Why is there anything at all (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Why is there anything at all" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
179th place
183rd place
3rd place
3rd place
low place
low place
2nd place
2nd place
69th place
59th place
5th place
5th place
40th place
58th place
321st place
724th place
2,220th place
1,461st place
6th place
6th place
489th place
377th place
low place
low place
774th place
716th place
26th place
20th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,932nd place
1,911th place
18th place
17th place
11th place
8th place
low place
low place
1,503rd place
1,378th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1st place
1st place
low place
low place
12th place
11th place
34th place
27th place

aps.org

link.aps.org

archive.org

arxiv.org

books.google.com

britannica.com

closertotruth.com

doi.org

earlymoderntexts.com

free.fr

philoctetes.free.fr

  • "Poem of Parmenides : on nature". philoctetes.free.fr. Retrieved 2 May 2017.

gutenberg.org

harvard.edu

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

hedweb.com

jstor.org

newscientist.com

parmenides.me

rbjones.com

routledge.com

rep.routledge.com

scandalon.co.uk

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

skyatnightmagazine.com

stanford.edu

plato.stanford.edu

  • Sorensen, Roy (November 28, 2023). "Nothingness". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Sorensen, Roy (2015). "Nothingness". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  • Cameron, Ross (2022), "Infinite Regress Arguments", in Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2023-10-22
  • Kant seems to perhaps argue that expecting the laws of nature to apply to this question is misguided, because they cause our experience, rather than are derived from it. "rescues the a priori origin of the pure concepts of the understanding and the validity of the general laws of nature as laws of the understanding, in such a way that their use is limited only to experience, because their possibility has its ground merely in the relation of the understanding to experience, however, not in such a way that they are derived from experience, but that experience is derived from them, a completely reversed kind of connection which never occurred to Hume. (ibid.)" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
  • Brook, Andrew; Wuerth, Julian (August 30, 2023). "Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Mulligan, Kevin; Correia, Fabrice (November 28, 2021). "Facts". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Melamed, Yitzhak Y.; Lin, Martin (November 28, 2023). "Principle of Sufficient Reason". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Sorensen writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that to many philosophers the question is intrinsically impossible to answer, like squaring a circle, and even God does not sufficiently answer it:

    "To explain why something exists, we standardly appeal to the existence of something else... For instance, if we answer 'There is something because the Universal Designer wanted there to be something', then our explanation takes for granted the existence of the Universal Designer. Someone who poses the question in a comprehensive way will not grant the existence of the Universal Designer as a starting point. If the explanation cannot begin with some entity, then it is hard to see how any explanation is feasible. Some philosophers conclude 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is unanswerable. They think the question stumps us by imposing an impossible explanatory demand, namely, 'Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises'. Logicians should feel no more ashamed of their inability to perform this deduction than geometers should feel ashamed at being unable to square the circle."

    Sorensen, Roy. "Nothingness". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  • Tennant, Neil (2017), "Logicism and Neologicism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2023-10-22
  • Sorensen, Roy (2023), "Nothingness", in Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2023-10-22
  • Roy Sorensen has argued that curiosity about the impossibility of nothingness is valid, even if it is the case. He has said that curiosity is possible "even when the proposition is known to be a necessary truth." For instance, a "reductio ad absurdum proof that 1 − 1/3 + 1/5 − 1/7 + … converges to π/4" demonstrates that not converging to π/4 is impossible. However, it provides no insight into why not converging to π/4 is impossible. Similarly, it's legitimate to ask why non-existence or "nothingness" is impossible, even if that is the case. Sorensen, Roy (2020). "Nothingness". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2020-09-07.

strangenotions.com

theguardian.com

washingtonpost.com

web.archive.org

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

worldhistory.org