Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Peace be unto you ;)

Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? And this is 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Peace be unto you ;)It is really nothing, no space, no energy, no time. If at first there was nothing, nothing could ever be ... unless ... unless something can come from nothing or unless there was a creator.

Something from nothing has it proponents and in the past searches on the web I have found several good sites; just Google it. At least two people in the forum say the math stands up but if you know me (and we are friends) you know I say math can be made to say anything at all. But I was an accountant :). To me nothing from nothing cannot occur but be careful how you define nothing. You can't start with a universe with nothing in it because a universe can be empty space and then it is not nothing, it is empty space. Where did the space come from?

The other option of something coming from nothing is a supernatural creation. That could be but it is specifically excluded by science as being outside of the scientific method. Supernatural or fanciful beings are not part of science.

So something from nothing has no good scientific answer for me. That leaves me with the option that never was there a time when there was nothing. Said differently, the universe has always existed, there was no beginning, time has always been passing, and there is no need for something to come from nothing or for a Creator.

Which option do you prefer?

The concept that something and indeed, something as infinitesimally huge as the universe, could come from absolute nothingness is so absurdly unfathomable that most people could probably never get their heads round it. Nevertheless, the more you think about 'where did everything come from?' Nothingness seems to be the most logical conclusion.

Even if you believe in the creationist concept, you are still left with the question, well where did the creator come from? The sheep will undoubtedly say, well god is infinite, always was and always will be; but seriously that is just as hard to fathom as the nothingness.

I'm not a physicist, scientist or any type of ist, but from casual observation I know that tiny cosmic 'things' can change from one state to another and it seems the smaller they get the more likely they are to do that (notice my science?). Therefore, by a stretch of the imagination you can conclude that at some point absolute nothing can change into absolute something, and vice versa.

It seems to me that the whole "something can't come from absolute nothingness" argument is impossible to actually logically or empirically support. Since we have never observed this hypothetical "nothingness" that people like to imagine the universe springing from, we can't know one way or the other whether or not things spontaneously popping into existence is possible within it. And if there is any sort of actual deductive logical argument supporting the proposition that "something can't come from nothing," I've never seen it.

The bottom line is that if it is possible for this "nothing" to exist or have existed in the past, we don't really have any idea what would or would not be possible within it.

Nothing is zero thing . According to science there is no such thing that comes from zero thing .

Nothing is zero thing . According to science there is no such thing that comes from zero thing .
What? When did "science" decide that? Can you give me a reference? And are you familiar with virtual particle pair creation?

Also, science has only ever observed what happens within the universe. When people talk about the "nothing" that existed before the universe existed, they don't just mean an empty universe devoid of matter and energy; they mean some sort of fundamentally different state of reality that (apparently) did not yet include the universe. Whether or not this state of "nothingness" is even physically meaningful or just a non-existent concept that philosophers dreamed up, I couldn't tell you. But who could know what would or would not be possible in this hypothetical alternate state? No one could ever know. If "nothingness" was ever the state of reality, then it might or might not be possible for something to spontaneously spring from it.

Actually 'when people talk about the 'nothing' that existed before the universe existed, they" DO "mean an empty universe devoid of matter and energy" (and space and time) otherwise it wouldn't be nothing... but if what you are saying is correct and that is what physicist mean by 'nothing' then they will have to explain where these components found in this 'nothing' came from as by the no-boundary hypothesis physic laws would still apply- in other words they should be able to come up with an explanation.

To me that seems like leading people astray on purpose- if nothing is not 0 then it is not nothing.

Peace be unto you ;)

Actually 'when people talk about the 'nothing' that existed before the universe existed, they" DO "mean an empty universe devoid of matter and energy" (and space and time) otherwise it wouldn't be nothing...
Okay, it depends on who is doing the talking. Usually when philosophers or theologians talk about "nothing" they are referring to some pre-universe state in which the universe itself did not yet exist and even the laws of physics etc. as we understand them did not yet exist.

When physicists talk about the origin of the universe from "nothing," they are usually talking about an empty quantum field - a state in which the universe, its laws, and reality as we know it already existed (but were empty).

As I was trying to explain in my first post, it would be pointless for physicists (or anyone else, really) to try to speculate about what would or wouldn't be possible in the hypothetical state of "nothingness" that philosophers and theologians seem to like to talk about, because the properties of that "nothingess" would be unknowable to us - if it ever even actually existed.


To me that seems like leading people astray on purpose- if nothing is not 0 then it is not nothing.
See, that's exactly the sort of seemingly-true-but-actually-meaningless statement that people like to throw around in discussions like this. What exactly do you mean by "if nothing is not 0"? What is your specific definition of "zero" here? Is an empty quantum field zero? Or does the quantum field count as "something," in which case you have to get rid of the field too before you can consider it to be "zero"? Can we keep the fundamental laws of mathematics, or do they also count as "something"?

Okay, it depends on who is doing the talking. Usually when philosophers or theologians talk about "nothing" they are referring to some pre-universe state in which the universe itself did not yet exist and even the laws of physics etc. as we understand them did not yet exist.

When physicists talk about the origin of the universe from "nothing," they are usually talking about an empty quantum field - a state in which the universe, its laws, and reality as we know it already existed (but were empty).

Can a quantum field exist without space-time?


As I was trying to explain in my first post, it would be pointless for physicists (or anyone else, really) to try to speculate about what would or wouldn't be possible in the hypothetical state of "nothingness" that philosophers and theologians seem to like to talk about, because the properties of that "nothingess" would be unknowable to us - if it ever even actually existed.

I agree... but that is precisely why I believe to make claims 'from nothing' by physicists is misleading to the masses- one has to understand that the masses are not physicists- instead of using the word 'nothing' they should change it to something which reflects the situation in our case it would be 'emptiness'.


See, that's exactly the sort of seemingly-true-but-actually-meaningless statement that people like to throw around in discussions like this. What exactly do you mean by "if nothing is not 0"? What is your specific definition of "zero" here? Is an empty quantum field zero? Or does the quantum field count as "something," in which case you have to get rid of the field too before you can consider it to be "zero"? Can we keep the fundamental laws of mathematics, or do they also count as "something"?

Good question... to me laws are meaningless unless they have 'something' to act upon. the field itself would be worthless without something for example gravity is meaningless with no mass or gravitons- gravitons are not 'laws' but actual particles..... So essentially with nothing laws cease to matter and effectively 'nothing' would yield all physical laws meaningless as the 'physical' thing from which everything arises is not there... without gravitons you can't have gravity- so what happens to the law of gravity? Even if there, it is meaningless.... so nothingness would be complete emptiness- that is absolutely no 'particle' 'quark' 'boson' exists- yielding all laws to be meaningless - one could say even laws don't exist in such a state because of them being so meaningless. That would yield the whole 'field' practically meaningless for the matter of discussion.

Peace be unto you ;)

Can a quantum field exist without space-time?
I'm probably not the best person to ask, since I don't really know much about relativity. But a "quantum field" is basically a description of how matter and energy is interacting. I guess you could say that it's like the law of gravity, and that it's around even if there isn't anything for it to act on, or you could say that it's a meaningless concept if there is nothing around for it to describe.
Good question... to me laws are meaningless unless they have 'something' to act upon. the field itself would be worthless without something for example gravity is meaningless with no mass or gravitons- gravitons are not 'laws' but actual particles..... So essentially with nothing laws cease to matter and effectively 'nothing' would yield all physical laws meaningless as the 'physical' thing from which everything arises is not there... without gravitons you can't have gravity- so what happens to the law of gravity? Even if there, it is meaningless.... so nothingness would be complete emptiness- that is absolutely no 'particle' 'quark' 'boson' exists- yielding all laws to be meaningless - one could say even laws don't exist in such a state because of them being so meaningless. That would yield the whole 'field' practically meaningless for the matter of discussion.
Fair enough, but many philosophers and theologians seem to want to talk about a state of "nothingness" that existed pre-universe in which, for example, if you were to somehow add two masses there would be no gravity between them because the law of gravity did not yet exist. Physicists, on the other hand, imagine a "nothingness" in which the law of gravity is present and just lurking around waiting for some mass to appear for it to act on. Many philosophers would say that the physicist's "nothingness" isn't really nothingness, because the law of gravity is present (even if it isn't having any perceivable effect at the moment).

The distinction is important, because if physicists can come up with a coherent, plausible explanation for how the laws of the universe could allow mass, energy, space, etc. to appear spontaneously in accordance with the apparent laws of the universe, then as far as they're concerned the problem is solved. The philosophers, on the other hand, would insist that the physicists were cheating by imagining all these laws etc., insist that if those laws were around than there wasn't really "nothing," and demand to know where the laws came from.

I'm probably not the best person to ask, since I don't really know much about relativity. But a "quantum field" is basically a description of how matter and energy is interacting. I guess you could say that it's like the law of gravity, and that it's around even if there isn't anything for it to act on, or you could say that it's a meaningless concept if there is nothing around for it to describe.

Well the question of where the laws come from is legitimate one... but for the sake of argument lets agree with the physicist that the laws just existed even in this nothingness... But as you said they may be there but still meaningless- The question would have to be then how can anything arise from interactions that can not happen in nothingness... as for these laws to be able to 'do' anything they would need something to act on in the first place.

Also current physics is concentrated on finding things like graviton, higgs bison, quarks and other theoretical particles- so the answer supposedly lies in these particles- particles are something- so if the Higg bison did give everything mass because of some law- I am ready to accept that is what gave everything mass... But Higg Bison is something, where did this something come from absolute nothing? The laws may exist but where did this particle or any particle come from from nothingness... The the issue of did the 'laws exist or not' isn't even the issue in my eyes because nothingness leaves all laws meaningless.... Law of gravity may be 'there' just waiting to interact with some 'mass' that comes about- but for that mass to come about you need the Higg Bison- which IS something- so all we see in physics as far as we can see is that something comes from something and this interaction is facilitated by the laws.

Peace be unto you ;)

Well the question of where the laws come from is legitimate one... but for the sake of argument lets agree with the physicist that the laws just existed even in this nothingness... But as you said they may be there but still meaningless- The question would have to be then how can anything arise from interactions that can not happen in nothingness... as for these laws to be able to 'do' anything they would need something to act on in the first place.

Also current physics is concentrated on finding things like graviton, higgs bison, quarks and other theoretical particles- so the answer supposedly lies in these particles- particles are something- so if the Higg bison did give everything mass because of some law- I am ready to accept that is what gave everything mass... But Higg Bison is something, where did this something come from absolute nothing? The laws may exist but where did this particle or any particle come from from nothingness... The the issue of did the 'laws exist or not' isn't even the issue in my eyes because nothingness leaves all laws meaningless.... Law of gravity may be 'there' just waiting to interact with some 'mass' that comes about- but for that mass to come about you need the Higg Bison- which IS something- so all we see in physics as far as we can see is that something comes from something and this interaction is facilitated by the laws.

Peace be unto you ;)Peace be unto you too. You are exactly right as far as I can see too. Science gets to a point beyond which we cannot go, or not yet at least.

What do you think? Something from nothing, supernatural creation, or has it always existed?

Peace be unto you too. You are exactly right as far as I can see too. Science gets to a point beyond which we cannot go, or not yet at least.

What do you think? Something from nothing, supernatural creation, or has it always existed?

I find the idea of something from nothing as problematic, and scientifically impossible.

I do believe in God so I have a bias in that.. But the idea of 'always' existed is intriguing but does not address why exactly is it that these law seem fine tuned for life- an infinite universe does not explain why these laws are as they are. Secondly I don't know how well a infinite universe fits in with current physics to comment on that aspect of the issue.

But I do agree there are basically 2 answers: supernatural creation or an infinite universe.

Peace be unto you ;)

I find the idea of something from nothing as problematic, and scientifically impossible.

I do believe in God so I have a bias in that.. But the idea of 'always' existed is intriguing but does not address why exactly is it that these law seem fine tuned for life- an infinite universe does not explain why these laws are as they are. Secondly I don't know how well a infinite universe fits in with current physics to comment on that aspect of the issue.

But I do agree there are basically 2 answers: supernatural creation or an infinite universe.

Peace be unto you ;)I'm with you on the nothing from nothing and that does leave two; Creation or No Beginning.

You say that you believe in God and yet you seem to be searching. What is it about God that leaves open the other possibility to you?

I'm with you on the nothing from nothing and that does leave two; Creation or No Beginning.

You say that you believe in God and yet you seem to be searching. What is it about God that leaves open the other possibility to you?

Well the other possibility remains totally on a logical base, not that I'm searching for another option... I accept all logical options but accepting that there are many logical ways does not necessitate that I keep myself from choosing one, which the agnostics seem to have done. God answers not only how but why....Why does the universe exist? Why do these law exist? Why are these laws defined? Why is the universe defined? Why are we here? Some can argue that 'why' is not a correct question- because science can not really address it- but I feel that why is an important question- it all comes down to if 'why' is a legitimate question or not, and I believe it is- for this God is the only answer.

I find that although the idea 'God did it' seems very easy way to 'skip' the question but actually answers all the questions of the natural world- I believe the system is set up by God and because it IS a system that is why everything follows from another and links things together and which is why science can make 'predictions'- it is because these laws are not random- they are all interacting according to a defined system- to me it seems the fact that precise laws exist that can define our universe is a proof of God - there is a language to the universe- its not gibberish. That is why it makes sense when we look at science.

To me the universe is a magnificent book of God- the language of which we can understand through math/physics. Science is the study of this book. Or one could say science tells us the tale of the book by God called 'The Universe'.

Peace be unto you ;)

Well the other possibility remains totally on a logical base, not that I'm searching for another option... I accept all logical options but accepting that there are many logical ways does not necessitate that I keep myself from choosing one, which the agnostics seem to have done. God answers not only how but why....Why does the universe exist? Why do these law exist? Why are these laws defined? Why is the universe defined? Why are we here? Some can argue that 'why' is not a correct question- because science can not really address it- but I feel that why is an important question- it all comes down to if 'why' is a legitimate question or not, and I believe it is- for this God is the only answer.

I find that although the idea 'God did it' seems very easy way to 'skip' the question but actually answers all the questions of the natural world- I believe the system is set up by God and because it IS a system that is why everything follows from another and links things together and which is why science can make 'predictions'- it is because these laws are not random- they are all interacting according to a defined system- to me it seems the fact that precise laws exist that can define our universe is a proof of God - there is a language to the universe- its not gibberish. That is why it makes sense when we look at science.

To me the universe is a magnificent book of God- the language of which we can understand through math/physics. Science is the study of this book. Or one could say science tells us the tale of the book by God called 'The Universe'.

Peace be unto you ;)You are exactly right again. For you and for atheists, a choice has been made.

I don’t think a person who chooses between our two options makes your selection though. You were taught. You have chosen not to ask where God came from.

A person is taught a religion. You discover the truth for yourself. You were taught about God and you didn’t ask about where God came from yet. Or are you in process of answering that question. There will be problems for you along the way but I think you might continue on the path. Be safe but be honest with yourself.

I feel the problem is of infinite regression if one continues... If God is outside of time and space and created space-time then he is eternal by definition and uncreated as it requires time to come from somewhere-or the time is a singularity of not-existing where coming from somewhere is the same as being there- as such there is no claim of coming from 'nothing', so the same problem is not presented- Secondly nothing natural can answer the question 'why' so even then God is the only choice. Lastly although you are right that I have been taught religion and God- one has to wonder that people came to natural conclusion of God from all along.... even if it were to explain the unexplained it was their natural conclusion- the only reason the idea seems to be losing credibility is that science seems to explain those 'unexplainable' factors and has predictive power- but as I pointed out there is a reason why science has predictive power and that is actually further proof of God if anything, although people don't tend to think like that but take our success in science to their heads....

Peace be unto you ;)

It seems like a nothing with a lot of potential.

As opposed to a nothing with no potential.

Unless all (possible?) nothings have this potential to suddenly be everything.

Which is very odd.

But whatever the truth is is very odd.

Where would that potential come from?

Peace be unto you ;)

Where would that potential come from?

Peace be unto you ;)Damned if I know.

I feel the problem is of infinite regression if one continues... If God is outside of time and space and created space-time then he is eternal by definition and uncreated as it requires time to come from somewhere-or the time is a singularity of not-existing where coming from somewhere is the same as being there- as such there is no claim of coming from 'nothing', so the same problem is not presented-
You are making the same infinite regression, arriving at God outside of space and time and God is the infinite. And science does not say spacetime is the only version of the universe. It is the consensus and it is one that implies a beginning but there are alternatives and science makes no claim that any one alternative is proven. One of the scientific alternatives is that there was no beginning, i.e. the universe itself has always existed. That makes it a choice between an infinite universe and an infinite God. There is no irrefutable evidence for either and so the choice narrows to the two.


Secondly nothing natural can answer the question 'why' so even then God is the only choice. I don't see how that makes sense. What is the "why" that you mention?


Lastly although you are right that I have been taught religion and God- one has to wonder that people came to natural conclusion of God from all along.... even if it were to explain the unexplained it was their natural conclusion-
True, many do seek the truth, follow their path, and find God. But different people find God from both starting points, i.e. from a start within a faith, and a start from scratch. If they were taught a religion that is based on God, and then they seek their own discovery, if that discovery is God, it does not come with a particular religion. You were taught a particular religion and did not arrive at the details of your faith by following a path of discovery. You took the self discovery of God and applied a whole set of characteristics to it from your learned faith. What a coincidence. Maybe you didn't discover God after all, or at least not yet.



the only reason the idea seems to be losing credibility is that science seems to explain those 'unexplainable' factors and has predictive power- but as I pointed out there is a reason why science has predictive power and that is actually further proof of God if anything, although people don't tend to think like that but take our success in science to their heads....
I understand that you are depicting the nature of the universe as a fine tuned instrument that could only produce life and intelligence, therefore it must be planned. And a God could plan it from any number of different religious bases. But there is another view which says that it is not as fine tuned as you imply. Life could be generated when the environment and chemistry is right, but there is a wide range of possible life generative conditions and a wide variety of possible life forms. We are Humans and our home is Earth but we could just a easily have been a completely different life form living under significantly different environmental conditions and chemistries of life on any number of different planets.

You are making the same infinite regression, arriving at God outside of space and time and God is the infinite.

True, that is what I was trying to get through.


There is no irrefutable evidence for either and so the choice narrows to the two.I don't see how that makes sense. What is the "why" that you mention?

The choice narrows between two until it is only one when you believe that there is a reason to the universe and everything in it- for example if I ask the question : Why does the universe exist? Why does it continue to exist? Why did it lead to life? Why do these laws exist? Why do these laws allow life?--- The only answer to a 'why' can only be presented by something that has said that there is a reason for these things- the only choice between the two that can answer these question is God. Because an infinite beginning does not answer any of those 'whys'- Perhaps why is the wrong question? Maybe there is no reason for any of it- but that is hard to believe that everything happened to be a coincidence- again both without evidence but with a choice- If I choose that none of this is a coincidence that God becomes the only solution.


You were taught a particular religion and did not arrive at the details of your faith by following a path of discovery. You took the self discovery of God and applied a whole set of characteristics to it from your learned faith. What a coincidence. Maybe you didn't discover God after all, or at least not yet.

Actually once one accepts that God is the answer then to ascribe him his characteristics is not too difficult. I've gone through the process of if a God exist what must he be. And from religion backwards as well. Everything goes back to the question of 'purpose' and how religion fits into that.. Any religion for that matter... and then how each religion does not fit.


I understand that you are depicting the nature of the universe as a fine tuned instrument that could only produce life and intelligence, therefore it must be planned. And a God could plan it from any number of different religious bases. But there is another view which says that it is not as fine tuned as you imply. Life could be generated when the environment and chemistry is right, but there is a wide range of possible life generative conditions and a wide variety of possible life forms.

Actually what I was implying by 'fine tuned' is not that it our current universe allows for life to exist, but that these laws- the very fundamental laws that govern the universe allow for it- and the fact that all these laws are in some defined correlation in their interactions and not just random laws that have no defined interaction- this is precisely why science is predictive- why? Because these laws are not random at all.. And as you said if the 'chemistry is right' - chemistry is governed by laws- its not that the chemistry has to be right but the laws have to be right.... Laws that do not interact will lead to nothing- why is that that different laws interact- why is there such a thing as interaction- why is it that these laws interact in defined manner and not in a random manner? For if it were interacting in some random fashion then none of science could be predictive.


We are Humans and our home is Earth but we could just a easily have been a completely different life form living under significantly different environmental conditions and chemistries of life on any number of different planets.

Correct but if sum-of-all-histories is correct you would get rid of all the histories that does not lead to the outcome which would yield that this is actually the result regardless of what possible route you take. So its not a coincidence.

Peace be unto you ;)

...
The choice narrows between two until it is only one when you believe that there is a reason to the universe and everything in it- for example if I ask the question : Why does the universe exist? Why does it continue to exist? Why did it lead to life? Why do these laws exist? Why do these laws allow life?--- The only answer to a 'why' can only be presented by something that has said that there is a reason for these things- the only choice between the two that can answer these question is God. Because an infinite beginning does not answer any of those 'whys'- Perhaps why is the wrong question? Maybe there is no reason for any of it- but that is hard to believe that everything happened to be a coincidence- again both without evidence but with a choice- If I choose that none of this is a coincidence that God becomes the only solution.
I does seem that there is some intention to things but I suggest to you that the impression we get of intention is the result of our wonderful evolved brains that put order and intention into what we see around us.




Actually once one accepts that God is the answer then to ascribe him his characteristics is not too difficult. I've gone through the process of if a God exist what must he be. And from religion backwards as well. Everything goes back to the question of 'purpose' and how religion fits into that.. Any religion for that matter... and then how each religion does not fit.
No exactly. Not to belittle anyones decision because I agree it is a personal decision that we are all free to make, but God can be found in both of the two alternatives I suggest. The alternatives are that the universe was created by God, or the universe has always existed. I think that we agree that either case involves an infinity; either God has always existed or the universe has always exited. God can be found in both when the personal decision is made. If I choose the alternative that the universe has always existed, I could also decide that in my opinion the intention for the universe to generate and evolve life could also have always existed. In that version, the universe is God and has always existed with the intention that life would always exist through that generative process in mentioned on hospitable planets. In a universe that has always existed there would always have been hospitable planets and so life forms would have always existed as well.



Actually what I was implying by 'fine tuned' is not that it our current universe allows for life to exist, but that these laws- the very fundamental laws that govern the universe allow for it- and the fact that all these laws are in some defined correlation in their interactions and not just random laws that have no defined interaction- this is precisely why science is predictive- why? Because these laws are not random at all.. And as you said if the 'chemistry is right' - chemistry is governed by laws- its not that the chemistry has to be right but the laws have to be right.... Laws that do not interact will lead to nothing- why is that that different laws interact- why is there such a thing as interaction- why is it that these laws interact in defined manner and not in a random manner? For if it were interacting in some random fashion then none of science could be predictive.
I understand. And what I am suggesting is that the laws are natural and have always existed. They could be viewed as the intention of a God that is the universe itself and that has always existed. That view is similar to Pantheism but Pantheists would debate me on the addition of an "intention" that too has always existed, I bet.


Correct but if sum-of-all-histories is correct you would get rid of all the histories that does not lead to the outcome which would yield that this is actually the result regardless of what possible route you take. So its not a coincidence.
My view is that we do not know if it is a coincidence. God could appear to each of us in a dramatic way and make it clear to use beyond any doubt that there is a God. God does not do that and people who find God do so from much more subtle clues, personal clues that lead to a personal decision. And the sum of all of your personal clues does not constitue irrefutable evidence to anyone else. We each have to make our own discovery. I think that it would be a huge coincidence if the real God turned out to be the God of any particular religion.


Peace be unto you ;)

What if our universe started out as the output side of a black hole in another universe in another dimension. With matter being reduced to strings (?) within the black hole it would make sense that it would come out that way. The big bang would be nothing more than a big black hole depositing basic matter into a new dimension with nothing in it creating a whole new universe...Who knows....hope we find out soon when the LHC fires up for good..

The choice narrows between two until it is only one when you believe that there is a reason to the universe and everything in it- for example if I ask the question : Why does the universe exist? Why does it continue to exist? Why did it lead to life? Why do these laws exist? Why do these laws allow life?--- The only answer to a 'why' can only be presented by something that has said that there is a reason for these things- the only choice between the two that can answer these question is God. Because an infinite beginning does not answer any of those 'whys'- Perhaps why is the wrong question? Maybe there is no reason for any of it- but that is hard to believe that everything happened to be a coincidence- again both without evidence but with a choice- If I choose that none of this is a coincidence that God becomes the only solution.Actually it doesn't solve any of questions, people just tend to stop asking the question once they come up with an answer of God.

If we're honest we can keep asking the same questions about God: Why does God exist, rather than not exist? Why is God eternal rather than limited? Why does God have the attributes that caused him to create the Universe and people? Why did God create the Universe with this particular set of properties? Why did God cause me, specifically, to exist? We can anthropomorphize and pretend to answer some of these questions (God loves, god desires, etc.) but they don't really get answered.

At some point we have to be satisfied with the non-explanation that certain things just are without being able to attribute a cause to them. God isn't a loophole.

~Raithere

Actually it doesn't solve any of questions, people just tend to stop asking the question once they come up with an answer of God.

At some point we have to be satisfied with the non-explanation that certain things just are without being able to attribute a cause to them. God isn't a loophole.

~Raithere

Actually there is a difference.... Universe is not an actual intelligent being that can assign purpose or create things for a reason... God can... and since God is a being himself he can have a purpose of himself.... One can choose its attributes the other can not.

Peace be unto you ;)

Actually there is a difference.... Universe is not an actual intelligent being that can assign purpose or create things for a reason...
How would a universe that has always existed not have the same characteristics of a God that you define as having always existed. It could. So why have God separate from the universe?



God can... and since God is a being himself he can have a purpose of himself.... One can choose its attributes the other can not.

Peace be unto you ;)
Why couldn't a universe that has always existed and that had the capabilities that you assign to God, also have purpose and also choose the attributes of the universe that we observe in every respect. So why have God separate from the universe.

If at first there was nothing, not even God, then nothing could ever be ...

Unless something comes from nothing which you and I have ruled out, or unless God created the universe which you have chosen, or unless the universe has always existed in which case God and the universe could be one in the same.

How would a universe that has always existed not have the same characteristics of a God that you define as having always existed. It could. So why have God separate from the universe?

So are you saying that everything in the universe is specifically being direct towards a known outcome? And what part of the universe is deciding where what to do next? What about the universe itself- which part of the universe decides why the universe is existing? If you want to argue that the 'universe' meaning everything that is, is God- then at least you've come to the same conclusion that there is still a God. There has to be something in the universe that is deciding why to exist, what to make, and why to make it.... If there is nothing like it then there is no purpose to the universe's existence.

Peace be unto you ;)

So are you saying that everything in the universe is specifically being direct towards a known outcome?
No, that is no exactly what I am saying. I am saying that it is equally as possible that there is some direction and intention if there is a separate God who created the universe and if the universe had always existed and was God.

And what part of the universe is deciding where what to do next?
In the universe is God scenario, the part that is deciding what and where to do next infers that the universe as God is playing a deciding role, day by day, individual by individual. I don't see why that would be the case. The universe would provide the conditions and chemistry for life to be generated and evolve at various times and locations across a potentially infinite landscape of arenas similar to our observable universe.

What about the universe itself- which part of the universe decides why the universe is existing?
That becomes a non sequitur if the universe has always existed. Any "why" would be infinite and would have always existed too. No need for God to actively manage the "why" on a day to day basis.


If you want to argue that the 'universe' meaning everything that is, is God- then at least you've come to the same conclusion that there is still a God.
Or at least I've come to the conclusion that the possibility of God is not excluded in the scenario of a universe that has always existed. The possibility of God cannot be excluded but it also cannot be proved in either scenario.



There has to be something in the universe that is deciding why to exist, what to make, and why to make it.... If there is nothing like it then there is no purpose to the universe's existence.
Not true. If the possible existence of God that fits the scenario of a universe that has always existed had intended for the universe to generate and evolve intelligent life, then the intention could be for those intelligent individuals to come to contemplate the existence of God and to make a personal decision. The individuals would be tasked by their own direction to find their own purpose in their lives. It that was the case, then they could have the faith that they would find the right purpose for themselves and they could find thankfulness in the fact that they exist and have the intelligence to seek out their own purpose.


Peace be unto you ;)

I think you and I have a difference of opinion in what 'purpose' really is... you are saying that the chemistry and conditions as set by laws define the purpose... but to me it seems the universe is in 'auto pilot' where the laws are constant all the time and will lead to many possibilities.. Nothing is the choosing a direction because laws don't choose they simply act. For me a 'purpose' is an intended choice for something to exist which I do not see in the universe itself.. you may but I don't... that is simply a difference in opinion I guess.

Peace be unto you ;)

I think you and I have a difference of opinion in what 'purpose' really is... you are saying that the chemistry and conditions as set by laws define the purpose... but to me it seems the universe is in 'auto pilot' where the laws are constant all the time and will lead to many possibilities.. Nothing is the choosing a direction because laws don't choose they simply act. For me a 'purpose' is an intended choice for something to exist which I do not see in the universe itself.. you may but I don't... that is simply a difference in opinion I guess.

Peace be unto you ;)Yes, simply a difference of opinion.

May I follow up on one or two points? You are talking about purpose of the universe. You consider the purpose to be intended, as in the purpose of God's creation of the universe. Do I read it right that the outcome of God's purpose is the evolution of intelligence, which then discovers God, and the humans then draw up the details of their religions based on their realization of God's existence? Or are the details of the religions also presented by God?

Actually there is a difference.... Universe is not an actual intelligent being that can assign purpose or create things for a reason... God can... and since God is a being himself he can have a purpose of himself.... One can choose its attributes the other can not.It still doesn't answer the question of why god would exist in the first place. Nor does "because he wanted to" add anything to our knowledge. It's simply a euphemism for "We don't know." No information is gained.

~Raithere

Yes, simply a difference of opinion.

May I follow up on one or two points? You are talking about purpose of the universe. You consider the purpose to be intended, as in the purpose of God's creation of the universe. Do I read it right that the outcome of God's purpose is the evolution of intelligence, which then discovers God, and the humans then draw up the details of their religions based on their realization of God's existence? Or are the details of the religions also presented by God?

I think both are the case. In order for someone to find God through their own intellect then it would seem to be that our discussion has been based upon using science and what conclusions it leads us to... what about when science was not as advanced- or practically non-existent- how can one then 'discover' God? So it would seem appropriate that an alternate is already presented by God in the form of religion for example.

Peace be unto you ;)

It still doesn't answer the question of why god would exist in the first place. Nor does "because he wanted to" add anything to our knowledge. It's simply a euphemism for "We don't know." No information is gained.

~Raithere

Agreed, but like you said we would have to come to a stop at some point... God is sufficient to deal with the why's of the universe itself.

Peace be unto you ;)

I think both are the case. In order for someone to find God through their own intellect then it would seem to be that our discussion has been based upon using science and what conclusions it leads us to... what about when science was not as advanced- or practically non-existent- how can one then 'discover' God? So it would seem appropriate that an alternate is already presented by God in the form of religion for example.

Peace be unto you ;)Our disagreement is enduring but reconciliation would require you to change :D. My problem with your view is that I think dogma is creeping in, while my view has unusual twists of logic :). Peace be with you too.

Our disagreement is enduring but reconciliation would require you to change :D. My problem with your view is that I think dogma is creeping in, while my view has unusual twists of logic :). Peace be with you too.

Well I think it all depends upon understanding.... To me "There is no compulsion in religion" is sufficient to restrain myself from forcing others...

Peace be unto you ;)

Can a quantum field exist without space-time?The concept of space-time gets us into cosmology, that strange place where the science of physics, the abstraction of pure mathematics, and the human construct of philosophy meet in a big muddle.

Does space-time exist, or is it just a component of our model of the universe?

My take on the origin of the known universe is based on entropy and the laws of probability. Entropy specifies that the universe tends toward a state of lower organization, but allows for local exceptions. The simplest definition of life, for example, is a local reversal of entropy.

Well there's no reason those exceptions can't be temporal as well as spatial. If space-time (or whatever you call the place where the universe exists) is infinite, then the laws of probability say that it is not impossible for a state of organization to arise out of a state of complete disorganization (i.e., nothingness) by accident on extremely rare occasions. Particles and the corresponding antiparticles could suddenly appear out of sheer random chance. This would explain the Big Bang, and it could occur once in an infinite space-time continuum. Hell, it could occur more than once. Perhaps there have been other universes that were formed and eventually collapsed into nothingness. Or maybe there are six other universes in existence right now, but they are more than one googolplex light-years from here so we have no way to detect their presence.
Lastly although you are right that I have been taught religion and God- one has to wonder that people came to natural conclusion of God from all along.That's no big mystery. Jung explains that belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive belief preprogrammed into our synapses by our DNA. (To use language that is a little more modern than Jung's terminology.) Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam were genetic bottlenecks in our species at two different times within the past couple of hundred thousand years: every one of us is descended from both of them. If either of them had a random mutation that caused them to believe in gods, it was passed down to us.

Of course many instincts are survival traits, like the urge to flee from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face: Those who didn't have it didn't live long enough to reproduce. It is too early to tell whether religion will prove to be a survival trait. At this point it doesn't look good, since the religionists are, once again, shooting each other and catching the rest of us in the crossfire.
Actually it doesn't solve any of questions, people just tend to stop asking the question once they come up with an answer of God.Indeed. Religion doesn't answer all our questions. It just demands that we stop asking or risk being labeled heretics. My wife says that religions are always invented by men, because men can't stand to say, "I don't know."
If we're honest we can keep asking the same questions about God: Why does God exist, rather than not exist? Why is God eternal rather than limited? Why does God have the attributes that caused him to create the Universe and people? Why did God create the Universe with this particular set of properties? Why did God cause me, specifically, to exist? We can anthropomorphize and pretend to answer some of these questions (God loves, god desires, etc.) but they don't really get answered.Heretic! Burn him at the stake!
At some point we have to be satisfied with the non-explanation that certain things just are without being able to attribute a cause to them.Humans are curious by nature, like all primates. So we are NOT going to settle for such a bullshit answer to such an important question. My response to a philosophy that expects me to make peace with that pathetic statement and then tells me to be a good boy and go chop some wood, is one finger.

Now I understand that "Peace unto you" thing that grates like a particularly annoying parrot. Peace is all I'm gonna get from those guys, because I won't find any answers among them.

Ops wrong thread. I don't think we're talking about vampires to burn to the stake are we?

Peace be unto you ;)

Humans are curious by nature, like all primates. So we are NOT going to settle for such a bullshit answer to such an important question. My response to a philosophy that expects me to make peace with that pathetic statement and then tells me to be a good boy and go chop some wood, is one finger.A bit harsh there but I agree with the sentiment. No, I was thinking more along the lines that there is likely to be a limit to reductionism via a chain of causality. In fact we seem to be seeing this very thing at the quantum level where the notion of cause and effect doesn't really apply, at least not in a conventional sense. I would never advocate the position that humanity should stop looking for answers.

~Raithere

BTW would an infinite universe be a perpetual motion machine?

Peace be unto you ;)

Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Peace be unto you ;)

REPLY: It seems to me there is. I can see how there would be empty space. There was a time in my life when I was actually dying. The loss of blood was so much and I remember getting colder and colder and still colder. I was naked in like a dream but very very aware. So cold,so naked and on this smooth black surface sliding toward this edge and on the edge of this surface trying not to allow myself to slip over this edge. I knew if I went over this edge there was absolute nothingness. I would fall into nothingness and be gone. Whatever, ... fellowtraveler

786:


Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Not necessarily. It could essentially mean a vacuum quantum state of some kind of multiverse. There are theories such as colliding branes in the multiverse spawning different kinds of universes with different sets of physical laws. All quite speculative, but less so than postulating some kind of unexplained God to create the universe.


Well the question of where the laws come from is legitimate one... but for the sake of argument lets agree with the physicist that the laws just existed even in this nothingness...

That's not what all physicists think. In some multiverse theories, the laws for individual universes can vary. Of course, that means that many universes can never support life. We must find ourselves in one that can, for obvious reasons.

The multiverse, if it exists, must have its own laws of physics, but they would be a kind of superset of the laws of our universe.


Also current physics is concentrated on finding things like graviton, higgs bison, quarks and other theoretical particles- so the answer supposedly lies in these particles...

Perhaps partly, but remember that these fundamental particles are probably determined by the laws of our particular universe. Things may be different elsewhere.


I find the idea of something from nothing as problematic, and scientifically impossible.

Based on what science, exactly? Are you a qualified physicist?


But I do agree there are basically 2 answers: supernatural creation or an infinite universe.

Only two, eh? You're sure you've covered all the possibilities?


If God is outside of time and space and created space-time then he is eternal by definition and uncreated as it requires time to come from somewhere-or the time is a singularity of not-existing where coming from somewhere is the same as being there- as such there is no claim of coming from 'nothing', so the same problem is not presented-

Why bother with God at all? Why not just apply the same thinking to the multiverse, or the universe itself? Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps the multiverse is outside of time and space as we know it.


Secondly nothing natural can answer the question 'why' so even then God is the only choice.

Maybe there is no "why" in the teleological sense.


Lastly although you are right that I have been taught religion and God- one has to wonder that people came to natural conclusion of God from all along.... even if it were to explain the unexplained it was their natural conclusion

People are good at inventing stories to explain the unknown. Natural forces more powerful than human beings appear to be god-like to primitive peoples.


for example if I ask the question : Why does the universe exist? Why does it continue to exist? Why did it lead to life? Why do these laws exist? Why do these laws allow life?--- The only answer to a 'why' can only be presented by something that has said that there is a reason for these things- the only choice between the two that can answer these question is God.

Physics can answer all of your questions above right now, except for "Why does the universe exist?" and "Why do these laws exist?" And we're working on those.


Maybe there is no reason for any of it- but that is hard to believe that everything happened to be a coincidence- again both without evidence but with a choice- If I choose that none of this is a coincidence that God becomes the only solution.

Which God? Your God? Zeus? Osiris? the Christian God? Baal?

786:



Not necessarily. It could essentially mean a vacuum quantum state of some kind of multiverse. There are theories such as colliding branes in the multiverse spawning different kinds of universes with different sets of physical laws. All quite speculative, but less so than postulating some kind of unexplained God to create the universe.
There is a concept of "nothingness" that does not include anything; Wouldn't those things be excluded by such a concept? And if there was a vacuum state or multiverse that preceded our observable universe, doesn't it follow that it or something would have to have always existed, or else we are back to getting something from nothing.



Based on what science, exactly? Are you a qualified physicist?The thinking that it is scientifically impossible to get something from nothing seems to be stated here as an opinion; one that many share and discuss in a philosophy forum. If this was a hard science forum such a statement as "scientifically impossible" would be wrong.


Only two, eh? You're sure you've covered all the possibilities?We been over the possibilities and offer what we think is a set of possibilities that are intended to be all inclusive: Something from nothing, God did it, or the universe in some form has always existed. I would be interested in what you might be thinking of is excluded from that list.


Why bother with God at all? Why not just apply the same thinking to the multiverse, or the universe itself? Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps the multiverse is outside of time and space as we know it.
I agree. The personal choice to choose a belief in God over a universe that has always existed smacks of on who accepts dogma over reason. To get to any particular set of religious beliefs from a personal decision that the idea of God is better than the idea that the physical universe itself has always existed would be an arduous path. Clearly the various major religious beliefs are taught not discovered wholly in tact. There is a huge difference between a personal discovery of God and a full blown religion that has every aspect of peoples lives laid out.


Physics can answer all of your questions above right now, except for "Why does the universe exist?" and "Why do these laws exist?" And we're working on those.
Physics is working on why the universe exists? Would it be better to say physics is working of how the universe might have come to exist, or how to explain a cosmology that would accommodate a universe that could have always existed?


Which God? Your God? Zeus? Osiris? the Christian God? Baal?
Yes, which God is exactly the problem. If any God exists it seems like it would have to be a huge coincidence that it would be the God of any particular religion.

quantum_wave,


If this was a hard science forum such a statement as "scientifically impossible" would be wrong.

Only, as you say, from a hard science forum POV.
But where would you start in defining "nothing" outside of "in relation to something"?
Can you, or any of us even imagine "nothing', what to speak of postulating
it as a possible explanation for origins?


The personal choice to choose a belief in God over a universe that has always existed smacks of on who accepts dogma over reason.

A belief in God does not necessarily result in automatic disbelief of an eternal
universe.


To get to any particular set of religious beliefs from a personal decision that the idea of God is better than the idea that the physical universe itself has always existed would be an arduous path.

Why?


Clearly the various major religious beliefs are taught not discovered wholly in tact.

Isn't that the nature of learning to understand knowledge?
Do you think it is possible that people prefer the eternal universe idea
because they see it as a step closer to proof that God does not exist?


Yes, which God is exactly the problem. If any God exists it seems like it would have to be a huge coincidence that it would be the God of any particular religion.

God is not contingent on religion.
"Which God" is not a problem, there is only one God credited with the creation of the universe. Despite various names, the basic claim remains the same.

jan.

quantum_wave,



Only, as you say, from a hard science forum POV.
But where would you start in defining "nothing" outside of "in relation to something"?
Can you, or any of us even imagine "nothing', what to speak of postulating
it as a possible explanation for origins?
Yes, "nothing" can be a difficult concept. I don't have a good answer but I did post on the topic in one of my threads. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2311129&postcount=66


A belief in God does not necessarily result in automatic disbelief of an eternal
universe.
No, it certainly does not. I have said in this thread that one of the options in the small set of possibilities to explain the existence of the universe is "God did it", meaning that the universe did not exist until God created it. The other two suggested possibilities are that it came from nothing somehow on its own, and that has sparked a discussion of "what is nothing". And then comes the third option in the set, the universe has always existed. There are some to whom such an eternal universe might be characterized like this: God or the universe has always exited and maybe they are one in the same. Pantheism for example.


Why?
I withdraw that conclusion on my part. It isn't self evident that I was on target. It just seems to me that someone "discovering" God as a result of contemplating the possibility of the existence of God would find God, not God says to do this and live this way. Maybe those attributes of religion would be developed by like minded discovers of God.


Isn't that the nature of learning to understand knowledge?
Do you think it is possible that people prefer the eternal universe idea
because they see it as a step closer to proof that God does not exist?
Not in my case. Earlier I said that there is no irrefutable proof either way and so it becomes a personal decision. I haven't seen a great rush of people willing to even say that they consider the eternal universe more likely than God. Of those who don't personally choose the "God did it" option I think the there is a general split between people who are searching for themselves; a split with a reasonable share preferring the "something from nothing" option and a reasonable share preferring the "eternal universe" option.


God is not contingent on religion.
"Which God" is not a problem, there is only one God credited with the creation of the universe. Despite various names, the basic claim remains the same.

There is only one God in most modern religions. I agree that God is not contingent on religion. But I would disagree to the extent that I would say because religions identify a specific God, if I may put it that way, the nature of God in any given religion is much more than the basic claim that you begin with if you are one who seeks and discovers God independently.

Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

no, it isn't

no, it isn't
Well that's a well-sourced, utterly convincing argument. :rolleyes:
So what is "nothing" then? Pasta? Dried sunflower seeds?

I find the idea of something from nothing as problematic, and scientifically impossible.

You don't know anything about science, so your claim is meaningless.


I do believe in God so I have a bias in that..

We already know that. You also have very poor understandings of the world around you because of your bias.


But the idea of 'always' existed is intriguing but does not address why exactly is it that these law seem fine tuned for life

Another misunuderstanding, the universe isn't fine tuned for life, it's the other way round, it just is the way it is and everything exists as a result of that. In other words, a pothole does not form around the shape of the water.


Secondly I don't know how well a infinite universe fits in with current physics to comment on that aspect of the issue.

It doesn't fit, at all.


But I do agree there are basically 2 answers: supernatural creation or an infinite universe.

Wrong on both counts.

...
Wrong on both counts.Oh good. Let me ask you if you have read the thread of just the OP, because the two choices that 786 refers to are two of the three possible choices if my logic is any good.

Choice one was, "The universe came from nothing"; the something from nothing option. The other two choices are, "God did it", or "the universe has always existed", were the only two left when 786 and I found that we agreed that "something from nothing" could be eliminated.

If you are saying that the "something from nothing" option is the right choice, and it would appear that is what you are saying, then can you elaborate on that choice and how you came to that conclusion?

It is also possible that the three options that we have been discussing are not a complete set of possible sources of the universe. If that is your position, what other option or options would you add to the list?

Another misunuderstanding, the universe isn't fine tuned for life, it's the other way round, it just is the way it is and everything exists as a result of that. In other words, a pothole does not form around the shape of the water.
You dismissing something in a way that hardly has consensus in the physics community. There is much controversy around the anthropic principle with adherents among physicists for both weak and strong versions. And many physicists who have not chosen a position still find the fine tuning very puzzling.
Part of the issue, which your response above might mislead people around, is that even rather tiny changes in certain constants would eliminate the possibility of life, period, not simply our form of it. In any case, your dismissal of his reaction would not be one shared by a decent % of the physics community, and while they are not theists, they would agree with him that the issue is interesting, puzzling and in need of further exploration.

In essence, there are two ways to explain cosmic coincidences such as this [fine tuning]. Either the Universe was designed with us in mind, or there many universes out there, and life can exist only in ones like ours. In the memorable analogy used by Martin Rees, it is the difference between having a suit made to measure and choosing one off the peg. If there is an infinite number of suits to choose from, one of them must be 'just right'.
In Search of Superstrings, John Gribbin Icon Books, page xv.

You dismissing something in a way that hardly has consensus in the physics community. There is much controversy around the anthropic principle with adherents among physicists for both weak and strong versions. And many physicists who have not chosen a position still find the fine tuning very puzzling.

Hardly. Where did you get that nonsense from?



Part of the issue, which your response above might mislead people around, is that even rather tiny changes in certain constants would eliminate the possibility of life, period, not simply our form of it. In any case, your dismissal of his reaction would not be one shared by a decent % of the physics community, and while they are not theists, they would agree with him that the issue is interesting, puzzling and in need of further exploration.

What may lead people to be mislead by your response is the fact that tiny changes in certain constants NOW could have drastic effects on the universe, but those same changes to the constants when the universe began may very well foster life, it would just be different.

By your logic, "sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns" ~~ Gould

The nothingness of nothing is a simple ZERO of that thing . Zero by any definition is only zero and no more .

The nothingness of nothing is a simple ZERO of that thing . Zero by any definition is only zero and no more .
Nothingness would be a zero of everything, neh?

Hardly. Where did you get that nonsense from?Books by physicists. I have read books that are generally dismissive of the issue and others where the physicist author does feel it is both important and puzzling.

My sense is you are unaware of the discussions around the anthopic principle.

In essence, there are two ways to explain cosmic coincidences such as this [fine tuning]. Either the Universe was designed with us in mind, or there many universes out there, and life can exist only in ones like ours. In the memorable analogy used by Martin Rees, it is the difference between having a suit made to measure and choosing one off the peg. If there is an infinite number of suits to choose from, one of them must be 'just right'.
In Search of Superstrings, John Gribbin Icon Books, page xv.See now you have quoted one physicist and his (clever) dismissive analogy on the issue. One could take your post as implying the issue is somehow decided. But it isn't. There is hardly consensus in physics community. Someone here, outside the physics community, raised the issue and was met by smug dismissal. As if he was stupid and ignorant for thinking it might even be an issue. All the while discussions are going on among physicists on the very topic.

I know you and (Q) see yourselves on the rational, science team, but a little more humility in the face of such issues will really, honestly, come across more rational.

See now you have quoted one physicist
Two.
Gribbin "quoting" Rees.


and his (clever) dismissive analogy on the issue.
Dismissal? Hardly.
It's a concomitant of one of the current physics theories.


One could take your post as implying the issue is somehow decided.
Only if one were to accept that particular quote/ pair of cosmologists. I merely gave that quote because
A) by pure coincidence that happens to be the book I started reading today and it was apposite, and
B) it offered yet another viewpoint.


But it isn't. There is hardly consensus in physics community.
Quite, here's (http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474) another view. (Which I also own and have read).


I know you and (Q) see yourselves on the rational, science team, but a little more humility in the face of such issues will really, honestly, come across more rational.
Hmm, so my post lacked humility?
Strange... where exactly did I say that it was MY answer or THE answer?
:shrug:

Nothingness would be a zero of everything, neh?

The only way that this is going to start to make sense to everyone who doesn't quite get it yet (and I'm not talking about you Dywyddyr) is if people stop trying to represent it or describe it. The moment you try to define nothing you've led yourself astray. Of course, we have to try though don't we? And that's fine as long as the description you're giving takes this into account.

For example, I couldn't say that nothing is the absence of anything and everything without pointing out that this definition is technically incorrect because you can't describe something that doesn't exist even if your description of it is that it doesn't exist. There is no it. There is no something. So you can't say anything about it without encountering an error. It's taboo I tell you! It's better for everyone if you just pretend that it doesn't exist.

Seriously guys, sometimes I have trouble trying to understand why some people just can't accept this idea. Is it so hard to understand that if what you're talking about is actually significant in any way shape or form, that it is not nothing? Call it something else if you want to give it properties. Call it a void or something, as long as you don't suggest that the void is devoid of anything and everything, because then it's not a void, it's nothing, and suddenly vanishes from the existence that it never legitimately enjoyed to begin with. Trying to force nothingness into reality is right up there with the most mind-bendingly absurd endeavors in the history of intelligent thought.

I've made this point before and I'm going to make it again. It is impossible for nothing to exist. It is impossible for there to ever not be something. The reason that this is true is because there is no reality anywhere where it could possibly be false.

Sure, I know you're all going to feel somehow sleighted by my previous assertion, but you know, who's to say you can't have some fun with nothing?

I've made this point before and I'm going to make it again. It is impossible for nothing to exist. It is impossible for there to ever not be something. The reason that this is true is because there is no reality anywhere where it could possibly be false.
Um,
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

Nothingness would be a zero of everything, neh?
Why not professor ?.........:D:D .

Um,
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

Interesting article, but it doesn't change anything. I've considered similar explanations before. An "unphysical" state it still something, especially if it can be described as "unstable". I'm talking about the absence of absolutely anything and everything. Read that again. Absolutely anything and everything. Anything more than that is something.

If the physics community wants to assign their own special meaning to the word "nothing". Fine. That kind of thing happens all the time. It's just semantics. But then we're not talking about the same thing anymore are we? Or less incorrectly, the same no thing.

Interesting article, but it doesn't change anything. I've considered similar explanations before. An "unphysical" state it still something, especially if it can be described as "unstable". I'm talking about the absence of absolutely anything and everything. Read that again. Absolutely anything and everything. Anything more than that is something.

If the physics community wants to assign their own special meaning to the word "nothing". Fine. That kind of thing happens all the time. It's just semantics. But then we're not talking about the same thing anymore are we? Or less incorrectly, the same no thing.Take the statement, “If at first there was nothing …”. If I follow your post, most people should recognize the intent of that statement. If the discussion from there goes to the query, “How do you define nothing”, then the topic of “something coming from nothing” is delayed by a discussion of “how do you define nothing”. If the discussion of what we mean by nothing could ever be resolved, then the discussion of how something could come from nothing would pop back up in the queue.

786 and I agree to disagree about the universe, i.e. he says “God did it” and I say it has always existed. We both have personally rejected the “something from nothing” argument. He has an eternal God in place of nothing, and I have an eternal universe in place of nothing.

The question I asked Q earlier went unanswered. What I asked JamesR went unanswered. (I’m not feeling slighted because no one is compelled to answer anyone else’s question; we only answer if we want to and that is a feature of forum life). But what I was going for was to find out if I am missing any options on my list of possible explanations for the existence of the universe, and if the list is complete, then I would like someone who chooses the “something from nothing” option to explain their thinking.

List of options:
Something from nothing
God did it
The universe has always existed

Books by physicists. I have read books that are generally dismissive of the issue and others where the physicist author does feel it is both important and puzzling.

My sense is you are unaware of the discussions around the anthopic principle.

No, you've just been reading the wrong books. Theres nothing important or puzzling about it, especially to physicists. You're probably referring to philosophers.

Well, it seems that I am not going to be able to leave this alone, so here goes.


The unphysical state undergoes a spontaneous phase
transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing mat-
ter. The transition nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any
agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, “The answer to
the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would
then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.”

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing.
An empty universe requires supernatural intervention—not a full one. Only
by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could
a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is
just what we would expect if there is no God.
University of Colorado at Boulder

I recommend that anyone who is interested in this topic go ahead and read the entire article to gain a proper perspective on what is being said of course, but this excerpt is what I want to respond to.

Honestly, although I have a lot of respect for physicists, they really need to stick to the physics. In all other areas they sometimes tend to demonstrate a significant lack of progress in their thinking. If anyone thinks that this is a compelling argument they need to examine it again.

First of all, and as I touched on previously, I find it rather absurd to address the question of how something can come from nothing while you're talking about nothing as a "state" that is capable of undergoing a "phase transition". Second, anyone who is convinced of the existence of God is simply going to point out that if the physics are indeed correct, then God is responsible for creating this unphysical state that the universe has transitioned from. This is not my contention, but the argument put forth at the end of the article is so glaringly weak that it deserved to be mentioned.

Having said all this, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am criticizing the physics. It's very interesting, what I've been able to understand of it so far anyway. But this isn't entirely about the physics as far as I am concerned because it seems just as ill-equipped to get it's collective head around the concept of nothing as anyone else.

If you are saying that the "something from nothing" option is the right choice, and it would appear that is what you are saying, then can you elaborate on that choice and how you came to that conclusion?

It is the only logical choice and is the choice based on the current evidence. We just don't know exactly what the "nothing" was as of yet. It might be very similar to the way in which borrowed energy creates matter and then disappears again when the energy is returned.

then the topic of “something coming from nothing” is delayed by a discussion of “how do you define nothing”.
No thing. Not anything. Absence of everything.


then I would like someone who chooses the “something from nothing” option to explain their thinking.
Again? How many more times need you be linked to the relevant thread?


List of options:
Something from nothing
God did it
The universe has always existed
No.
Norsefire had a thread on this a long time ago, wherein he tried to "prove" that god was the logical option.
As was pointed out to him repeatedly in that thread and previous ones where he'd attempted it: one other option is "something no-one else has come up with yet".
By definition the laws of physics didn't apply to anything prior to the Big Bang.
For all we know it was a teapot that started it. (But not Trippy's pink perfect one - that's a myth :p).

It is the only logical choice and is the choice based on the current evidence. We just don't know exactly what the "nothing" was as of yet. It might be very similar to the way in which borrowed energy creates matter and then disappears again when the energy is returned.Thank you for that.

Damn that ole logic. It seems to dance around from person to person and changes its hat with as it goes :). But I appreciate you saying that it is the only logical choice but to me my choice is more logical. I would say that your choice still needs work but mine works without repair.

A universe that has always existed eliminates the supernatural invocation which science rightly ignores. Your view, something from nothing, also eliminates the supernatural and to that point it is science. But the next step in "something from nothing" is defining a nothing from which the universe can unfold. Scientists have maths that show it as a possibility, or at least I have seem some professionals in Sciforums allude to such math. Is that scientific effort to mathematically demonstrate that something can come from nothing the piece that makes "something from nothing" more logical?

May I ask what you see illogical about a universe that didn't come from nothing and that was not created, still being here.

List of options:
Something from nothing
God did it
The universe has always existed

I couldn't say that I believe that the universe has always existed unless I can expand the definition of "universe" to include states of existence that might be somewhat fundamentally different to what we see now. I certainly believe that something has always existed particularly because it seems that at some point there was no such thing as spacetime and therefore no such thing as time.

No thing. Not anything. Absence of everything.
I buy that.


Again? How many more times need you be linked to the relevant thread?
So tell me what linking us to that thread is supposed to say about what you choose as the explanation for the universe existing. Is your choice based on the link? I refereed to professionals here who allude to the math so does that link contain the math that you accept as the explanation of how the universe came from nothing?


No.
Norsefire had a thread on this a long time ago, wherein he tried to "prove" that god was the logical option.
As was pointed out to him repeatedly in that thread and previous ones where he'd attempted it: one other option is "something no-one else has come up with yet".
I can buy that too.


By definition the laws of physics didn't apply to anything prior to the Big Bang.
For all we know it was teapot that started it. (But not Trippy's pink perfect one - that's a myth :p).Of course. but it is you that is speculating it could be a tea pot. The standard cosmology (BBT) does not address the cause of the Big Bang as you well know.

So tell me what linking us to that thread is supposed to say about what you choose as the explanation for the universe existing. Is your choice based on the link? I refereed to professionals here who allude to the math so does that link contain the math that you accept as the explanation of how the universe came from nothing?
One of the links in the OP gives the maths (and one is now dead, c'est la vie).
The one with the maths was also given above (the pdf in an earlier post of mine).
Ah, now we come down to it.
I can see how it could come from nothing, but do I accept that it did? Probably this week.
This is one of those questions where I just have to throw my hands up and say "Insufficient data for me to decide conclusively". So this week it's "something from nothing" next week it may be "cyclic universes" (although I have niggling dislikes of that, on an emotional basis more than anything "real").


Of course. but it is you that is speculating it could be a tea pot.
Nope, that was an illustration that it could be anything - the question is unanswerable to current science since science breaks down at shortly after the Big Bang. What happened prior to 10-43 of a second afterwards is lost to us.
Maybe forever.
So it's ALL speculation with little chance of a definitive resolution.
It's an "angels on pinheads" question... Green or purple... ;)

But this isn't entirely about the physics as far as I am concerned because it seems just as ill-equipped to get it's collective head around the concept of nothing as anyone else.As I pointed out earlier, this is beyond the domain of physics. It gets us into cosmology, where physics (a science), math (an abstraction) and philosophy (a style of scholarship) collide in a noisy mess.

Have we even got a good definition of "nothing" yet??? Some of us define it as a universe of infinite spatial and temporal dimensions with no contents. Others insist that if there is "nothing," then that also means the abstractions we use for measurement such as space and time also do not "exist." But I'm not sure the word "exist" applies to abstractions. That would be like saying "mathematics does not exist." The sentence is grammatically correct but the words don't mean anything.

Just because we cannot measure a universe that provides us with no contents to use for spatial and temporal reference, this does not mean that it is not infinite. Besides, doesn't "infinite" mean "immeasurable" anyway?;)

One of the links in the OP gives the maths (and one is now dead, c'est la vie).
The one with the maths was also given above (the pdf in an earlier post of mine).
Ah, now we come down to it.
I can see how it could come from nothing, but do I accept that it did? Probably this week.
This is one of those questions where I just have to throw my hands up and say "Insufficient data for me to decide conclusively". So this week it's "something from nothing" next week it may be "cyclic universes" (although I have niggling dislikes of that, on an emotional basis more than anything "real").


Nope, that was an illustration that it could be anything - the question is unanswerable to current science since science breaks down at shortly after the Big Bang. What happened prior to 10-43 of a second afterwards is lost to us.
Maybe forever.
So it's ALL speculation with little chance of a definitive resolution.
It's an "angels on pinheads" question... Green or purple... ;)Agreed.

A universe that has always existed

... does not agree with current evidence. :)


May I ask what you see illogical about a universe that didn't come from nothing and that was not created, still being here.

There may not be anything illogical about it, but the evidence has to agree with it, which isn't the case.

... does not agree with current evidence. :)
I know, but the evidence is that we observe an accelerating rate of separation between galaxies and galaxy groups. GR can back track to the instant after the Big Bang. The evidence doesn't support any of the three or four explanations of the existence of the universe, so none of the choices can claim support. As Dy points out, it is speculation from there. That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang, do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing, or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.

That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang . . . .As noted earlier on this thread, that does not answer the question. The universe is "everything that exists," so if God exists he must be part of the universe. The question now has a footnote, "By the way, when and how did God come into existence?"
do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing . . . .. . . . and then adding yet another footnote, "When and how did the first cause come into existence?"
. . . . or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.That's a model I have suggested many times and strangely no one has really responded to it. We sense time flowing at a steady rate, but that's just a manifestation of our biology; all of our senses are quite limited and we lack senses to detect much of what's going on in the universe at all. In any case the universe is many billions of years old so perhaps the rate of change of the flow of time is now too small for our state of the art in measurement to detect in less than a million years.

But there's no reason time can't be graphed on a logarithmic scale instead of a linear one. This pushes the Big Bang back to minus infinity, and the question, "What came before the Big Bang?" becomes as meaningless as "What happens to atoms when the temperature falls below Absolute Zero?" Is there any good reason why time can't have an absolute zero like temperature?

Perhaps both of these statements are true:The universe has always existed. The universe has only existed for twelve billion years.This illustrates my description of cosmology as a disagreeable merger of physics, mathematics and philosophy.

As noted earlier on this thread, that does not answer the question. The universe is "everything that exists," so if God exists he must be part of the universe. The question now has a footnote, "By the way, when and how did God come into existence?". . . . and then adding yet another footnote, "When and how did the first cause come into existence?"That's a model I have suggested many times and strangely no one has really responded to it. We sense time flowing at a steady rate, but that's just a manifestation of our biology; all of our senses are quite limited and we lack senses to detect much of what's going on in the universe at all. In any case the universe is many billions of years old so perhaps the rate of change of the flow of time is now too small for our state of the art in measurement to detect in less than a million years.

But there's no reason time can't be graphed on a logarithmic scale instead of a linear one. This pushes the Big Bang back to minus infinity, and the question, "What came before the Big Bang?" becomes as meaningless as "What happens to atoms when the temperature falls below Absolute Zero?" Is there any good reason why time can't have an absolute zero like temperature?

Perhaps both of these statements are true:The universe has always existed. The universe has only existed for twelve billion years.This illustrates my description of cosmology as a disagreeable merger of physics, mathematics and philosophy.

You are a wise and thoughtful person. I am reading about a cosmology right now that looks like it is aiming at the logarithmic concept of time though I haven't quite gotten that far yet. And I haven't taken enough time to contemplate it yet but I will have to think about if "approaches infinity" in looking back is the same things as "has always existed". If the rate at which time passes changes as time passes, is a second getting longer or shorter relative to the instant of the Big Bang? I guess it is easy to say Longer, and as we look back time would appear to speed up and looking forward time would appear to slow down. Do I have that right? I guess that regardless of the relative rate of the passage of time, motion and forces have to exit. The queston remains, have they always existed?

Good to know about your view on this topic and you are right, it goes to the cosmology of the universe.

No, you've just been reading the wrong books. Theres nothing important or puzzling about it, especially to physicists. You're probably referring to philosophers.oh, thank you massa, you right, me no can tell the job of dem smart book writers.

Try John D. Barlow, physicist
or
John Wheeler, physicist - his participatory version is definitely a strong version of the strong anthropic principle.

you ass.

I believe even Rees who does not hold the strong anthropic position acknowledges in his book Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology that some physicists are puzzled by 'fine tuning'. Kaku's albeit sensationalist book Physics of the Impossible says that there a portion of physicists find fine tuning puzzling.

In fact every time I have come across a reference to the issue in books by, yes, physicists, they mention that while there are not many who hold the strong anthropic position, there are a significant number who feel the fine tuning needs to be explained and find it puzzling.

Q your approach is smug and religious and I will now enter you as my first ignore person. You are a snide, closeminded ass who thinks whatever you say has to be true.

Bye.

Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Peace be unto you ;)You know what 786, I completely overlooked your reference to the "no-boundary" proposal (http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm). Then as the discussion recently took a turn with FR's reference to logarithmic time I remembered your reference to it.

How do you see the no-boundary proposal from your perspective of "God did it".

I know, but the evidence is that we observe an accelerating rate of separation between galaxies and galaxy groups. GR can back track to the instant after the Big Bang. The evidence doesn't support any of the three or four explanations of the existence of the universe, so none of the choices can claim support. As Dy points out, it is speculation from there. That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang, do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing, or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.

We go with the evidence, which has nothing to do with gods or steady state universes.

oh, thank you massa, you right, me no can tell the job of dem smart book writers.

you ass.

Well done.


I believe...

Yes, I know.


Kaku's albeit sensationalist book Physics of the Impossible says that there a portion of physicists find fine tuning puzzling.

That's why I take Kaku's sensationalism with a grain of salt, because that's all it is; sensationalism. Clearly, you've been disallusioned to take it seriously.


In fact every time I have come across a reference to the issue in books by, yes, physicists, they mention that while there are not many who hold the strong anthropic position, there are a significant number who feel the fine tuning needs to be explained and find it puzzling.

Who, exactly?


Q your approach is smug and religious and I will now enter you as my first ignore person. You are a snide, closeminded ass who thinks whatever you say has to be true.

Bye.

I'm so sorry that you have decided you can no longer defend yourself in a debate and have resorted to ad homs. Putting me on ignore speaks volumes about you, not me.

We go with the evidence, which has nothing to do with gods or steady state universes.So you are not saying if you agree with me on the evidence. If not, what evidence?

So you are not saying if you agree with me on the evidence. If not, what evidence?

The evidence that supports current theory, of course.

The evidence that supports current theory, of course.Of course, just like I said. We observe an accelerating rate of separation between galaxies and galaxy groups (and to add to that, a host of other observations of the physical universe that we can detect).

Can I refer to you as someone that does not speculate about things that we cannot test observationally?

Of course, just like I said. We observe an accelerating rate of separation between galaxies and galaxy groups (and to add to that, a host of other observations of the physical universe that we can detect).

Can I refer to you as someone that does not speculate about things that we cannot test observationally?

I have no problem with speculation, as long as the evidence agrees with the speculation.

I have no problem with speculation, as long as the evidence agrees with the speculation.I speculate to an extent that is consistent with observations and data and follows a methodology that connects it to the current consensus.

This thread is about what 786 brought up in the OP, a topic I am interested in. Insistence that the only evidence we can consider is physical, though true from a scientific perspective, is more appropriate in a hard science forum. We don't have to agree any more than 786 and I have to agree so I am not getting it when you repeat yourself about evidence. This thread is about what we think not what we can prove. No one can prove this stuff :p.

I have no problem with speculation, as long as the evidence agrees with the speculation.There's nothing terribly wrong with speculation, on an individual level, so long as it does not contradict the evidence. We all get hunches and flashes of creativity. We'd be rather dull if we didn't. But this speculation does not become a respectable hypothesis until we roll up our sleeves and start looking for evidence. And our search must be organized in such a way that if falsifying evidence exists we will have a fair chance of finding it, rather than myopically searching only for supporting evidence.

Gosh I think the reason my dog is having seizures is that he's finding something poisonous in the yard and eating it. I'll get six friends and we'll search every square inch of the yard every day for a week and see what we find. If we don't find anything then my hypothesis starts to look a little doubtful.

But speculation is not ok when the speculator begins to indoctrinate others in his belief without having any supporting evidence. It's one thing to tell your friends, "I think Jesus was a real historical figure. Come help me search for evidence." It's quite another to tell them, "Jesus was a real historical figure. I know this and you all wish it were true, so you don't need to peer-review my evidence."

I am inclined to believe there is no such thing as nothing. A vacuum contains energy according to quantum physics. That energy can be converted to matter is accepted by scientists around the world. So weather it was a big bang or some other means, a vacuum can eventually produce universes. The magnitude of univeres is another matter. This leads me to think there has always been somethng, or the energy to produce it. Even when it may appear there is "nothing" the potential is there.

This is not some conclusisve answer but aimed to be a bit more on the science side of the view.

The process being discussed is called ex-nihilo and applies to the routinely observered appearance and disappearance of virtual particles in space. This can occur by what is considered "Borrowed Energy" and not violate conservation.

What is interesting is that purportedly the duration of existance to not violate conservation is linked to the particle masses and if you apply that standard to the mass of the universe you get something on the order of the decay time or a proton which is likely not an accident but happens to be a few billion trillions of years duration.

Now from my own work I have choosen to represent this by the following mathematical process.

(N)othingness = (+S)omethingness + (-S)omethingness

If you now assign any +/- symmetrical numerical value to the processs you get:


N----------------> (+S) + (-S) = (1) + (-1) = 0

We came into existance and exist in the form of bifurcated nothing or borrowed energy. Nothing created, no creator and no infinite or eternal existance nonsense.

I see eternal existance as nonsense because it cannot exist eternally without having come into existance initially. The issue is how it came into existance. God certainly is not a solution to that paradox.

None the less ex-nihilo is not any more understandable at the same time.

So, MacM, you can guess that initially there is NO THING. No time. No space. No mass. No electric field. No nothin'.

Out of no nothin' springs up time, space, vacuum, false vacuum, Laws Of Quantum Physics, some kind of magicke sheriff that enforces Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a virtual particle pops out of hyperspace.

The virtual particle knows that it has not existed forever(?) and so knows that it will cease existing soon(?).

As an extreme example; I have been knocked out by anesthetic in a medical procedure and had zero zip zilch nada NO memory of the past passed few hours. Simple acceptance of my memory told me that I had not existed prior to the first minute that I waked and began to wonder WTH I was and WTF was going on.

Scientifically speaking, it is contradictory to try to employ Quantum Physics principles of virtual particle borrowed energy to explain existence. Why? Because immediately prior to the emergence of the virtual particle, there had to already be false vacuum, vacuum fluctuations, a virtual particle field (commonly called the "quantum field"), the Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a magicke sheriff to enforce the Laws Of Quantum Physics.

I CAN GUESS that you think it is silly to believe in eternal existence. But, I CAN GUESS also that it is equally silly to believe in momentary existence. I have just before explained how silly it is to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.

It is completely silly to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.

But here you and me and all of us are, existing and believing that we exist.

So, MacM, you can guess that initially there is NO THING. No time. No space. No mass. No electric field. No nothin'.

Correct.


Out of no nothin' springs up time, space, vacuum, false vacuum, Laws Of Quantum Physics, some kind of magicke sheriff that enforces Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a virtual particle pops out of hyperspace.

Yes other than it isn't magic as you imply. It must be inherent in the ability to generate the balanced borrowed energy in the first place. I would not even consider thinking I knew how the process works but it does.


The virtual particle knows that it has not existed forever(?) and so knows that it will cease existing soon(?).

Un-called for assertion. Particles don't have a conscience and know or think anything.


Scientifically speaking, it is contradictory to try to employ Quantum Physics principles of virtual particle borrowed energy to explain existence. Why? Because immediately prior to the emergence of the virtual particle, there had to already be false vacuum, vacuum fluctuations, a virtual particle field (commonly called the "quantum field"), the Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a magicke sheriff to enforce the Laws Of Quantum Physics.

Conjecture that a false vacuum had to exist. A false vacuum would not be "Nothing" hence you are not discussing an ex-nihilo process.


I CAN GUESS that you think it is silly to believe in eternal existence.

Absolutely. Eternal and infinite are synonyms and by definition physical things cannot be or become infinite. To exist at all eternal or otherwise it must come into existance. Eternal and infinite are mere words inapplicable to the real physical world.


But, I CAN GUESS also that it is equally silly to believe in momentary existence. I have just before explained how silly it is to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.

You make no sense here. Existence is rather well established and however long momentary might be it will not and cannot ever become infinite.

----Eternal Time--------------------->You are Here. Guess what it has not been eternal because there is a terminal point or end. Infinite does not have any ends.


It is completely silly to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.

Politely but I have to say your statement is what is silly.


But here you and me and all of us are, existing and believing that we exist.

Yep, I just pinched myself to be sure and it hurt.

I am inclined to believe there is no such thing as nothing. A vacuum contains energy according to quantum physics.There may be energy in a vacuum, but I don't think there is any requirement that there must be energy in every vacuum. Energy after all is comprised of quarks and bosons just like matter, merely in a different arrangement.
That energy can be converted to matter is accepted by scientists around the world.Of course. Just change the charge and spin on those fermions, and the waves and the particles turn into one another.
So whether it was a big bang or some other means, a vacuum can eventually produce universes.Wait, you are begging the question of whether there was once "nothing." "Nothing" means no energy too, not just no matter. To argue that before the Big Bang a universe existed that was devoid only of matter but not of energy is, to use the language of the law, "assuming facts not in evidence," and in any case it is totally inconsistent with the Big Bang Model as it is now accepted.
This leads me to think there has always been something, or the energy to produce it. Even when it may appear there is "nothing" the potential is there.You're free to speculate because hypotheses come from speculations and every theory was once a hypothesis. But your assertion qualifies only as speculation until you present some evidence for it. And since what little evidence we've managed to gather supports the Big Bang Model--i.e. literally "nothing" before the singularity occurred--you've got an uphill battle.


It must be inherent in the ability to generate the balanced borrowed energy in the first place. I would not even consider thinking I knew how the process works but it does.The sudden springing into existence of a completely balanced set of quarks and anti-quarks and all the other pairs of elementary particles is nothing but a local reversal of entropy. As I speculated earlier, this singularity becomes unremarkable if the universe is infinite both spatially and temporally, because the law of averages then tells us that local reversals of entropy are quite possible. As I also speculated, this could happen more than once, but the occurrences would likely be so far apart spatially and temporally that we'll never have a means of detecting any of the others.
Particles don't have a conscience and know or think anything.I assume you meant to write "consciousness." But sure, particles probably don't have morality either.;)
Eternal and infinite are synonyms . . . .* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

"Eternal" is used only when referring to time. "Infinite" can mean either space or time. "Infinite" is generally applied to time in scientific parlance, where "eternal" is regarded as more of a literary or downright poetic term.

N----------------> (+S) + (-S) = (1) + (-1) = 0

This is not 'nothingness'- Why don't you explain where each component came from? 1 + -1 ? They are definitely something.

If the Net Force of a system is 0, that doesn't mean there is no force there.... The Force of X direction and Force of Y direction could be there - which is like your 1 and -1 BUT this is NOT nothing...these components are something.

Peace be unto you ;)

This is not 'nothingness'- Why don't you explain where each component came from? 1 + -1 ? They are definitely something.

If the Net Force of a system is 0, that doesn't mean there is no force there.... The Force of X direction and Force of Y direction could be there - which is like your 1 and -1 BUT this is NOT nothing...these components are something.

Peace be unto you ;)Good point; I agree.

I thought you were gone since you haven't posted here and didn't respond to the "no-boundary proposal" question I asked you. But again, no one has to respond to anyone else and I am not whining :).

It still looks to me like there are four possible explanations for the existence of the universe:
1) God did it
2) Something from nothing
3) Always existed (no beginning)
4) Some other possibility

I want to ask MacM if you agree with the list, and would be interested in how you respond to 786's point.

I take back what I said about FR since I guess it is not clear that he agrees with me on #3 as I had indicated earlier.

I wonder if 786 can add a poll to see how many are willing to commit to one of the four possibilities?

Exams! So I'm selectively posting... will be posting when I'm finished. I made the poll though.

Peace be unto you ;)

Wow, you did the poll. Thanks.

Edit: And I see that 100% say #3. Oh wait, only one vote so far :D.

We came into existance and exist in the form of bifurcated nothing or borrowed energy. Nothing created, no creator and no infinite or eternal existance nonsense.

I see eternal existance as nonsense because it cannot exist eternally without having come into existance initially. The issue is how it came into existance. God certainly is not a solution to that paradox.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing comes nothing. Not true according to some physicists. And you know what? They aren't necessarily wrong if their definition of reality is limited to what can currently be measured or detected, or what can reasonably be said to exist based on current evidence. But I believe, as do many others, that as we probe deeper and deeper into the structure and fabric of reality, we will eventually expand our definition of the physical to include states that were previously undetectable, and will eventually integrate these discoveries into a more complete description of reality and expand our definition of the universe. As long as our methods are based on empirical, observable and measurable evidence, whatever we discover about reality will always be scientific, no matter what it is.

The point of contention here is whether or not the nothing that some physicists are suggesting that the universe transitioned from actually exists as part of reality. Whether or not it has the quality of being actually real. Physics tells us that it doesn't, because according to our current definitions it does not have any physical properties and something must have physical properties in order to be said to actually exist. But is this an absolute truth, or merely a limitation of our current model to describe the true scope of reality?

Let's examine this nothing again. An unstable unphysical state that is somehow just itching to undergo a phase transition to a physical state. Although it can't be said to have physical properties, it obviously does have at least one property, which is it's mathematically supported overwhelming tendency to become something. It is this instability, this potential, that I want to focus on. How can something have the potential to become something else if it does not actually exist? Or phrased differently, and more in line with how physics would define the elements in play, how can nothing have the potential to become something if it is really nothing? The answer to the latter question is that it can't. Nothing can not become something because it is nothing. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. The only explanation that makes any kind of logical sense is that this nothing is actually something. That it's something that one day physics will be able to at least describe due to inevitable advances in our understanding of the universe we live in.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing comes nothing. Not true according to some physicists. And you know what? They aren't necessarily wrong if their definition of reality is limited to what can currently be measured or detected, or what can reasonably be said to exist based on current evidence. But I believe, as do many others, that as we probe deeper and deeper into the structure and fabric of reality, we will eventually expand our definition of the physical to include states that were previously undetectable, and will eventually integrate these discoveries into a more complete description of reality and expand our definition of the universe. As long as our methods are based on empirical, observable and measurable evidence, whatever we discover about reality will always be scientific, no matter what it is.

The point of contention here is whether or not the nothing that some physicists are suggesting that the universe transitioned from actually exists as part of reality. Whether or not it has the quality of being actually real. Physics tells us that it doesn't, because according to our current definitions it does not have any physical properties and something must have physical properties in order to be said to actually exist. But is this an absolute truth, or merely a limitation of our current model to describe the true scope of reality?

Let's examine this nothing again. An unstable unphysical state that is somehow just itching to undergo a phase transition to a physical state. Although it can't be said to have physical properties, it obviously does have at least one property, which is it's mathematically supported overwhelming tendency to become something. It is this instability, this potential, that I want to focus on. How can something have the potential to become something else if it does not actually exist? Or phrased differently, and more in line with how physics would define the elements in play, how can nothing have the potential to become something if it is really nothing? The answer to the latter question is that it can't. Nothing can not become something because it is nothing. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. The only explanation that makes any kind of logical sense is that this nothing is actually something. That it's something that one day physics will be able to at least describe due to inevitable advances in our understanding of the universe we live in.I share this view of future discoveries that might yield a new understanding of states of energy. Right now the thought of an eternal universe has too much of a religious connotation to be acceptable to some reasonably large percentage of the scientifically oriented. A new or better understanding of physics will bring us closer to an understanding of reality. Right now the term "reality" is considered philosophical by some of those in that reasonably large percentage. There is a gap between math and reality, i.e. between the correspondence of mathematical representations of physical phenomena and that philosophical concept of reality. Science narrows the gap as understanding improves.

I think the kind of advancements and discoveries you refer to will lead to explanations of how our enemy entropy is managed by an eternal universe without the need for either the hand of a Creator or the falsification of Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

what is meant by nothing here? Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

probably a good idea to look at the definition a little and maybe get examples of various definitions/examples through the ages and across religions.

nothingness to Christians is probably hell which is an anti Christ of ones own desires(somewhat a lustful materialistic concept but that's Christianity in its fundamentalist constructs.

mayan

egyptian

etc...

I would look at nothing as "no thing" which would bring it to an issue of dualistic consciousness which creates it's own boundaries or limits. Probably the closest we can come to an understanding of this would be found in quantum physics? Or maybe Zen. Or even Plato.
There are some questions that are ultimately unanswerable by logic because every answer will only beg another question, ad infinitum. Nature of dualism. Answered by subjective experience will be unprovable scientifically. Just the nature of the beast.
:shrug:

I would look at nothing as "no thing" which would bring it to an issue of dualistic consciousness which creates it's own boundaries or limits. Probably the closest we can come to an understanding of this would be found in quantum physics? Or maybe Zen. Or even Plato. There are some questions that are ultimately unanswerable by logic because every answer will only beg another question, ad infinitum. Nature of dualism. Answered by subjective experience will be unprovable scientifically. Just the nature of the beast.Which brings us back to my definition of "cosmology" as an awkward place where physics, mathematics and philosophy meet.

I don't know where the conversation is at this moment, but I'd just like to share my view. I personally have to believe there was nothing, and that when I go there will be absolute nothing waiting. I need that peaceful solution to this chaotic, noisy world we live in. I cherish the day I can relax and cease to be. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to die yet, but the idea of nothing is calming.
It's hard for me to believe in the nothing if I don't believe that everything originally came from nothing.

probably a good idea to look at the definition a little and maybe get examples of various definitions/examples through the ages and across religions.

nothingness to Christians is probably hell which is an anti Christ of ones own desires(somewhat a lustful materialistic concept but that's Christianity in its fundamentalist constructs.

mayan

egyptian

etc...

Didn't the Egyptians believe that if your heart was weighed and decided 'bad', that it would be eaten and you would cease to exist at all and there was no way of returning?

It amuses me to see so many people searching for an absolute eternal truth within the playground of dualistic phenomena. Has anyone ever seen a dog chasing it's own tail?
The importance of one's personal philosophical beliefs cannot be overstated. Most of us have learned to function quite well within the Aristotelean framework of accepted beliefs, and have yet to discover the limits of said framework of beliefs' ability to answer certain questions of being. Nothingness is a question of being or existence and is unanswerable within the Aristotelean belief system.
There are other philosphical belief systems better suited.
There are those which do not require a "big bang".

Nothingness is a question of being or existence

The majority of this discussion has remained quite squarely within the context of defining "nothing" so far as it relates, or does not relate, to the origin of the universe. It's mostly a question of physics, but because the physics are incomplete the question necessarily calls upon more philosophical considerations. In this particular case I believe, as do many others, that physics will eventually provide an answer.

But the question is not about the nature of nothingness, or the nature of being or existence, as you seem to be thinking. It is about the definition of nothing within the framework of physics and whether or not that nothing can actually be said to be something. So we aren't chasing our tails here. We are chasing a more advanced understanding of the nature of the physical universe and that chase has always been a fruitful endeavor.

I would reply that a more advanced understanding of the nature of the physical universe will come when there is an understanding of one's personal nature and how that relates to the physical universe as you call it. But I will leave you guys in peace to continue your search. Hopefully it will be, as you say, a fruitful endeavor.

6 pages and no mention of kierkegaard, heidegger, sartre, st. john of the cross, pseudo-dionysius, parmalee of melniborne, or daisy de bingen? or even zen? not even that loathesome positivistic schmuck, carnap, and his trite accusations of "nonsense" (i think i've encountered a number of his offspring). and only cursory mention of nothingness as it relates to being. this is the comparative religion subforum--do we have to be talking physics?

the bane of the empiricists: the phenomelogical experience of nothing. kind of anti-scientific, that.

got plenty to choose from, but we'll go back nearly 15-odd years to the 14th floor of perhaps that ugliest of monstrosities amongst gems, robarts library in toronto (i'm sure glaucon has seen this one). that crappy television series, paper chase was shot here because it looked "more harvard than harvard." that, and it's cheaper to shoot in canada.

anyhow, i was rambling on about how "the gospel of philip" is actually a comprehensive soteriological text, only it's fragments had been arranged in the wrong sequence. the computer center was a trifle warmer than the rest of the building but not this warm, and seldom nauseau inducing (but not quite yet Nauseau). i looked about me and the studentish-sorts had all but entirely morphed into faceless, featureless entities far more extreme than any leper i had ever encountered. anyone who has spent time amongst a leper colony in south asia should know what i am talking about: the orifices were merely blackened holes and the limbs appeared incongruous appendages. and so, it seemed an appropriate time to get the hell out of there.

control over my own appendages had slipped, and i abandoned the idea of properly saving my file and packing away my belongings. rather i "focused" on simply making my way to the elevator. but there was no "i" to focus, i had slipped away and what remained was raw perception--of my now unrecognizable form from afar. moreover, everything had changed more than ever so slightly and locating this "elevator," which now seemed such an elusive and foreign notion, did take nothing short of an eternity. still, "i" eventually located something, lest i not be here today and some "buttons" were pushed and this form slithered into the smaller box. the ground had quietly slipped away as had everything else, and i'm not entirely certain that my entry into the box was accomplished by "walking"; and likewise, the buttons and all such things had just as quietly slipped away.

and then there were the voices, but was anyone actually saying anything? i've no fucking clue, i just know that the voices were there.

the common refrain that such things are "ineffable" seems contrived, but language does prove inadequate nonetheless: dread (rather, urspruengliche angst), unheimlichkeit (what does "uncanny" really mean? not that "un-home-like-ness" is really all that much better, but at least it does suggest something), alien-ness (again, befremdlichkeit is only somewhat more adequate). not very helpful. but is "slipping away from the totality of being (seiende im ganzen)" and only dasein remains, with emphasis on the da, any more useful? one could cite some relevant bits from heidegger--particularly passages from "what is metaphysics?" (the post-script most especially)--for the "technical" explanation, but perhaps carnap was right (just this one time, of course): such is nonsense. it doesn't really say anything.

das nichts nichtet--the nothing nothings.

or perhaps lewis carroll, being the logical sort, could get this matter straightened out:

"i see nobody on the road," alice cried.
"i only wish i had such eyes," remarked the king. "to be able to see nobody! at that distance too."

still, not very helpful.

i don't think that one can really say much of anything at all about nothing. this annihilation of "self," the experience of depersonalization and derealization, "the dark night of the soul." all useless.

wittgenstein "knew" this as well. and as soon as carnap, russell, ayer, et al (the vienna circle sorts) figured this out, they also realized that they had gotten the tractatus all wrong: it's not simply that it's "nonsense" to talk about that which lies outside of space and time; rather, any effort to speak about such is inevitably doomed for the start--for that which is most important really cannot be spoken "about." well, maybe one can speak about it, but that is all: to speak it is another matter altogether--"nonsense."

and this "nothing" lies at the core of being--our being (or there being, dasein). when you know it for yourselves, you simply know it for yourselves, and trying to talk about it only makes one appear a fool. (not that i care.)

"nothing" is hardly a concept, and one deigns to think of it as such, one misses the mark entirely. this reification of nothing is nothing more than a futile endeavor. sunyata can only be experienced, hence the problem for the empirical sciences. evidence? how is one to demonstrate one's findings? is it repeatable? sure, but a lot of good that does when noone can really articulate what exactly is repeatable.

that's all that nothing is to me, at least.

anyhow, fire away!

...
anyhow, fire away!

Lol, nice entry. I would have found it difficult to say almost nothing in so many words. You failed to say nothing when you inserted:

or perhaps lewis carroll, being the logical sort, could get this matter straightened out:

"i see nobody on the road," alice cried.
"i only wish i had such eyes," remarked the king. "to be able to see nobody! at that distance too."

still, not very helpful.I found that helpful ;).

Really, it was a joy to read your post. Stay with us and feel free to ignore me.

Lol, nice entry. I would have found it difficult to say almost nothing in so many words.

i agree--it's extremely difficult to say nothing. yet, so many have written entire volumes on such.

incidentally, the personal anecdote related above was abbreviated (and paraphrased) from 14 hand-printed pages, in a tiny little font of my own devising. :D


You failed to say nothing when you inserted:
I found that helpful ;).

Really, it was a joy to read your post. Stay with us and feel free to ignore me.

when logicians talk about nothing it can be quite fascinating; unfortunately most consider it an unworthy endeavor. and carnap composed a massive essay dismissing heidegger's one particular piece on nothing--the essay "what is metaphysics?", with an even longer post-script written many years later. he described it as metaphysical nonsense, kind of missing the point entirely as far as i can tell.

i agree--it's extremely difficult to say nothing. yet, so many have written entire volumes on such.

incidentally, the personal anecdote related above was abbreviated (and paraphrased) from 14 hand-printed pages, in a tiny little font of my own devising. :D
Yeah? When did you write it?



when logicians talk about nothing it can be quite fascinating; unfortunately most consider it an unworthy endeavor. and carnap composed a massive essay dismissing heidegger's one particular piece on nothing--the essay "what is metaphysics?", with an even longer post-script written many years later. he described it as metaphysical nonsense, kind of missing the point entirely as far as i can tell.You almost make it sound interesting enough for me to give up my quest for reality and start reading philosophy. But for now I will resist except for a quick Google of carnap (I’m sure he is too insignificant to demand a capital “c”.

But for now I will resist except for a quick Google of carnap (I’m sure he is too insignificant to demand a capital “c”.Logical positivism. I am sure I don't want the details right now, but maybe when we solve "nothingness". Or will I need that to solve it?

Just curious, how does a philosopher answer the poll question?

Yeah? When did you write it?

that particular incident happened almost 15 years ago when i was a graduate student (u. of toronto). oddly, i come from a pretty impoverished background--my father abandoned us and my mother made minimum wage (she has lupus and was often too ill to work)--yet i pursued the most impractical matters in university: philosophy and religious studies. AND, i got paid well to do it: scholarships are often quite generous for that magical combination of being poor and testing extremely well. and where did it get me? apart from fact-checking, proof-reading, and writing (heh. the sort i do does not not pay well), i've held decidely non-academic professions for the entirety of my adult life: musician, dog trainer, coffee roaster, chef, and all-around peripatetic artisan (unfortunately, i can't take credit for that term--a reviewer coined it).

anyhow, epilepsy--specifically left temporal lobe seizures--often "afflicts" one with hypergraphia: i feel compelled to document everything to the point at which my hands bleed. actually, the lower-case thing is a product of such as well.


You almost make it sound interesting enough for me to give up my quest for reality and start reading philosophy. But for now I will resist except for a quick Google of carnap (I’m sure he is too insignificant to demand a capital “c”.

Logical positivism. I am sure I don't want the details right now, but maybe when we solve "nothingness". Or will I need that to solve it?

carnap was of the extreme brand of positivists. interestingly, he was far more sympathetic towards metaphysics and such in his early years; but then he had some sort of "epiphany" i guess, and ruled all such things utter and complete nonsense.

he and his mates considered wittgenstein and the tractatus a work of sheer genius; but when they finally got around to meeting wittgenstein, they deemed him a "nutter." IOW they realized that where they thought w. was being facetious, he was actually being quite serious. w. only wanted to discuss things like william james' varieties of religious experience and whatnots.

this matter of nothing and nothingness has plagued folks around the world for at least a couple thousand years, and while it seems a cop-out, i feel that it can only be experienced and NOT articulated.


Just curious, how does a philosopher answer the poll question?

there's a poll in this thread? how could i have overlooked that? i still can't seem to find it.

that particular incident happened almost 15 years ago when i was a graduate student (u. of toronto). oddly, i come from a pretty impoverished background--my father abandoned us and my mother made minimum wage (she has lupus and was often too ill to work)--yet i pursued the most impractical matters in university: philosophy and religious studies. AND, i got paid well to do it: scholarships are often quite generous for that magical combination of being poor and testing extremely well. and where did it get me? apart from fact-checking, proof-reading, and writing (heh. the sort i do does not not pay well), i've held decidely non-academic professions for the entirety of my adult life: musician, dog trainer, coffee roaster, chef, and all-around peripatetic artisan (unfortunately, i can't take credit for that term--a reviewer coined it).You have talent.

I come from a broken family. Mom took me and my brother out of a bad marriage to a Dad who didn't want kids. She raised us by working two jobs and going to business college. While I was in jr. high she had the insight to take a job in a college town and even managed to find me a full tuition and books scholarship to MSU in E. Lansing, MI. My major was Financial Administration and my career in finance kept me out of trouble. Somehow I never was interested in Philosophy during or after I graduated, but I am beginning to see that I tend toward the intellectual since I have retired :).


anyhow, epilepsy--specifically left temporal lobe seizures--often "afflicts" one with hypergraphia: i feel compelled to document everything to the point at which my hands bleed. actually, the lower-case thing is a product of such as well.



carnap was of the extreme brand of positivists. interestingly, he was far more sympathetic towards metaphysics and such in his early years; but then he had some sort of "epiphany" i guess, and ruled all such things utter and complete nonsense.

he and his mates considered wittgenstein and the tractatus a work of sheer genius; but when they finally got around to meeting wittgenstein, they deemed him a "nutter." IOW they realized that where they thought w. was being facetious, he was actually being quite serious. w. only wanted to discuss things like william james' varieties of religious experience and whatnots. That is a great story.


this matter of nothing and nothingness has plagued folks around the world for at least a couple thousand years, and while it seems a cop-out, i feel that it can only be experienced and NOT articulated.My interest is more from a cosmological perspective. To me, "nothingness" doesn't compute. I see no way for something to come from nothing and I see no way for a universe to be finite and not be imposing on nothingness as it expands. Just seems wrong to me.


there's a poll in this thread? how could i have overlooked that? i still can't seem to find it.Are you sure?

tdhis is the comparative religion subforum--do we have to be talking physics?This is supposed to be a place of science, and most of us are only wannabe-scientists at that. There aren't very many members who are well-versed in philosophy. I suspect I'm not the only one here who can't understand your posts on this thread and who has no idea who most of the people you just named are or were. Except Lewis Carroll of course.
To me, "nothingness" doesn't compute. I see no way for something to come from nothing and I see no way for a universe to be finite and not be imposing on nothingness as it expands. Just seems wrong to me.You're just getting hung up on the words and stumbling over semantics. The word "nothing" was handed down from a time when the technology to study the universe outside of earth's biosphere was too primitive to matter, and what passed for cosmology was almost entirely supernaturalism. So don't be too disappointed if "nothing" is not only not a very useful term in this discussion, but may actually be misleading.

Is the space-time continuum something real or just an abstraction, if it contains no matter or energy? If you asked that question to the most profound scholar in the tenth century CE, the earliest record of the word "nothing," do you think he would understand it, much less come up with an answer?

You're just getting hung up on the words and stumbling over semantics. The word "nothing" was handed down from a time when the technology to study the universe outside of earth's biosphere was too primitive to matter, and what passed for cosmology was almost entirely supernaturalism. So don't be too disappointed if "nothing" is not only not a very useful term in this discussion, but may actually be misleading.

Is the space-time continuum something real or just an abstraction, if it contains no matter or energy? If you asked that question to the most profound scholar in the tenth century CE, the earliest record of the word "nothing," do you think he would understand it, much less come up with an answer?It does help when you put it into that perspective. But why are there professionals in the scientific community that take General Relativity’s “look back” so literally that they conclude that the universe emerged from nothing and they discuss mathematics that prove to them that something can come from nothing.

Dy linked us to a web page purporting to do that, though she was hesitant to say she agreed with it. But there are those who take it seriously.

Even if it were possible for there to be "nothing," isn't whatever that is still "something" ?

Even if it were possible for there to be "nothing," isn't whatever that is still "something" ?Hmm, would it have to be "something"? I don't even see how it is possible for there to have been "nothing" so to me it isn't something; it is a concept I guess. How many of you are thinking, "the universe doesn't care what I think"? I'm guessing half or more :).

I’m glad that we finally got a vote for God (this is a reference to the poll).

Early in the thread I met 786 and we discussed three possible explanations for the existence of the universe, God, something from nothing, and eternal. 786 was clear and comfortable with being a believer, and while I didn’t express a belief in or denial of God, I did opt for the “eternal” explanation, feeling comfortable that the universe has always existed.

We both rejected the “something from nothing” explanation because we agreed that it fails as an explanation. However, as the discussion progressed, there were objections from some to the list of possible explanations, saying that there should be a fourth explanation called “all other”.

Soon after that I asked 786 if he could add a poll to the thread with those four possible explanations. You see the result at the top of any page. Up until the last few days, no one had chosen the “God did it” option. Knowing 786’s position on the matter I knew there had to be a “yes” to God out there somewhere.

But what interests me is that half of the 14 votes so far are for the “Some other possibility”. What do we know about them? They are close to being the majority so far. We know that they don’t believe that “God did it”. Does that make them Atheists? We know that they don’t opt for “Something from nothing”; does that make them practical? I think that 786 and I would say it does. And they are not ready or able to say that the universe has always existed. Does that make them confused. I would say it does.

Why do I say confused, you ask? It is because they don’t think God did it, they don’t think the universe had a beginning, and they don’t think the universe is eternal. I would say they were the scientists and mathematicians. :D Just kidding about the "confused" part.

Two votes for God now.

Cunning linguists try to make something important out of the fact that nothing really is something. Of course it is something! It is a word!

It is a word that means no thing. It is a means of communication that portrays the message that there is no thing there.

Nothing is a word used in human communication.

Nothing communicates that there is no thing in the circumstance that is the subject of the communication.

I am enthusiastically (though in no eagerness to prematurely hurry the matter) awaiting the time that I can sit down with Jesus in the garden in the cool of the evening and inquire of Him the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. I am prepared for the possibility that, even in Heaven in Eternity, there may be some wisdoms that will never ever be presented to any man.

The existence of life, the universe, and everything, to the best of my understanding, out of no thing, is a mystery that may or may not ever be revealed to me. I can deal with it.

It does help when you put it into that perspective.Well thanks. As the Linguistics Moderator I find that looking at words, their connotations, and the way they shape our thinking can often clarify a discussion.
But why are there professionals in the scientific community that take General Relativity’s “look back” so literally that they conclude that the universe emerged from nothing and they discuss mathematics that prove to them that something can come from nothing.Because the paradigms and patterns of the language we speak can't help but shape the paradigms and patterns of our thoughts. Unless you're someone like a musician, an athlete, a sculptor, etc. most of your thoughts are formed--or at least fleshed out--in words. In other words, the tool you use to build things influences what you build. ("If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.")

This is why I stridently insist that every child should be taught a second language, and the more foreign (unrelated) the better. Having two different ways of thinking allows you to critically review your own ideas from a different perspective.
Even if it were possible for there to be "nothing," isn't whatever that is still "something" ?Q.E.D! Your question hinges on the words. If you used the Spanish words nada and algo the answer to your question would not be so intuitive. And English and Spanish are cousins in the same language family. Try a totally unrelated language like Chinese and it might be difficult to phrase the question in such a provocative way at all!
We both rejected the “something from nothing” explanation because we agreed that it fails as an explanation.But why? I offered a rationale supporting that explanation based only upon the juxtaposition of two very uncontroversial premises:1. The occurrence of the words "tends to" in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, rather than "always" 2. Probability theory
Up until the last few days, no one had chosen the “God did it” option.The question of the validity of that option takes us right back into my turf on this website: Language.The definition of the "universe" is: "Everything that exists." If a force, an object, or any other combination of elementary particles is able to do something that affects other forces, objects or other combinations of elementary particles, then it satisfies the definition of "existing." Therefore, if God created the universe, he exists, or at least he did at that moment. Therefore, the universe includes God. Therefore, God created himself.Various ways of getting around this fallacy of recursion can be suggested. One is that God existed before the Big Bang and instantly ceased to exist. This certainly sounds like my model of a multiverse in which individual universes spring into existence at exceedingly rare intervals. But rather than relying on the "tends to" loophole in the Second Law as mine does, this model postulates a causative relationship between one individual universe and the next. It's not as elegant as my model which is no reason to reject it, but it leaves some gigantic questions unanswered:If the Big Bang itself is difficult to explain, how do we explain the relationship between the demise of one individual universe and the sudden appearance of its successor? Where did the first individual universe come from?

Of course the far more common fallacy-buster is the assertion that God is not comprised of elementary particles and exists outside of the universe in both space and time. Furthermore it's usually postulated that he is exempt from all the natural laws of the universe, especialy entropy, and possibly even exempt from rationality. This is supernaturalism, which is unscientific at best and antiscientific at worst. The principles of science tell us that we are not obliged to pay much attention to supernaturalism.Occam tells us to test the simpler solutions first, and my two models are far simpler. Laplace tells us that an extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat it with respect. Neither of my models is extraordinary. Supernaturalism contradicts more than one scientific theory, making it extraordinary, and in fact it contradicts the exhaustively-tested fundamental premise that underlies all of science and defines the scientific method: The natural universe is a closed system (in layman's language) whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. Supernaturalism not only has no extraordinary evidence, it does not even have any ordinary evidence except mythology.I still insist that my two models are plausible and do not violate science.1. There is no reason to assume that time is an arithmetic variable. If it is a logarithmic variable, with an "absolute zero" at minus infinity, then both if these statements are true: The universe has always existed; and, There was a Big Bang. 2. Space-time is arithmetically infinite both spatially and temporally. In an infinite continuum the loophole in the Second Law allows for enormous, balanced collections of elementary particles and antiparticles to spring into existence at enormously rare intervals and enormous distances from each other. Therefore the universe has always existed but is more properly called a multiverse, and most of the time it's empty; and the Big Bang occurred, and similar events have occurred before and will occur again; and the question of what happened before the Big Bang has an answer: probably another one.
Why do I say confused, you ask?Because their thoughts are influenced by the words available to them.

The rational thinker seeks understanding by wrestling ideas into focus rather than getting hung up on semantics. Language can influence the formation of thoughts and ideas, sure, but it does not compromise our ability to see truth.

As far as communication is concerned, I think everyone is aware of the limitations of language when it comes to conveying important subtleties. This is why we give examples and use illustrations when we are explaining something important. You could take half of the commonly used words out of the dictionary, and alter the meaning of half of the words that are left, and it would still be possible to accurately communicate a complex idea if you were given enough time.

Rav, I agree with your evaluation that communication, in spite of the limitations on conveying important subtleties, can be accomplished with the use of examples and illustrations, but I consider it even more effective to be able to use similar words from other languages that have the needed nuances. Of course that requires fluency in those languages by both or all parties to the communication.

Hi FR, thanks for your post last week on this thread. I started to read through the thread again and wanted to give you a worthy response. And I will think on that but right now I can say that I am more comfortable with speculation than you are, but I do base all of my speculations on departure points in science and current theory. I'm comfortable going beyond the Hubble volume because if there were preconditions to the Big Bang, then there is an "outside the event horizon" that we might have to consider in order to put together theory that has any chance of addressing reality. What say you?

Hi FR, thanks for your post last week on this thread. I started to read through the thread again and wanted to give you a worthy response. And I will think on that but right now I can say that I am more comfortable with speculation than you are, but I do base all of my speculations on departure points in science and current theory.I have no problem with speculation, because after all most theories probably start out as speculation. As long as it doesn't contradict science. But if a speculation contradicts science, then the Rule of Laplace applies. If it's speculation about cosmology, it's rather unlikely that the requisite extraordinary evidence will ever be presented, so it won't be treated with respect and will stay forever in Pseudoscience.
I'm comfortable going beyond the Hubble volume because if there were preconditions to the Big Bang, then there is an "outside the event horizon" that we might have to consider in order to put together theory that has any chance of addressing reality. What say you?The problem with speculating about what's beyond the Hubble radius is that we'll never be able to confirm or falsify the speculation.

But since I define cosmology as an uncomfortable mix of physics, math and philosophy, I expect that the ultimate model of the universe (both microcosmology like string theory and macrocosmology like the Big Bang) will be comprised of abstractions that can't be tested. The model will be adopted only because it works, and there will be a little asterisk next to its name in the Canon of Science.

God did it [ ]
Something from nothing [ ]
Always existed (no beginning) [ ]
Some other possibility [ ]
All of the above [ x ]

Mischief:

My choice is all of the above. Imagine a nothingness. From which perspective or perspectives are you viewing or in some other way experiencing the nothingness?

Imagine that your perspective could change. Now there is something; the something being the changes in your perspective. Perhaps in some way points could be located to mark changes in your perspective. What are we anyway other than perspective? As we observe the points that mark changes in our perspective from certain perspectives imagined meanings for the points come into existence.

From some perspectives it is easy to imagine matter and from other perspectives it is easy to imagine god. Can either matter or God or nothingness be separated from the perspectives from which experiencing allows them to come into existence?

Look at our number-lines; they extend infinitely in two directions and have a mid point that is not off center in either direction. Number lines a comprised of infinitely small points that can be approached but can never be arrived at. It seems to me that the points are in fact made of nothing. Whether we are talking about time, or dimensions of space, or the dimension of solidity to emptiness, or the dimension of inside to outside, or absolutely me to absolutely not me, or god to not god, or good to evil, or attraction to repulsion, or truth to untruth, the number-line of nonexistent points extending infinitely in two directions remains the form. What is now but a nonexistent mid point between the nonexistent future and the nonexistent past? What am I but here and now in nonexistent time and space. Try to find yourself; it can not be done because you do not exist.

What do you call that from which nonexistent existence emerges? It depends on your perspective. Whether you call it God or self, or nothingness or the universe or time and space does not matter. If nothing is viewed from infinite perspectives anything could be seen in the nothing and you would not be wrong because hallucinations are something. You will see as your perspective allows you to see.

My choice is all of the above. Imagine a nothingness. From which perspective or perspectives are you viewing or in some other way experiencing the nothingness?From the future, since the nothingness is clearly behind us. Our paradigm of spacetime has been tested and found consistent with all the evidence, so it stands as a canonical theory upon which to build. Our only point of uncertainty is at the moment of the Big Bang itself. This suggests one of two corollaries:1. Time has an Absolute Zero, which is consistent with other measures of the universe such as temperature. On the other hand this could simply mean that we're measuring time wrong, using an arithmetic scale instead of logarithmic. 2. The Big Bang was not a singularity and similar events occur at rare intervals.
From some perspectives it is easy to imagine matter and from other perspectives it is easy to imagine god.The paradigm of matter and energy (you left out energy) has been elaborated and deconstructed down to electrons and photons and the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Four Elementary forces... and then elaborated and deconstructed further into quarks and bosons. Now we're elaborating and deconstructing even further into String Theory or whatever better model supplants it. Ultimately we'll end up with a very elegant model that explains everything we observe in the universe and leaves us with a minimal set of irreducible questions that veer away from physics and math into pure philosophy.

The God model, on the other hand, cannot be elaborated and deconstructed, is astoundingly inelegant, raises more questions than it answers, and directs those questions toward cosmology's scientific node rather than its philosophical node. Calling this a model of the universe is a retreat into comfortable ignorance and leaves science to clean up the mess by answering a bonehead question, "Where did the god come from and what is its energy source?"
Can either matter or God or nothingness be separated from the perspectives from which experiencing allows them to come into existence?You're overtaxing the word "perspective" by putting religion on par with science and casually tossing off the notion that science and religion are merely "different perspectives," implying that each therefore has its own claim to validity.

This model equates ignorance with scholarship, and it doesn't withstand peer review on this website.
Look at our number-lines; they extend infinitely in two directions and have a mid point that is not off center in either direction. Number lines a comprised of infinitely small points that can be approached but can never be arrived at. It seems to me that the points are in fact made of nothing. Whether we are talking about time, or dimensions of space, or the dimension of solidity to emptiness, or the dimension of inside to outside, or absolutely me to absolutely not me, or god to not god, or good to evil, or attraction to repulsion, or truth to untruth, the number-line of nonexistent points extending infinitely in two directions remains the form. What is now but a nonexistent mid point between the nonexistent future and the nonexistent past? What am I but here and now in nonexistent time and space. Try to find yourself; it can not be done because you do not exist.* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

You're getting hung up on the limitations of your language. It is the job of science to transcend them.
What do you call that from which nonexistent existence emerges? It depends on your perspective.Perhaps, but it also depends on your language. Restate that question in Bantu or Hopi and see what kind of answer you get. For example, those people might turn out to be much less tolerant of discourse-stalling oxymorons like "nonexistent existence" than you are. Personally I regard them as sophomoric.
. . . . because hallucinations are something.This is wordplay, a trick of linguistics. Let's please get back to science!

I have no problem with speculation, because after all most theories probably start out as speculation. As long as it doesn't contradict science. But if a speculation contradicts science, then the Rule of Laplace applies. If it's speculation about cosmology, it's rather unlikely that the requisite extraordinary evidence will ever be presented, so it won't be treated with respect and will stay forever in Pseudoscience.The problem with speculating about what's beyond the Hubble radius is that we'll never be able to confirm or falsify the speculation.
Not entirely true. It is like testing a piece of a puzzle in all of the places around the board where it might fit. If not, you put it down and try another piece. It is not a perfect analogy but the point is that if we speculate about the unknown and contemplate how the speculation might help explain things that we observe but don't yet understand, we might get some clues that lead to simple explanations for what we observe even though we started with only reasonable and responsible speculation.


But since I define cosmology as an uncomfortable mix of physics, math and philosophy, I expect that the ultimate model of the universe (both microcosmology like string theory and macrocosmology like the Big Bang) will be comprised of abstractions that can't be tested. The model will be adopted only because it works, and there will be a little asterisk next to its name in the Canon of Science.I suppose you are right. One thing is for sure, as long as intelligent life remains, the search for reality will continue.

Not entirely true. It is like testing a piece of a puzzle in all of the places around the board where it might fit. If not, you put it down and try another piece.Well sure. Speculations about what's beyond the Hubble radius can certainly be disproven as we improve our knowledge of the universe and they are found to contradict them. But to prove one "true beyond a reasonable doubt" so that it can become a canonical theory, that seems very unlikely. At least not without the little asterisk.
One thing is for sure, as long as intelligent life remains, the search for reality will continue.I'm reminded of my favorite line from the movie "Harvey," said by Jimmy Stewart in response to the accusation that he is struggling with reality. "Lady, I've been struggling with reality for years, and I'm proud to say that I've finally won out over it."

Well sure. Speculations about what's beyond the Hubble radius can certainly be disproven as we improve our knowledge of the universe and they are found to contradict them. But to prove one "true beyond a reasonable doubt" so that it can become a canonical theory, that seems very unlikely. At least not without the little asterisk.
Darn those pesky little asterisks.

But any cosmology that doesn't speculate about the cause of the Big Bang will always be incomplete. I like to think of cosmology as a description of the universe. As such, we include in it what science knows, i.e. an incomplete cosmology, and we are left with some unknowns. Speculation has to be employed when trying to fill out the complete cosmology if that is what an individual wants to do. I personally like to have a view of what that complete cosmology may be like even if it includes speculation. I agree that speculation must be done properly.


There's nothing terribly wrong with speculation, on an individual level, so long as it does not contradict the evidence. ...And our search must be organized in such a way that if falsifying evidence exists we will have a fair chance of finding it, rather than myopically searching only for supporting evidence.
I submit that speculation to be done properly must be connected to scientific knowledge, for example using the scientific consensus as a departure point. And from the departure point each step of speculation should be reasonable and responsible to people knowledgeable in science and who are open to discussing and exchanging ideas on speculation that follows such a methodology.

I would like to know what possible explanations people have in mind when the select "some other possibility" when responding to the poll. I’m asking on the basis that they seem confused to me or at least are unable to commit to one of the choices that can be defined.

I know all about how the universe (let alone science) doesn't care what I think, and I know that those who are unable to commit to an explanation are ether not finished sorting out the questions enough to commit, or they are just satisfied not knowing and admitting that we can't know. They might just feel that it is pointless to discuss such things.

While it would therefore be pointless to them, to those of us who can commit, I respect your views and appreciate those who have been willing to discuss the topic. Since we can't provide irrefutable proof to support any of our views, discussions like this help me evaluate my own views as I consider yours. Of those that selected one of the first three choices, i.e. who can commit, I think it shows that there are those who can make a case for each of the possibilities.

I don't know where the conversation is at this moment, but I'd just like to share my view. I personally have to believe there was nothing, and that when I go there will be absolute nothing waiting. I need that peaceful solution to this chaotic, noisy world we live in. I cherish the day I can relax and cease to be. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to die yet, but the idea of nothing is calming.
It's hard for me to believe in the nothing if I don't believe that everything originally came from nothing.You know what M_c, your view is interesting. I believe we will never know nothingness. My earliest memories do not include any experience that took place before I entered the world so there wasn't any nothingness in my personal beginning.

When it comes to dying, shall we say when it comes to the final end of consciousness, I maintain that if there is nothingness we will not know it.

I would grant you that there is no evidence and I respect those who believe there is an afterlife (I'm guessing you don't but at least four have answered "God did it" to the poll and my impression is that it is likely that they believe in some form of afterlife). That belief and the charity that flows from religions to help the needy cannot be disregarded, and faith in a religion can help people avoid some of the pitfalls during this life.

I respectfully suggest if you want to experience nothingness, find a quiet spot and contemplate nothingness. And do it often enough to give yourself a chance. I believe you will be able to come as close to it as can be in a universe where there is no nothingness :).

I was watching, The Story of Maths, part 2, video 3 of 6 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh_DOZReZRQ&feature=related) @ 3:45 in on YouTube
Marcus du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford

Du Sautoy, as he explains a cultural reason for the invention of zero touches on the concept of nothingness.

“In ancient India the concepts of nothingness and eternity were at the very heart of their belief system. In the religions of India the universe was born out of nothingness and nothingness is the ultimate goal of Humanity. So it is perhaps not surprising that a culture that so enthusiastically embraced the void would be happy with the notion of zero.”

“The Indians even use the word for the philosophical idea of the void, shunya, to represent the mathematical term zero.”

So I searched “shunya Hindu void nothing” and found (in second paragraph):
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eth4NKlHCeMC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=shunya+Hindu+void+nothing&source=bl&ots=6GKQ83_R-J&sig=i4Gvjg7tx5Mcs04pMOXAp98Qv5o&hl=en&ei=GhVSS9uJLI-1tger27CtDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=shunya%20Hindu%20void%20nothing&f=false

And another link: http://hubpages.com/hub/FROM-SHUNYA-TO-ZERO

In ancient India the concepts of nothingness and eternity were at the very heart of their belief system. In the religions of India the universe was born out of nothingness and nothingness is the ultimate goal of Humanity. So it is perhaps not surprising that a culture that so enthusiastically embraced the void would be happy with the notion of zero.Russell Peters, the Indian-Canadian stand-up comedian, has a different explanation:

They couldn't bargain shopkeepers down to a price they were willing to pay, so they had to invent zero.

my thought:
if nothing exists there wouldn't be anything to define it with.

or you have to accept defining nothing as the absence of something(s); and hence the admittance of the need for something(s) to define nothing.
:confused:

786, you might wanna check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali#The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers).

I checked back to see how the poll was going and I see that God is getting better representation than the "Always existed" option. Darn, I do like like the concept that the universe has always existed.

Note to Scifes, you are being logical :). I was thinking about nothingness yesterday while responding to another thread about whether or not space was infinite. I offer another definition of nothingness: The absence of space. It is simplistic but it has applications in both religion and cosmology.

Note to Scifes, you are being logical :). I was thinking about nothingness yesterday while responding to another thread about whether or not space was infinite. I offer another definition of nothingness: The absence of space. It is simplistic but it has applications in both religion and cosmology.
why thank you:)
but why space of all things?
what do you mean by space? the three dimensions?

... but why space of all things?
what do you mean by space? the three dimensions?
I do mean the three dimension but I also mean the four or six or ten or any number of dimensions that various theories employ to describe the place where things happen.

There are theories that say that the current volume of space is finite. Big Bang theory (above the quantum level) starts with a mathematical singularity. If you look for a correspondence between the mathematical singularity and the physical world, you are looking at a beginning of the universe that starts out at zero volume. That is zero space which is sometimes referred to as point space. The implication is that this point space defined as a mathematical singularity is all the space there is which effectively says that space itself originated with the Big Bang and has been inflating in volume every since, but is still spatially finite.

So when I say nothingness is the absence of space it is in the spirit of cosmologies that are based on a beginning of space.

On the subject i would highly recommend anyone in this thread (although especially Parmalee) hunt down Alan Watt's 'language of Metaphysical Experience' essay. From what i recall he sets out to show that the logical positivists basically arrived at the same point Zen Buddhist reached several hundered years ago - that transcendental experience (if not all experience) cannot be defined with words and so must be left to define itself.


EDIT, here it is: http://www.intuitieveintelligentie.nl/images/Alan_watts.doc.

So I noticed when I voted on the poll that most people chose the 'some other possibility' option like myself. I'd like to hear some of those ideas.

So I noticed when I voted on the poll that most people chose the 'some other possibility' option like myself. I'd like to hear some of those ideas.

The answr mite be as understandable to us as the likelyhood of a puppy readin a newspaper :shrug:

Haha, yeah.

So I noticed when I voted on the poll that most people chose the 'some other possibility' option like myself. I'd like to hear some of those ideas.

There are no other possibilities. I suspect that anyone who has chosen the some other possibility option has done so only because they're simply uncertain, not because they believe in some other specific idea.

Note: I reserve the right to clarify the purpose behind my comments in this post (and this note) if the need arises.

There are no other possibilities.

There are always possibilities.

786:



Why bother with God at all? Why not just apply the same thinking to the multiverse, or the universe itself? Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps the multiverse is outside of time and space as we know it.



If you're speculating that the multiverse is outside of space and time as we know it then you can't deny that it would be completely different from anything in the universe for all we know the multiverse beyond space and time could be God.

...for all we know the multiverse beyond space and time could be God.

Whats you'r definition of "God".???

Where would that potential come from?

Peace be unto you ;)


Damned if I know.

And Mr. Religious doesn't know either. Anyone claiming to know belongs in an insane asylum.

I share this view of future discoveries that might yield a new understanding of states of energy. Right now the thought of an eternal universe has too much of a religious connotation to be acceptable to some reasonably large percentage of the scientifically oriented. A new or better understanding of physics will bring us closer to an understanding of reality. Right now the term "reality" is considered philosophical by some of those in that reasonably large percentage. There is a gap between math and reality, i.e. between the correspondence of mathematical representations of physical phenomena and that philosophical concept of reality. Science narrows the gap as understanding improves.

I think the kind of advancements and discoveries you refer to will lead to explanations of how our enemy entropy is managed by an eternal universe without the need for either the hand of a Creator or the falsification of Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

For physicists to actually observe nothing coming from nothing it implies they must physically do something, IMO doing something that brings "everything" together, could possibly satisfy the logical fallacy of Ex Nihilo, nihil fit that is represented very nicely by your understanding of the difference between math and reality.

waow, weird how can you be silly sometimes, nothing, means, totally nothing, means, don't even exist, means, nothing nothing nothing exists, how can that nothing nothing nothing, become something?? there's nothing to be transformed or something.