Logical Vacuum Genesis

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

Let´s try and see the issue from a natural philosophical point of view like the old Greek - and forget all about theoretical physics! A constant echo from the initial creation of the Universe is when we come out of a deep sleep´s nothing (vacuum) every time we wake up to a new 24-hours. Free-will´s ideas and thaughts has to come out of nothing (vacuum) otherwise they are not free and they are not new - they will have a pre-identity! We go contantly in and out of nothing, where our memory disappear in nothing, otherwise thoughts and ideas will pile- up in a total chaos. Yes, the Universe can very well be created out of vacuum or rather  nothing - otherwise it will simply not function! 

[Mordred]

 There is universe from nothing models that are considered valid so it's already a recognized possibility. I understand you wish to keep this as a philosophical argument but a simple philosophy argument is that everything must have a beginning. Even in cyclic universe models the first universe would have arisen from a nothing state which under QM nothing doesn't particularly exist. The closest being zero point energy.

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

38 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 There is universe from nothing models that are considered valid so it's already a recognized possibility. I understand you wish to keep this as a philosophical argument but a simple philosophy argument is that everything must have a beginning. Even in cyclic universe models the first universe would have arisen from a nothing state which under QM nothing doesn't particularly exist. The closest being zero point energy.

 

[Harrot]

First point : Vacuum is not  nothingness.

Vacuum is when we start with matter (also energy as known in physic, like EM waves is considered part of "matter") , then we move the matter elsewhere : Remain => vacuum.

Of course, we tried the best we could, we never reached the 0 "matter" state. Achieving some strong vacuum, it fill itself again with the so named "virtual particles".

This virtual matter can be transformed in real matter by spending some corresponding energy.

So there is no creation at all, there is still TRANSFORMATION.

 

Nothingness on the other hand is the concept that specity that there is nothing... with perfection. Nothing AT ALL. No matter, no spirit, nada.

 

In fact, we dont know anything about something that could be a "creation" within the domain of physic.

We erroneously mention "creation" confusing it with "transformation", per example when we speak about nucleosynthesis in the stars and at the era of the big bang but we never ever seen creation in progress.... elsewhere than those coming from man's mind.

Artistic creation is real. Theoritical inventivity is creation. Everything that comes from the WILL is creation.

 

So yes, one can states that logic exclude ITSELF the possibility that something appeear from nothingness but will permit it.

Logos is as such the incarnation of the creation of the will within the material world as Mythos could be seen as the idea proposed by the will before creation.

Quote

Origins of the term

Logos became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.^[6] Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean "discourse". Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"^[7] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ethos and pathos.^[8] Pyrrhonist philosophers used the term to refer to dogmatic accounts of non-evident matters. The Stoics spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe) which foreshadows related concepts in Neoplatonism.^[9]

Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c. 20 BC – c.  50 AD) integrated the term into Jewish philosophy.^[10] Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos endiathetos ("the word remaining within").^[11]

The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),^[12] and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. Early translators of the Greek New Testament, such as Jerome (in the 4th century AD), experienced frustration with the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the word logos as used to describe Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of in principio erat verbum was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) noun verbum for "word"; later Romance language translations had the advantage of nouns such as le Verbe in French. Reformation translators took another approach. Martin Luther rejected Zeitwort (verb) in favor of Wort (word), for instance, although later commentators repeatedly turned to a more dynamic use involving the living word as used by Jerome and Augustine.^[13] The term is also used in Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung.

Despite the conventional translation as "word", logos is not used for a word in the grammatical sense—for that, the term lexis (λέξις, léxis) was used.^[14] However, both logos and lexis derive from the same verb légō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".^[1][14][15]

In the ancient Greek context, the term logos in the sense of "word" or "discourse" also contrasted with mythos (Ancient Greek: μῦθος). Classical Greek usage sees reasoned argument (logos) as distinct from imaginative tales (mythos).^[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

 

 

 

Edited October 8 by Harrot

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

The Universe, as I see it, is when nothing automatically get exposed, because thre is no real stuff (matter, anti-pole) in the Univere. And the exopsure opens autoatically up for nothing to become everything else of itself - because it´s an open conception that has no own identiti to rest in or to defend itself with. First of all to become (!) nothing, which means selfconsious, awake, pure existence, 'stuff'! And further on to become the source of evolutionary development in still higher biological systems, and of cause to current free creative thinking activity etc.! So we still don´t need theoretical physics - and it´s defined start.

[Harrot]

I almost forgot.

You can have "bubbles of nothing" in physic.

Quote

The idea that in specific scenarios the universe would be entirely destroyed by an expanding bubble of nothing has been around since 1982, when theoretical physicist Edward Witten introduced the possibility of the universe eating itself in a paper in Nuclear Physics B journal. He wrote: “A hole spontaneously forms in space and rapidly expands to infinity, pushing to infinity anything it may meet.”

Given that a bubble of nothing has not in fact destroyed the universe, neither in the 13 billion years before Witten published his paper nor in the 38 years since, it would be reasonable for physicists to push it down the research priority list. But three physicists at the University of Oviedo in Spain and the University of Uppsala in Sweden argue that we can learn important lessons from an all-consuming, universe-destroying bubble in a wonderfully titled paper, “Nothing Really Matters”, submitted to the Journal of High-Energy Physics this month.

In particular, understanding the conditions for spacetime decay through a bubble of nothing is a step towards connecting the best theories about the tiniest building blocks of the universe—strings—with theories about space and time itself.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/physicists-are-studying-mysterious-bubbles-of-nothing-that-eat-spacetime/

 

[Mordred]

Now there is a pop media coverage I wouldn't dare trust. The article refers to Instability of the Kaluza-Klien vacuum unfortunately it's behind a pay wall.

Edited October 8 by Mordred

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Now there is a pop media coverage I wouldn't dare trust.

Plus a paper from 1982 probably has follow-on work, which would support, rebut or constrain the proposal.

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

 There is universe from nothing models that are considered valid so it's already a recognized possibility. I understand you wish to keep this as a philosophical argument but a simple philosophy argument is that everything must have a beginning. Even in cyclic universe models the first universe would have arisen from a nothing state which under QM nothing doesn't particularly exist. The closest being zero point energy.

 

The Universe, as I see it, is when nothing automatically get exposed, because thre is no real stuff (matter, anti-pole) in the Univere. And the exopsure opens autoatically up for nothing to become everything else of itself - because it´s an open conception that has no own identiti to rest in or to defend itself with. First of all to become (!) nothing, which means selfconsious, awake, pure existence, 'stuff'! And further on to become the source of evolutionary development in still higher biological systems, and of cause to current free creative thinking activity etc.! So we still don´t need theoretical physics - and it´s defined start.

[Mordred]

Sounds like according to you only your logic applies regardless of any evidence otherwise.

Good luck with that. That isn't what logic or science is about. Myself and others prefer a more rigid approach to a good discussion involving science. So does our forum rules.

That last post has literally zero practicality in either philosophy or physics in its argument but amounts to strictly a  personal belief.

Aristotle on the other hand his philosophy looked at the evidence he had available in his arguments.

Edited October 9 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Anders Agerbo Andersen said:

The Universe, as I see it, is when nothing automatically get exposed, because thre is no real stuff (matter, anti-pole) in the Univere. And the exopsure opens autoatically up for nothing to become everything else of itself - because it´s an open conception that has no own identiti to rest in or to defend itself with. First of all to become (!) nothing, which means selfconsious, awake, pure existence, 'stuff'! And further on to become the source of evolutionary development in still higher biological systems, and of cause to current free creative thinking activity etc.! So we still don´t need theoretical physics - and it´s defined start.

!

Moderator Note

Pasting the same post twice? This is the very definition of soapboxing. If you're done with discussion, I'll need to close this.

 

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

On 10/9/2024 at 2:13 PM, Mordred said:

Sounds like according to you only your logic applies regardless of any evidence otherwise.

Good luck with that. That isn't what logic or science is about. Myself and others prefer a more rigid approach to a good discussion involving science. So does our forum rules.

That last post has literally zero practicality in either philosophy or physics in its argument but amounts to strictly a  personal belief.

Aristotle on the other hand his philosophy looked at the evidence he had available in his arguments.

 

The problem with theoretical physics is that it is trying to create a whole Universe with only two faculties - physics and mathematics. The Universe consists of all faculties - of  cause! You have tried to make a functional atom in the last 75 years without real success. You have tried to do that out of primarily atomic debris from your accelerators and colliders - you do not  restore an airplane or an atom by putting its debris from a total crash directly together! Don´t you think it is time  to rethink your whole work? You practically have no spiritual solutions like biological central-conducting egos in f. ex. macro molecular virus. Which is  created only by atoms as directly active components - how is that possible? 

[Mordred]

Well truthfully nothing you have added has any practical application. There is no Spirtuality in physics. The universe is not a sentient being with awareness and physics and mathematics is all that is required to describe how the universe evolves from a hot dense state regardless of your opinion.

How that is possible involves taking the time to learn the physics before judging it.

Physics does not involve religion or spirituality for very practical reasons. That reason being lack of any method of testability.

You don't require religion or spirituality to build an airplane as one example. 

 

Edited October 10 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Anyways I haven't seen any  valid science being applied nor any decent logic argument so I'm done with this thread.

 Mayhap if a more substantial debate is added I may change my mind but I don't have any hope of seeing that happening.

Good luck

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

Well truthfully nothing you have added has any practical application. There is no Spirtuality in physics. The universe is not a sentient being with awareness and physics and mathematics is all that is required to describe how the universe evolves from a hot dense state regardless of your opinion.

How that is possible involves taking the time to learn the physics before judging it.

Physics does not involve religion or spirituality for very practical reasons. That reason being lack of any method of testability.

You don't require religion or spirituality to build an airplane as one example. 

 

 

If the Universe is not sentient, where do biological systems come from? They contain feelings like love, do that not exist because it is not testable? You say that physics and mathematics is all that is required to describe how the universe evolves from a hot dense state regardless of my opinion. Then again, how does a biological body/virus/human being finally evolve out of sheer physics - automatic mathematical formula conducted only?

[KJW]

I have to admit that the idea that the universe is sentient does have some appeal to me. Then our exploration of the universe and its laws becomes a self-awareness of the universe in which the universe is observing itself.
 

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, KJW said:

I have to admit that the idea that the universe is sentient does have some appeal to me. Then our exploration of the universe and its laws becomes a self-awareness of the universe in which the universe is observing itself.
 

 I like the idea too, and, to me, it is self-evident that it is sentient because we are here. Because evolution is a continuum, we have to encompass all of it in the Evolution and operation of sentience.

Edited October 11 by StringJunky

[Mordred]

9 hours ago, Anders Agerbo Andersen said:

 

If the Universe is not sentient, where do biological systems come from? They contain feelings like love, do that not exist because it is not testable? You say that physics and mathematics is all that is required to describe how the universe evolves from a hot dense state regardless of my opinion. Then again, how does a biological body/virus/human being finally evolve out of sheer physics - automatic mathematical formula conducted only?

 

There we go a decent argument +1. Let's work with that.

So I ask "is sentient a requirement for evolution or development of emotion and biological systems"  ?

Why would sentience be a requirement for the above ? 

For the record physics wouldn't help in this case wrong field of science in regards to how biological systems develop or the origin of life and emotion. 

However the question remains is sentience a requirement to cause life to come into being ?

Why couldn't random chance  given enough time do the same  with the universe only role to supply the ingredients?

8 hours ago, KJW said:

I have to admit that the idea that the universe is sentient does have some appeal to me. Then our exploration of the universe and its laws becomes a self-awareness of the universe in which the universe is observing itself.
 

I would hate to see the universe having a temper tantrum (sorry couldn't get that visual out of my head )

Edited October 11 by Mordred

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:51 AM, KJW said:

I have to admit that the idea that the universe is sentient does have some appeal to me. Then our exploration of the universe and its laws becomes a self-awareness of the universe in which the universe is observing itself.
 

I can only agree to that and add, that we do not come any closer to the Universe as in our direct perception of ourself as a spiritual/physical human being.

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

23 hours ago, Mordred said:

 

There we go a decent argument +1. Let's work with that.

So I ask "is sentient a requirement for evolution or development of emotion and biological systems"  ?

Why would sentience be a requirement for the above ? 

For the record physics wouldn't help in this case wrong field of science in regards to how biological systems develop or the origin of life and emotion. 

However the question remains is sentience a requirement to cause life to come into being ?

Why couldn't random chance  given enough time do the same  with the universe only role to supply the ingredients?

I would hate to see the universe having a temper tantrum (sorry couldn't get that visual out of my head )

You are talking about random chance to produce sentient and biological life. Sure, but everything new and different must come out of sheer nothing (free chance) otherwise it is not new and different from what already exists - my interpretation of the Universe and its evolution (thinking) in general. A suddenly exploding star could be interpreted as a sort of temper tantrum - just a thought. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Anders Agerbo Andersen said:

You are talking about random chance to produce sentient and biological life. Sure, but everything new and different must come out of sheer nothing (free chance) otherwise it is not new and different from what already exists - my interpretation of the Universe and its evolution (thinking) in general. A suddenly exploding star could be interpreted as a sort of temper tantrum - just a thought. 

The genesis of nature is part deterministic as well as stochastic. Fundamental particles that make up nature behave in predictable ways when they collide with each other... the potential outcomes are known. The random part is when it happens and what collides with what in a reaction.

Edited October 12 by StringJunky

[Anders Agerbo Andersen]

On 10/8/2024 at 7:30 PM, Harrot said:

First point : Vacuum is not  nothingness.

Vacuum is when we start with matter (also energy as known in physic, like EM waves is considered part of "matter") , then we move the matter elsewhere : Remain => vacuum.

Of course, we tried the best we could, we never reached the 0 "matter" state. Achieving some strong vacuum, it fill itself again with the so named "virtual particles".

This virtual matter can be transformed in real matter by spending some corresponding energy.

So there is no creation at all, there is still TRANSFORMATION.

 

Nothingness on the other hand is the concept that specity that there is nothing... with perfection. Nothing AT ALL. No matter, no spirit, nada.

 

In fact, we dont know anything about something that could be a "creation" within the domain of physic.

We erroneously mention "creation" confusing it with "transformation", per example when we speak about nucleosynthesis in the stars and at the era of the big bang but we never ever seen creation in progress.... elsewhere than those coming from man's mind.

Artistic creation is real. Theoritical inventivity is creation. Everything that comes from the WILL is creation.

 

So yes, one can states that logic exclude ITSELF the possibility that something appeear from nothingness but will permit it.

Logos is as such the incarnation of the creation of the will within the material world as Mythos could be seen as the idea proposed by the will before creation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

 

 

 

You make that error not to address my ideas out from a common logic point of view - as I kindly asked you to do. Thats why I can´t really discuss anything with you, we are talking in two different languages - so to speak. You say though, that "one can state that logic exclude ITSELF the possibility that something appeear from nothingness but will permit it"! No not necessarily, if nothing is an open conception that has nothing to defend itself with or to stick to (remain as), then it can/will spontaneously become everything else of itself f. ex. just being nothing or sheer self-awareness (awake, sheer something)! And that will only be the start of all sorts of variations coming out from that – that means general evolution, spiritual and 'physical' thoughts and ideas - hat is the universe in a nutshell! Again, all new things in the universe have to come out of nothing - otherwise it is already pre-defined and not new!