody is around to decide whether integers end at 1000 or not, then by definition, those integers are undefined, and don't exist, because the assumption that makes them true doesn't exist yet either. So if nobody is around to put those 1001 coconuts in your universe, then by definition, they don't exist yet, because nobody has done so. At the core of it, I suppose mathematics is really just speculation. And speculation can't exist without something to do the speculating.
What makes something a mathematical object? Is the "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" a mathematical object? What about "the set whose size is strictly between the integers and the real numbers"? Which axioms does a mathematical object need to be consistent with in order to exist? If different axiom systems lead to different things becoming real mathematical objects, who chose the axiom system that corresponds to our reality?
Because the universe was created by something or someone. This particularly shocking, do you not do the same thing every time you dream or pen a story?
Starting from physics, the biggest reasoning I can come up with is that there was a fundamental inequity in the universe following the Big Bang. What we call antimatter exists in less quantity than what we call matter. This is to say nothing of the unintuitive nature of matter itself. It is not a solid object, so much as a self-perpetuated collection of waves in quantum fields.
Anytime you ask the question why, you are either asking in terms of causality or in terms of significance. If you ask why I decided to get an account on Tildes, I could tell you about it in terms of significance and causality. But when we get into things like physics and the existence of existence itself, there is no accessible meaning-maker to assign significance to anything that exists. Note that I say accessible. If there is some sort of higher consciousness or whatnot that is in control of the fate of the universe, or otherwise responsible for the existence of things, we cannot access them sufficiently to ask or gain answers.
However, we can work our way back causally, which is what we have been doing for the last few centuries, and it is these efforts which have led to our recognition that, in terms of a material universe, there are two major factors involved.
the Big Bang happened. Without that happening, we have no way to determine the possibility of anything existing.
in this universe that started with the Big Bang, there is a fundamental asymmetry to the quantity of matter and antimatter, for which we have not yet found an explanation. Without that asymmetry, it is widely accepted that all the matter and antimatter in the universe would have run into each other and been annihilated almost immediately. We do not know how this asymmetry came to be, where the antimatter went if it went anywhere, or indeed, whether there is any fundamental aspect of the physics of the universe that led to the asymmetry and would do so again if the Big Bang were repeated. That is the next causal step back, and there are people actively trying to figure out how to experimentally test various hypotheses regarding that next causal step.
It's more fun this way.
This can be pretty thoroughly explained with the combination of multi-verse theory and the anthropic principle.
It turns out, the particular (very, very particular) ways matter and antimatter exist and interact are so perfect as to create complex molecules that the odds of this universe existing in this way are squillions (a very large number) to 1. Mind-bogglingly low odds, that some attributed to 'god'.
However, there is a theory that for every potential value of these numbers (things like the mass of a particular piece of matter, the balance between matter and anti-matter at the start of the universe, etc) there is a universe where matter exhibits those properties. Squillions of them. And the reason we exist in this universe with these precise values.........is precisely because we couldn't exist anywhere else.
Okay, but why is there any universes to being with? Why is there matter and anti-matter? This is making my brain twitch.
Imagine there is the idea of a plant. That plant exists based on a series of rules, which define how the different parts of it interact over time. If your imagination is good enough, aka powerful enough, you can imagine that plant going through each of its life stages according to those rules which define how it exists and how it interacts within itself.
Now imagine instead of a plant, you imagine a brain. That brain is fed certain inputs through its 'nervous system' over time - again, only in your imagination. That brain responds to that input, and sends outputs which, again, you imagine, based on the rules of interaction which you defined when you began imagining the brain. You interpret the outputs, which you know based on the rules control the brain's mouth and throat. You imagine what sorts of sounds such outputs would make, and are amazed to discover that your imagined brain has said 'what am I?'.
What are you?
Well, okay. But all you've done is rephrase his question in a much more convoluted way. There's nothing you added.
Here's my problem with the Many Worlds theory et all. There's no evidence of them and they're completely untestable. It starts from the same assumptions as creationists, but the opposite side. Creationism says 'The universe had a beginning we can't understand, so I choose to believe in a supernatural intelligence that started it.' Materialism says, 'The universe had a beginning we can't understand, so I choose to believe in something extra-universial but inanimate.' (And before someone says something about extrapolating a materialistic viewpoint from things we know inside our universe, we have no data with which to do that.)
The idea that the origin of the universe should be testable inside that same universe is a little nuts though.
To me, it makes absolutely no sense that anything is or even has the possibility to be or not to be.
The obvious problem is that we know something exists.
So something must exist, but what is the something? The nature of reality must be, I think, the simplest thing that can exist; some single truth everything can be extrapolated from. And the single truth must be the only possible truth and completely inevitable. This implies the existence of some kind of logical or mathematical framework, which then again raises the question of where it comes from. But clearly it is anyway.
Mathematics is the only thing that exists, and it defines how the complex multi-dimensional, zero-net sum, piece of art known as the universe must look like.
The section of stream running under a small bridge in my neighborhood.
Are you a fan of Sam Harris? He is obsessed with thinking about this subject. His podcast "Waking Up" is quite good.
I think it's rather simple, really. For there to be nothing there must be a something. Otherwise there's no nothing to notice at all.
Here's Heidegger the perception of nothing (or not) by sentient life:
Existence means stableness. You can't name chaos.
Isn't chaos the name for chaos?
"chaos" is a general and umbrella term. If you encounter two distinctive "chaotic system" you can maybe name it Type-I and Type-II, but you can't call every unknown thing "chaos". It's meaningless.
When you categorize chaos, you get "something" out of it. But you can't do it forever, for example what if Type999999 is the same as Type222 chaos? What if there are infinite types of chaos? More often, chaos gets too complicated to be named.
Think of the ship of Theseus. You can even switch it piece by piece to a Boeing 747. But if this happens way in a split second(something like a transformer?), do you call it a Theseus's ship or a Boeing 747? Or something in-between? What if that "thing" gets transformed in nano-seconds and the physical form varies a lot? Is it still "something"?
Given there are millions of ship-of-Theseus-like stuff in the universe, I think it's safe to conclude:
There is something because the thing you call it is stable, it has a pattern that can be recognized and named.
The strange thing is that our human mind is a highly formed neural pattern. Maybe patterns in this universe has a certain frequency (eigenvector), that can interact with other patterns?
I don't understand anything you said before the ship of Theseus analogy. Perhaps I'm in over my head here?
Sorry, English is not my native language, I am trying very hard to describe what I meant. lol.
Anyway, tl;dr chaos is complicated. There is "something" because it's less complicated.