Why is there something rather than nothing?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Roger, Sep 6, 2011.

  1. Roger Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Hi. If anyone is interested, I've put some of my ideas on why things exist, and why is there something rather than nothing at a website at:

    sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-things-exist-something-nothing

    Two other papers on infinite sets as well as some miscellaneous ideas are at:

    sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite

    The abstract of the "Why do things exist and why is there something rather than nothing?" paper as well as the infinite set papers are also attached below. Some discussion of these papers has also gone on at the everything-list and epistemology groups on google.com/groups and at StackExchange's philosophy area.

    Thank you in advance for any feedback you may have.

    Sincerely,
    Roger (roger846@yahoo.com)




    Why Do Things Exist and Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?

    Abstract

    In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things
    exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In regard
    to the first question, "Why do things exist?", it is argued that a
    thing exists if the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing are
    completely defined. A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or
    boundary defining what is contained within and giving “substance” and
    existence to the thing. In regard to the second question, "Why is
    there something rather than nothing?", "nothing", or non-existence, is
    first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time,
    thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think
    about this lack-of-all. It is then shown that this non-existence
    itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, is the complete
    description, or definition, of what is present. That is, no energy,
    no matter, no volume, no space, no time, no thoughts, etc., in and of
    itself, describes, defines, or tells you, exactly what is present.
    Therefore, as a complete definition of what is present, "nothing", or
    non-existence, is actually an existent state. So, what has
    traditionally been thought of as "nothing", or non-existence, is, when
    seen from a different perspective, an existent state or "something".
    Said yet another way, non-existence can appear as either "nothing" or
    "something" depending on the perspective of the observer. Another
    argument is also presented that reaches this same conclusion.
    Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive model of the
    universe via what I refer to as "philosophical engineering".

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Infinite Sets: Experimental Artifacts Are Produced by the Infinite Set-Infinite Subset Size Comparison Method Thought Experiment

    Abstract

    This paper discusses the mathematical method for comparing the relative size of a single infinite set (say, the set of all positive integers) with one of its subsets (say, the subset of all even integers). Suppose one does a thought experiment in which one starts with a single infinite set N of all the positive integers and in which the goal is to determine the number of even integers relative to all the integers, within the context of this single set. That is, the single, original set in this thought experiment is the "experimental" system being studied, and the results obtained should accurately reflect what is occurring in this system. Traditionally, this size comparison is done by extracting the evens as a separate subset and then pairing off its elements one-to-one with those of the original set in order to show the counterintuitive result that the evens and the total positive integers are the same size, as opposed to the intuitive view that there are only one-half as many evens as total positive integers. I suggest that while this is a thought experiment, it is still an experiment and should follow the rules for good experimental method. But, it doesn't. By extracting the evens out and putting them into a separate subset, this dramatically alters the original single set system and leads to the result that there as many even integers as total integers. By definition, this is an experimental artifact. It is identical to extracting the nucleus from a cell and then studying the nucleus and remaining parts of the cell in isolation and assuming that the results obtained are the same as in the original intact cell. They are not. Many have argued that mathematics is not a science and that thought experiments are not "real" experiments and therefore that experimental method and artifacts don't matter, no matter how counterintuitive the results. If this is acceptable to mathematicians, fine. But, unfortunately, the mathematics of infinities plays a major role and causes major problems in physics, which is a real science, and which should require the following of proper experimental techniques, especially in its logical foundations. I suggest that a re-examination of the use of the mathematics of infinities in physics is greatly needed and that it would pay major dividends.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Infinite Sets: The Appearance of an Infinite Set Depends on the Perspective of the Observer

    Abstract

    This paper discusses how an infinite set would appear to different observers and how this applies to both physics and mathematics. Consider a set, N, defined as containing an infinite number of discrete, finite-sized elements such as balls. Any one of these balls can be defined as an internal observer, O. The balls extend outward in infinite numbers relative to any location and orientation of any internal observer O. That is, wherever O is in the set and in whichever direction O is “looking”, the elements of the set extend without bounds the same potentially infinite distance in all directions relative to O. To observer O, set N appears as a potentially infinite space composed of discrete, finite-sized elements. Now, consider a hypothetical second observer, P who is outside the same set N and whose size relative to internal observer O is actually infinite. That is, P is of the same size “scale” as the entire set N, which is actually infinite relative to O. To observer P, set N appears as a finite-sized object containing a smooth, infinitely divisible internal space. The implications of these differing views of the same set depending on the reference frame of the observer are discussed for both mathematics and physics.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    As there is nothing to make the basic things of, that must be the case, that existence can only be of a partial nonexistence, one that must ever sum to zero overall, although not in practice, as 'nothing; is apparently perfectly unstable, it being found nowhere (field everywhere). Indeed, we find a balance of opposites in nature's basics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Finally, it has been shown that when twelve identical, tangentially touching, non-overlapping spheres are packed around the surface of another sphere of the same size, there will be some left-over space but not enough to fit in a thirteenth sphere (5).…

    See YouTube for a guy named 'tverse' who has such a geometric 'point' arrangement underlying all, the stable kinds of packing making for the elemental particles. His 'point' is not nothing, per say, but it would be for me. He had it as the only possible thing. If that were so, it could be forever stuff, but forever stuff is an incomplete notion and therefore an invariably wrong notion, purely due to its incompleteness.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Having an Intelligence being behind the laws of the universe could not be an end but would have to be of the continuing chain that this template uses as its premise, there then having to be something more behind the Intelligence (to make it so, or its Laws), and so this is not the way to the TOE, as with ever more and more complex, unto an infinite regress.

    Not anything is observed of it either.

    There is another direction left, one completely opposite, that of less and less simplicity leading to that which is underlying all, which goes to the simplest state of nothing at all rather than to an ultimate complexity of High Intelligence, and on, to account for that and the next.

    And, indeed, we observe a balance of opposites in nature’s basics of ‘sum-things’.

    A supposed elemental thing such as an electron could not be truly fundamental, for it could not be always and forever already made in its particular specifics without ever having been (in the first place that never was), that is, it has a certain mass, location, charge, properties, and so on.

    We note its coming and goings in and out of existence from the vacuum only when paired with a positron. Whether this is a true zero-point energy happening is yet to be determined some more, but when scientists emptied a large metal cylinder of everything (as seen in what I think is a BBC documentary called something like “Everything and Nothing”), then the ‘sum-things’ of electrons and positrons still appeared.

    There could also be the balance of gravity’s negative potential energy versus the positive kinetic energy of stuff. Maybe this fuels inflation, during which the virtual pairs are driven apart faster than they can cancel.

    If it is just the virtual pairs that serve for the zero-sum cancellation to zero, then it is both the opposite polarity of charge and the opposite matter states of matter/antimatter that do it. I know that annihilation produces photons, but a photon is neutral and could be seen to be positive and negative somehow living in peace with each other. Opposite charge as the prime nullification of existence would seem to be more clear, and would constitute the 4th dimension seen as time somehow, since 3D space is compositional and additive.

    In summary, electrons, as well as any ‘elemental’ would be formed in the only way that they could be, which is another requirement, that the cosmos can only be the way it is.

    At any rate, there are two and only two stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton (+), and their antiparticles, of course, and only one ‘stable’ energy particle, the photon (neutral), and so this suggests an underlying symmetry. I am not suggesting, though, that the proton is not composite.

    It does seem that pair production has only two way to make things of a type, suggesting that they must be opposites.
     
  8. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    First, to have physical existence, an existent state must have three dimensions.

    Why three spacial dimensions —> The singularity of nothingness demands existential closure (nullification of existence in the overview), which thus demands compositional parity (via opposite charge?), which thus demands cubic compositional space (and 1D time/charge polarity). Our universe’s dimensionality of space is as inevitable as its existence.
     
  9. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Conservation laws: The reason for these can now seen to possibly be due to that all existence must sum to zero (nonexistence).

    A particle cannot be anywhere other than where it needs to be to satisfy the conservation laws, not even one centimeter, not even any distance away, to infinite resolution.
     
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Summary:

    Why is there something rather than nothing?

    Because nothing cannot be (staying as such even for an instant), so something must become and be. If a lack of anything were a stable situation, then this lack would still be so, yet there is something.

    The main inkling of ‘nothing’ as the only candidate for the prime mover comes from that there is nothing to make any things of, the second from the observed balance of opposite basic ‘sum-things’, and the third from the emanation of these ‘sum-things’ popping in and out of existence in a vacuum, even in the man-made vacuums. A fourth could be that simpler and simpler states are seen to be increasingly unstable, they most readily going though phase changes, leading to the simplest state of all—nothing—as being perfectly unstable. A fifth could be that nothing requires nothing else before it in duration, or beyond it in extent, for it is all of that requirement, this nonexistence being Totality.

    Nothing never sleeps, and is always up to something.

    The question was stated backwards. There cannot be nothing as a stable situation. Something has to be, and it is probably the only way it can be.
     
  11. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Jeez SciWriter, he reeled you in fast. Notice the characteristics of the poster: the OP is Roger's first post, it promotes a website, and Roger has not responded (and probably never will).

    In other words, this thread is complete and unadulterated spam.
     
  12. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    I checked that he responded recently on the Everything List, which I found in his references, and besides, this is one of my pet notions. The web site gave me more useful information.

    And this is the only TOE that makes sense to me so far.
     
  13. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    The Limit to the Speed of Light: Either there is always consistently tiny stuff to plow through everywhere or it is the absolute dimensional ratio between space and time (d/t).
     
  14. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Why Anything?

    The human condition is such
    That it often just prematurely halts at a word,
    Such as ‘God’, for the believers,
    Or ‘matter’ or ‘forever’, for anyone.

    The Cosmos or its basis, meaning All,
    Not just our locality or universe,
    Must be eternal, or it wouldn’t be every-when,
    As well as infinite, or it wouldn’t be everywhere,
    And so the prime and causeless mover
    Must have these attributes,
    Requiring nothing else but itself.

    Nor can the ultimate basis be a complex composite,
    For these are not fundamental, but come later.
    The basis must be the simplest elemental state.

    As for matter, it has many particulars,
    Such as its total amount and its individual properties
    Of spin, charge, form, size, mass, location,
    Matter vs. antimatter state, and other specifics,
    Or limitations, such as
    That there are only two stable matter particles,
    The electron/positron and the proton/antiproton,
    And only one stable energy particle, the photon.
    (Neutrons decay.)

    We cannot just stop at the word ‘matter’
    And just say that it is what was around forever,
    For one simply cannot have an eternal something
    Already made and defined in all of its particulars
    Without it ever having been made and defined
    In the first place that never was.
    Impossible.

    So, where does this leave us?
    We are fine, for there is/was literally nothing
    To make the original stuff of, anyway,
    And there is no way around this fact;
    So, ‘nothing’ must be the answer,
    It also being the simplest state,
    One that is necessarily perfectly unstable,
    For it cannot be at all or stay as such.

    So, the vacuum fluctuates,
    Making the vacuum only a ‘vacuum’.
    Movement is natural, not stillness.

    Existence is a positive/negative
    Distribution of nonexistence.
    ‘Nothing’ is the only candidate
    For the prime mover.

    Welcome to zero-sum physics;
    (And ‘nothing’ is exactly the opposite of ‘God’.)

    Look about; there are particles
    Of opposite polarity of charge
    And matter/antimatter states;
    The weak force opposes the strong force;
    The positive kinetic energy of stuff is canceled
    By the negative potential energy of gravity, etc.,
    For an equation of a zero balance
    Had to replace the cause and effect
    That could not have gone on forever beneath.

    It is the opposite polarity of charge
    That nullifies all of existence in the overview,
    But not in actuality, for nothing cannot be.

    Zero-sum physics perhaps started here:

    Einstein as a near traffic fatality…
    George Gamow told in his book, ‘My World Line’,
    How he was conversing with Albert Einstein
    While walking through Princeton in the 1940s.
    Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues
    [Pascual Jordan] had pointed out to him that according
    To Einstein’s equations a star could be created
    Out of nothing at all, because [at point zero]
    Its negative gravitational energy [mass defect]
    Precisely cancels out [is equal to]
    Its positive mass energy [rest mass].

    “Einstein stopped in his tracks,” says Gamow,
    “And, since we were crossing a street,
    Several cars had to stop to avoid running us down”.

    Now that we know of this zero-balance requirement,
    We see it as the reason
    For the necessity of conservation laws.

    What about the word ‘eternal’ or ‘forever’?
    We need go on to the implications,
    For forever systems are their own precursors.
    No first matter making light;
    No first light making matter.
    No first anything.

    How? Opposite pair production, perhaps,
    Or that Infinity times zero = one;
    Take your pick.

    Boundless space, overall electric neutrality,
    And conservation of charge, momentum, and energy
    Leads inexorably to nothingness, really.

    The zero-equation is the reason
    The universe is the way it is,
    The reason why
    The universe must be the way it is,
    And the reason why it is.

    It is the perfect zero-sum equation.

    Zero and infinity, the smallest and the largest,
    Both lead to nonexistence,
    And so our finite existence cannot be there,
    But must be at its midpoint.

    Zero and infinity lead to many
    Of the same problems in algebra and cosmology.
    They are the same thing: nonexistence.

    The deathly spiral of paradox ever follows
    The carving of wishes into the stone hollows
    Of dogma forever blocked from the allowables.

    The believing dance grinds to the elemental
    Of that Being who can never be fundamental.

    All such tales of original stuff made of love
    End where there’s nothing to make it of.​
     
  15. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Well, happy hunting then.
     
  16. Roger Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Hi. I only just posted this message tonight (9/5/2011), and you're already saying I'll never respond? Since the website is an actual website and I think the ideas are worth considering, this obviously isn't spam. Thanks for the feedback!
     
  17. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Does this mean you are going to participate in discussion in this thread and on the site in general? I have my doubts but, you are welcome to demonstrate me incorrect. SciWriter has already issued a load of feedback for discussion, let's see some debate from you!
     
  18. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    This looks like a whole lot of nothing.
     
  19. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Seems counter-intuitive, but we are nevertheless led to it by running out of options for what existence could be made of.

    Looks like the same stuff having been around forever is out, as there was no place for it to be defined, plus no possible infinite regress of things from lessor things, so then there must be new stuff that is ever produced and canceled that is composed of nothing as balanced opposites.

    So, there is still stuff coming about forever, but it's not the exact same stuff enduring eternally.
     
  20. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Platonic realm?

    No, for our senses and our instruments contact it directly, although our mind’s eye does not.


    …why there is energy in the universe.

    Because it sums to zero overall.
     
  21. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    *I suggest that for a thing to exist, the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing must be completely defined. … A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or boundary defining what is contained within.

    How about adding that to exist there must be quantity. This then can even serve for something seeming very minimal, such as space. Aside from what may occupy space or that space must exist because it is somehow everywhere instantiated by virtual particles, it could be that space still has existence apart from this, in that then its lone quantity is volume.

    Is space absolute? Could space and its curvatures be all there is? Is space ‘nothing’ or at least close to it? Loosely speaking, left and right curvatures could be somethings, yet a flat nothing if combined.
     
  22. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Next, this three dimensional state with a closed surface contains no information other than its being completely defined. What does this imply about its shape? Because there is no information to define corners, angles, asymmetries or size differences in any dimension, the state would be identical in all three dimensions. That is, it would be a sphere.

    These spheres of ‘points’ are crucial but are not that easy to talk about. These points would be physical, not abstractions, but they have no properties except of position relative to other points, a geometric setup. Still, the simplest things are the most important things. Are they physical but not material? Is there such a condition? Perhaps space is like this, too. A point is shapeless, and thus seems to have to be spherical as an approximation, a consequence of its infinite smallness, just as the cosmos of infinite largeness has no boundary.

    Going on with what is hard to say is that the superposition of any number of points at the same position would be indistinguishable from a single point. All a point has is its position relative to other points (a relation necessarily dimensional); it has no intrinsic properties. Space would be composed of points since a point is composed of points. The only states of reality are existence, which must be finite, and nonexistence, which must be infinite (a nothing is so). Nonexistence is by definition composed of itself regardless of the distribution.

    So the number of points at any given position in space is the same as the number of positions in space itself. All points are then copies of the same singularity—the same cosmic point. Points are still 3-D, even though of an infinitely small size. Space is continuous because a point is continuous, yet points are discrete.

    So, the cosmic size scale has points at one end and infinite volume at the other. In a way, the large is the same as the small, for there are only two directions away from finiteness: infinite largeness and infinite smallness, each leading to nothing, one by dispersion to zero and the other by compactness to zero, although the universe truly has neither an ultimate floor nor a ceiling. At any rate, we are probably perched in between in our finiteness. Yes, it’s difficult to talk about.

    Zero and infinity cause many of the same problems in algebra, but are kind of two different viewpoints of the same thing. Particle physicists are ever trying to reconcile the macro and the micro.
     
  23. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    We need more about the points of existence/nonexistence, but I’m not good at it since I’m not sure exactly what I’m working with, so I borrow some of this from the ‘tverse’ guy on YouTube…

    Points would have some properties, I suppose: 1) existence (they're real things?), and 2) repulsion toward other points ("noncoalesceable").

    Maybe "shapeless" in a strict sense, but they behave toward other points as if they were spheres. That is, when two points repel one another, it doesn't matter from which direction they 'met'; and the direction they repel can be any, so long as it's on a line running through their centers and their "kissing point".

    Perhaps point superposition occurs only once, at the very beginning of an 'origin sequence', but beginnings are really an anathma to TOE theories. The origin sequence would begin with an infinity of points superposed. After that, because of subsequent noncoalescence (repulsion), there never can be superposition ('coalescence') again. All point would be monads, forever after retaining distinguishablity.

    The points' relations to other points is a dimensional relationship. This creates dimension, and as consequence, creates 'space'.)

    Having the point as the only possible something, if it is still a something, removes the barrier to having a something forever, for there are no choices for its definition. An infinitesimal point is all there could ever be as the necessary something, there because nothing can’t cut it, for whatever reason (which we still need to find). Points cause dimensions, time, and space. Dimension is concurrent with composition and continuity, space and points thus having the same dimensions.

    The diameter of a geometric point is essentially zero. A point is the incarnation of nonexistence, and it has no mass, no energy, or any other property except for its position relative to other points. Existence is then the relation of nonexistent objects, strange as it may seem.

    Points might feed in from the cosmos’ boundary, if there is one, into the interior.

    A proton would be 12-points (around none), an icosahedral form, which evidently shrinks (curves) space to generate mass, compared to any regular space, which would be 13-points (12 around 1).

    The electron is 6 points, the three crossing gaps inside a nominally regular octahedron of space's points.

    A 'photon' is a local event (electron emits or absorbs one). In between its absorption and emission locations, it's a spread-out amount of energy (a 'gap'). A photon is just the amount of energy ('gap') needed and used by a local interaction.

    Other ways of packing are not stable, leading to fleeting particles that can't last.
     

Share This Page