New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Thinkers Talk about Nothing

The subject was nothing at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Nothing was on the table at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate March 20th at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Here’s Hayden Planetarium Director Neil deGrasse Tyson talking with journalist Jim Holt, author of Why Does the World Exist, and physicist Lawrence Krauss, author of A Universe from Nothing.

Tyson: So Jim, when did philosophers start weighing in on this?

Holt: Really with Leibniz in the 17th century. He was the first thinker to pose the question “why is there something rather than nothing.” And by nothing, he meant a state in which there are (sic) no existence at all, there are no entities, there’s no chaos, there’s no space, no time, absolute nothingness. It’s very difficult to grasp in the imagination. If you try to obliterate all of the contents of your consciousness or try to imagine all of the contents of the universe slowly being extinguished, the stars going out, the atoms disappearing, life disappearing, time and space disappearing, even when you try to reach nothingness in your imagination, there’s still the little light of your consciousness creeping under the door. The only times I’ve succeeded in imagining absolute nothingness is during dreamless sleep and once while I was watching professional bowling on television.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Krauss: I think that what Jim has pointed out is exactly it. You’re absolutely right, there are some things that are essentially impossible to get an intuitive conception of. And that’s just a limitation of the fact that we’re classical human beings who didn’t evolve to intuitively understand quantum mechanics. So there’s lots of things in science that are impossible to get any intuitive handle on, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Holt: I completely agree with you. And I think that a state of absolute nothingness, even though we can’t envision it in our minds, it’s logically consistent, it’s a real possibility, and there is a genuine question—why is there a universe rather than absolute nothingness?

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe