We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we were foreseen in it.

[Bender]

 

What gave you the idea that I assume that? I think that absolute nothingness never existed.

I think I mixed up. Apologies.

[Itoero]

Nothing cannot exist is my take on this. The idea of particles popping into existence out of nothing is flawed, the particles pop into existence but not out of nothing. Space is full of energy fields, these energy fields are the source of virtual particles... For there to be nothing there has to be something to compare it to and nothing automatically becomes something..

Where do the energy fields come from?

[Tub]

 

 

Since time came into being along with space it is correct to say something has always existed....

 

....and if, by the conservation of energy, " something " cannot become " nothing ", then " something " ( whatever that is ) will always exist. Tomorrow, or even the next moment, hasn't been created yet but there won't be a Big Bang to bring either into existence.

[stonesofsauron]

We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we already "included" or "foreseen" in its laws since the beginning, when they were created. If they have also appeared alone and included us, they have a lot merit! Or not?

Well...

I do believe to some extent in "forseen" motives of living things.

We have a drive to have sex, because on some level we forsee its significance in bearing children.

But it is messy and inexact. We don't ACTUALLY know it creates a kid, we just follow it, cuz thats how it evolved to be.

We were designed to find it pleasureable cuz anything that didn't find it that way, didn't procreate and died off.

 

So, foresight kind of makes sense but that iis only AFTER the effects of evolution (which collects harmonious results). But it is still messy and inexact.

 

To say it is the same thing with the universe...

Are you saying it had some emotional impetus within the boiling soup of a singulaity?

I dunno...

I think it is more likely that patterns build upon patterns, creating expansions of possibility, but at the same time it is getting diluted rapidly.

So you have competing forces of expanding possibility and reducing possibility.

The conditions where expanding possibility continues gets ever more narrow and sparce.

 

BUT, on at least one planet, in the goldilocks zone, chemical complexity caught traction.

 

 

Is that foresight?

I think it can also qualify as dumb luck.

Pretty remarkeable though!!!

Cuz if eveerything was dreary in nature, you wouldn't even get that result.

Its pretty remarkeable we are here.

 

Is it foresight? Well, I think it is interesting that life caught on...

I can't leap to it beng foresight.

I mean look at the standard model, are you seriously going to PLAN that those base subatomic constituents are tweaked just perfectly, like a tv channel to create life on a specified amount of planets, or one planet?

That is a LOT of effort.

 

Pretty sure it was incidental, albeit rather interesting that it took root.

[Country Boy]

We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we already "included" or "foreseen" in its laws since the beginning, when they were created. If they have also appeared alone and included us, they have a lot merit! Or not?

 

First sentence- you assert this with no proof. Do you have evidence to state here?

 

Rest of post- what does "they" refer to?

[Sensei]

If somebody would be making simulation of the Universe, he/she could/should test different physical constants, to check what is their influence on the result.

Some constants might "catch", and such Universe will have living organisms like we do have here right now.

 

f.e. what is consequence of different mass of electron (other than [math]\frac{m_p}{1836.15}[/math]) ?

different ionization energy (thus different temperature at which fusion will occur),

different energy released during annihilation with positron,

different mass of Hydrogen atom,

different spectral lines/energy of photons emitted/absorbed by atoms,

different chemical reactions,

different electronics,

etc. etc.

 

[Enric]

All in this Universe is curious. Beginning with its existence itself. All is curious.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Enric

[Strange]

All in this Universe is curious. Beginning with its existence itself. All is curious.

Citation needed.

[Thorham]

We are only an effect of Chemistry

How do you know that?

[Area54]

 

Think about it. You have absolutely nothing. Pure void. Absolute nothingness. How can something come from that? It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

This view requires an assumption that humans are smart enough to know what makes sense.There is very clear and abundant evidence that, in the past, the smartest minds have had decidedly faulty ideas and that today the common sense of the majority of humans is often wrong.

 

So, working on what "seems" to make sense doesn't appear to be a sound, or a logical, or a justifiable, or a defensible basis for a worldview.

[Thorham]

This view requires an assumption that humans are smart enough to know what makes sense.There is very clear and abundant evidence that, in the past, the smartest minds have had decidedly faulty ideas and that today the common sense of the majority of humans is often wrong.

 

So, working on what "seems" to make sense doesn't appear to be a sound, or a logical, or a justifiable, or a defensible basis for a worldview.

 

It's perfectly fine when dealing with things like something from absolute nothingness. Until it can be demonstrated that it's possible, there's absolutely no reason to think that it is.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Thorham

[Area54]

 

It's perfectly fine when dealing with things like something from absolute nothingness. Until it can be demonstrated that it's possible, there's absolutely no reason to think that it is.

Individuals who are smarter than you and I, and who have studied the matter would disagree. Vehemently.

[Thorham]

Individuals who are smarter than you and I, and who have studied the matter would disagree. Vehemently.

 

You are talking about models, not about what's happening physically. For example, virtual particles are seemingly appearing out of nothing, but are they really? The problem is: Is a human made vacuum absolute nothingness physically?

 

As long as we don't know the answers to that question, we can make all the working models we want, but we still won't know, and physically speaking, the only right assumption seems to be that there must be something there.

 

So there are theories about something from nothing, but is it how it physically works?

 

Also, don't appeal to authority. Sure, some of these people are probably twice as smart as both of us combined, but that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Thorham

[Area54]

 

Also, don't appeal to authority. Sure, some of these people are probably twice as smart as both of us combined, but that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

Imagine you have to make a decision upon which your life depends. You have two choices. First choice, provisionally accept the views of a large body of people, containing thousands of geniuses and dozens of Nobel laureates, who have spent millions of hours and billions of dollars investigating the problem. Second choice, accept the view of some random guy on the internet who has formed his conclusion from deep ignorance, "common sense" and a feeling that the consensus scientific view feels wrong.

 

You might also spend some time studying the nature of the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority". I think you will find that is not what I did.

[dimreepr]

 

You are talking about models, not about what's happening physically. For example, virtual particles are seemingly appearing out of nothing, but are they really? The problem is: Is a human made vacuum absolute nothingness physically?

 

 

No-one actually knows, but some models strongly implies they're there.

[Thorham]

Imagine you have to make a decision upon which your life depends. You have two choices. First choice, provisionally accept the views of a large body of people, containing thousands of geniuses and dozens of Nobel laureates, who have spent millions of hours and billions of dollars investigating the problem. Second choice, accept the view of some random guy on the internet who has formed his conclusion from deep ignorance, "common sense" and a feeling that the consensus scientific view feels wrong.

 

I'm not going to believe things can come from absolute nothingness. Ever. It's not provable. Assuming things come from nothing because it looks that way is absurd.

[dimreepr]

 

I'm not going to believe things can come from absolute nothingness. Ever. It's not provable. Assuming things come from nothing because it looks that way is absurd.

 

Why?

[Strange]

 

I'm not going to believe things can come from absolute nothingness. Ever. It's not provable. Assuming things come from nothing because it looks that way is absurd.

 

 

If the evidence showed that the universe had really come from nothing so it was not an "assumption" would you still refuse to accept it?

 

Many things that were once considered "absurd" turned out to be correct. (Continental drift, for example.)

Edited July 17, 2017 by Strange

[Itoero]

Why?

Because every effect has a cause...in our reality...

[Thorham]

Why?

Because we know that things aren't always what they appear to be. For example, the earth looks flat, but it's a sphere like shape. Atomic matter looks solid, but it's not.

 

What I don't get is why you would assume something can come from absolute nothingness at all. What real scientists really think this happens physically?

 

If the evidence showed that the universe had really come from nothing so it was not an "assumption" would you still refuse to accept it?

I wouldn't trust that evidence, and if I was a scientist performing research in this field, I would assume I was missing something or that I had made a mistake somehow. After all, how can anything happen if there's nothing to cause anything to happen?

 

Many things that were once considered "absurd" turned out to be correct. (Continental drift, for example.)

While that's true, some things really are just absurd and plainly wrong.

[dimreepr]

Because we know that things aren't always what they appear to be. For example, the earth looks flat, but it's a sphere like shape. Atomic matter looks solid, but it's not.

 

What I don't get is why you would assume something can come from absolute nothingness at all. What real scientists really think this happens physically?

 

Because some very clever people, a lot of them on this forum, suggests it can; why do you assume it can't?

[Thorham]

Because some very clever people, a lot of them on this forum, suggests it can; why do you assume it can't?

 

Because I'm not going to assume something just because some clever people suggest it. It has to be demonstrated, and I don't think it can be.

 

Note that I'm specifically talking about absolute nothingness rather than the scientific notion of nothing. These are two different things.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Thorham

[Area54]

What I don't get is why you would assume something can come from absolute nothingness at all. What real scientists really think this happens physically?

No one is assuming this is the case. Some scientists find that the possibility is consistent with the evidence currently available. That is not an assumption. It is a sound provisional hypothesis.

 

 

I wouldn't trust that evidence, and if I was a scientist performing research in this field, I would assume I was missing something or that I had made a mistake somehow. After all, how can anything happen if there's nothing to cause anything to happen?

In contrast you would assume the data were wrong and incomplete if they failed to support your initial belief. That is not science. That is more like the less attractive aspects of religion.

[Thorham]

No one is assuming this is the case. Some scientists find that the possibility is consistent with the evidence currently available. That is not an assumption. It is a sound provisional hypothesis.

 

Based on the scientific definition of nothing, yes, but I'm talking about absolute nothingness, something of which it is unknown to be even possible to exist at all.

 

In contrast you would assume the data were wrong and incomplete if they failed to support your initial belief. That is not science. That is more like the less attractive aspects of religion.

 

You can't just accept any data that pops out of an experiment. It's not unreasonable to assume you did something wrong if the data seems to make no sense. It's not even remotely about beliefs here.

 

Again, there's a difference between the scientific notion of nothing and absolute nothingness.

[Eise]

Krauss says somewhere that 'nothing' is unstable.

 

And if absolute nothingness does not exist, cannot exist? Why would you bother about it?

 

'Fields, fields, everywhere, but no particle in sight'.