Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why is there anything at all


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there anything at all

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to be simply a philosophical argument, leaning towards WP:SYNTH. I note that Ultimate Question redirects to Hitchhiker's Guide, so we can't just merge it there. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 11:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tarl. This seems a worthwhile and important topic, but aware many changes (including title) to the draft may be needed. I would argue this is a physics (not philosophy) topic; why does matter (or laws of physics) exist, when it is surely more logical and easy for there to be nothing. Maybe a set of pages around 'before Big Bang' could be grouped, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre%E2%80%93Big_Bang_physics. Thanks again, all best, JCJC777

I've removed the 'Ultimate question' phrase (to prevent any confusion), and added content and organisation. JCJC777 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777
 * Comment Although there is significant room for improvement in the article (add more references to major philosophy), it's probably a notable topic; see e.g. the book A Universe from Nothing, or section 1 of . My worry is whether there is duplication with other articles. The article Nothing (which Nothingness redirects to) doesn't address it specifically, and nor does Nothing comes from nothing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename  - articles should not have titles in the form of questions hence this should be renamed to sth like "Origin of existence", "Reason for existence" or "Reason for existence rather than nothing". Other than that and that the article needs improvements / expansions I don't see any reason for why it shouldn't be kept. Imo "Ultimate question" and "Why is there anything at all" should then redirect there. --Fixuture (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding a rename of the page: maybe this should be an exception to the rule (also I'm not sure if there is even any guideline/policy on that). I changed my mind regarding that especially as it seems to be predominantly referred to under "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (question). --Fixuture (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename - I can't find a standard name for this problem, but I'm sure we can get a better title for this page. While the content would benefit from work it is encyclopaedic and referenced. The question is notable. Porphyro (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest as above, (1) rename the page to "Origin of existence", and (2) redirect of "Ultimate question" and "Why is there anything at all" to that renamed page. Please could some wizard with sublime wiki skill action that? JCJC777 (talk) 20.07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777
 * The move can be done easily - go to the article page, click on the "more" tab, and you'll see a sub-menu item "move". Click that, it brings you to a page that asks for a new title. Make sure the "move talk page" item is clicked (it is by default, just make sure).
 * However, I think some discussion on the title of the page should take place, first. Would a better title be "origin of matter"? That as it happens, re-directs to Baryogenesis. I'm still unsure of what you are trying to document, which is why I don't know if the title you are suggesting is appropriate. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

Ref. what I am trying to document; it is the completely general question of how come anything at all exists (as set out by Liebniz et al refs in the page). i.e. atoms, laws, maths, pink guineau pigs, the universe(s), consciousness. I have added a sentence to the page intro to try to help on this.

Assuming wiki does not allow questions as page names, then I agree we need better ideas for a page title.
 * "Origin of existence"; use of 'existence' alone is perhaps not ideal as I feel leads thoughts to 'what does existence mean?' and towards thinking about being aware, and consciousness (existence is defined as 'the fact or state of living') but may atill be best option.
 * "Origin of matter" leads towards thoughts on matter (atoms, etc), and towards mechanisms of Big Bang etc.. As above the scientists and thinkers referenced are pursuing the much more general question of how come anything at all exists. Also some thinkers believe our existence may be virtual, i.e. matter does not exist.

Also 'origin' is defined as 'the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.'

My best suggestions are
 * "Explanations for existence."
 * "Explanations for why anything exists."
 * "Explanations for why there is anything at all existing."
 * "Another option might be to base on Liebniz' words; "Explanations why there is something rather than nothing.'"

Can anyone improve? Thanks JCJC777 (talk) 11.00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)
 * Comment: This is indeed an important topic in philosophy (I find the suggestion that it is more of a physics topic to be problematic, but maybe that's just me). "Why is there something rather than nothing" is how I normally think of it; see, for example, the Stanford article on Nothingness. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As for "article titles shouldn't be questions"; I note that we have a former featured article called Who is a Jew?. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not just you. I also think that it's a fundamentally metaphysical (philosophical) question as physical laws don't explain why anything akin to physical laws exist in the first place. I also found some sources on this (see the recent change). However some, most prominently Lawrence M. Krauss, find it to be a physics question for whatever reason. --Fixuture (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. For me this is a physics/engineering question, i.e. how did we, practically, get to be - but maybe that's just me. Maybe this is the point where physics and philosophy meet? JCJC777 (talk) 14.00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

I have changed the page title to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" following Josh' thinking above, and to match both the original Liebniz question and the current Stanford wording https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ JCJC777 (talk) 16.23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)


 * Comment This doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article to me. It feels more like a conversation that you're having with the reader, and a conversation with a specific point of view. For example, the section on "Apparent explanations that are incomplete" is one-sided. You're not saying "Possible explanations" and then discussing those explanations from a neutral point of view. You're automatically labeling them as "apparent" and "incomplete" explanations, and then rebutting them -- "However the question then becomes why and how does X exist?" -- as if the article has a specific person's voice (yours), and that voice is explicitly challenging the reader. It doesn't help that that challenge is fairly shallow, just an endless series of one-ups with no apparent way to resolve, until the person you're challenging gets frustrated and gives up. -- Danny  ( talk ) 21:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to improve the artcle. JCJC777 (talk) 05.40 29 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly notable question. If renamed (no seeing need for that), "Problem of why there is anything at all. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but full disclosure I originated the page and thus may be bias (or not allowed to vote under wiki rules?). I think the subject is a well known and notable question (e.g. it's position in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy section ) - one reaction to me has been from folk surprised that this question did not already have an article on wiki. I think the range and depth of the various refs people have now contributed support this view. I also feel the article is now good enough quality that it will build positively from here; that it will attract good contributions that will trend the quality higher from here over time. Hyperbolick's suggestion of a name of "Problem of why there is anything at all" seems good to me also. User:JCJC777
 * Keep Notable question. The article needs work, and there's a discussion to be had about the best title, but I hardly think the page needs deleting. 786b6364 (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The article has improved since it was first listed. I think it needs further improvement in order to reach the level of quality that the page's originator is aiming for, but JCJC777 has been working steadily on it for more than a week, and attracting other people to help improve it. I think there are currently two ways in which the article isn't complete. #1) The way that various thinkers are introduced is haphazard, with no explanations for who they are -- often just a last name, with no sense of where they come from, or what era they belong to. An example is: "Leslie and Kuhn[12] Krauss[13] and others[14][15][16][17][18] list various explanations, but accept that none are satisfactory." The names "Leslie and Kuhn" are entirely unexplained, and the reference lists a book by "Wiley", also unexplained. It's sloppy, and hard to tell whether they're original thinkers, or summarizing other people's views. That problem is repeated in many places in the article. #2) Ideas are jumbled together in some places. An example is the first bullet point under "Explanations based on the question having an answer that may be found in the future". This section includes a "variant" about God's perfection in the second sentence, before any fleshing-out of the idea that bullet point is supposed to express. The sentence about Dean Rickles doesn't necessarily relate to that bullet point, either, and could easily be a separate bullet point, or even a section on its own. A possible suggestion for improvement is to try organizing the page by topic or era, rather than by the reason each idea can be discounted. The three bullet points under "Explanations that lead to regression" could instead be the starting points for three different sections -- one on physics, one on consciousness and one on religious explanations. There's a lot of work to be done, but JCJC777 seems committed to working on it. No reason to delete it right now. -- --  Danny  ( talk ) 14:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that the page has been renamed "Problem of why there is anything at all". I appreciate that this has been done to be in line with other articles posing questions in Philosophy. However, in those cases, the name "problem of X" is in common use. A search reveals that the phrase "problem of why there is anything at all" is not in use, and I can't find any meaningful hits for the phrase online. For what it's worth, I prefer the previous title "Why is there something rather than nothing?"- a Heidegger quotation- but am open to other article titles. Porphyro (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the current title as a problem. Get it? Problem? But seriously, maybe Problem of why anything exists or Problem of why there is something rather than nothing. Keeps the title from being a question like Who were the Presidents of the United States? Hyperbolick (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no specific wikipedia policy regarding titles being a question that I can see- and it seems natural in this case to me, at least. The reason I would favour "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that WP:TITLES suggests titles should strive for "naturalness", that is, a title that a reader is likely to look or search for. Coming up with a name for the problem that has never been used before seems to run contrary to this idea, to me. Perhaps some other users will have thoughts on this. Porphyro (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Kind of feel the person searching "Why is there something rather than nothing?" wants an answer to the question - "There is something because..." and not discussion of who's asked it before and how, or why it can't be answered. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm open-minded, but also worth saying that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and some other similar wordings do redirect to this page anyway. JCJC777 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a notable problem of metaphysics, famously discussed by many philosophers (some of whom notably object that it is the wrong question). The article needs improvement (e.g. secondary sources may be cited for classifying/characterizing the different approaches to answering it, and the question of Douglas Adams is entirely unrelated) but the present version is a reasonable start. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: With the rename and re-work, the article now documents a problem in philosophy rather than presenting an unanswerable question and getting tied in knots. As nominator of this AFD, I'd suggest this be closed.  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 14:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Amen. JCJC777 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)User:JCJC777


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.