Mathematics of Creation

[cypress]

Perhaps Hawking's book should be allowed to explain itself.

 

I'm not sure how a book that fails to address a fundamental issue regarding a topic covered in the book is going to explain it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So you have read Hawking's book to see how he makes the argument? I wasn't sure.

[Skaffen]

Nothing is an Absolute. 1 of 2. The other being everything (Mathematically: Infinity, Religiously: God)

 

Yin Yang.

 

Our universe is Relative - which is to say the potential between them. In terms of absolutes, notably Truth, our universe is only potential. Unfortunately it is common misnomer to allow this to create some merit in considering Multi-verses...clearly profitless. Science knows it cannot attain Truth, the Religious won't accept less and insist on knowing God.

[lakmilis]

The 'cause" of the universe may simply be its irreducibility: less than the universe is nothing, nothing cannot exist, there is the Universe.CQFD (QED)

 

 

Right.. Hawkings out with a book again? I don't think I'm going ot bother more with his books. After reading one or two... I am sure he is a great physicist and mathematician but it can't be said the same of him in terms of philosophy unfortunately. Thus if anythign interesting comes out of the books, I am sure I will be able to pick it up through other channels. That he would come with something along the lines as you guys put forward here is not a surprise at all

 

About that last irreducibility syllogism there Michel... Once my mother called me for the 'answer' on a discussion she and a friend had on 'God is eternal thus he always has been' and 'if God created the universe, who created God then' classical debate.

 

I sent them a quick 'treaty' in return the following week (which they unfortunately didn't understand hehe) which first 'sanitised' the concept God some more;

 

To give a little summary:

 

what might God be? -whatever it is, it can exist, or not, if so is it an 'intelligence' or is there nothing or what. (I went on to argue that in any case, what is true, is true (no god or god bla bla), What we can say is with universe comes time (U => t (again, let us disregard further sanitation of what time might be).

 

OK I removed the whole thing, as logical arguments don't belong in science right ? (pun intended). (I mean logic could go to say philosophy and not in physics).

 

No but let's rather say, taking the concept of time before/outside of an universe (I do not remember if I accounted for closed or open universe), there is something or nothing.. changed by inferring the word God -> Eternity and then reduced Eternity to either nothing or something (or everything whatever.. WHAT it would be was more irrelevant to the question). I then approached the concept of causality they were discussing after equating both their concepts as eternity and proposed a sceptical nothing. As since the universe is everything, than anything preceding it can only be 'no thing'.

 

Ye, added the causality of eternity or eternal cycles into an equivalent statement and concluded they were really talking about the same thing, and which the word God, confusing them due to religious dogma, should be at a basic level, seen as 'eternity'.

 

hehe.

 

Either way, it shut them up

 

I admitted ignorance as to why someone would take Hawking seriously on this particular point. I do however have some knowledge of this topic. Perhaps you might address some of the issues I raised rather than throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you can explain how absence of existence, lacking agency, can cause something. Perhaps you can explain why "nothing can generate..." is not an oxymoron.

 

Cypress, the very notion of 'creation' is that it would not really be explainable before. These things we throw out is as good as it gets with human semantics. All knowledge is based upon the notion of empirical repetition in Nature..The natural laws. Just like they break down so far in a BH (Kerr/Nordstrom), they do when we attempt to squeeze it all into a zero-point. I am pretty sure the BIG BANG theory goes down to like infinitesimally small approaching a zero point but not instantiating it at that very starting point, as it could not be allowed so, according to physical laws.

 

Nothing is an Absolute. 1 of 2. The other being everything (Mathematically: Infinity, Religiously: God)

 

Yin Yang.

 

Our universe is Relative - which is to say the potential between them. In terms of absolutes, notably Truth, our universe is only potential. Unfortunately it is common misnomer to allow this to create some merit in considering Multi-verses...clearly profitless. Science knows it cannot attain Truth, the Religious won't accept less and insist on knowing God.

 

True Skaffen. when I first read up on (special) relativity when I was 14 I think, I instantly wrote some pages in reply to some of it's arguments back to school. I was also arguing for why there could not be a multiverse/multiverses. However, I only later learned about 3+ dimensional spaces and/or the other concepts of general relativity. I think my reply back then was naive, in the sense it only dealt with a sub part ofthe problem, however it sitll stands as such. The important thing in it, was the claim that dimensions are hierarchical and can not exist independently of compound dimensions. Thus, this implies really a universe. That it could have an infinite number of [time] states hehe which some popular scientific ideas floating aorund propose is not dealt by it. But I do not think time as a dimension in Minkowski space is the final say on 'time'.

 

Anyway, these tings are good to speculate about; certainly sells Hawkings some books for dosh! x

Edited January 16, 2011 by lakmilis

[steevey]

Does anyone have a link to mathematical justification of Hawking's claim that nothingness can generate a universe?

 

Well, I don't have a link, but I do know a way nothingness can generate a universe, only it requires being able to define something that couldn't be defined before. When the universe acted as a singularity, it had 0 volume, but was still an object. However, at this point in time, the universe has a wave function, or, it had probable places which it could show up, and those places? They equal infinity. How? 1/0 (one divided by 0 in the x, y and z axis). So now, the singularity universe now has a probability of existing which extends indefinitely though space, so this world around you isn't actually separate objects, its just the probable places of the singularity, which is why in entanglement, distance doesn't matter since its all the same singularity particle.

 

any number divided by 0 is currently undefined, but this scenario seems to fit what the answer theoretically is. It also means that there is a way to count at the same speed as infinity, which is how there can be infinite space for the "fabric of space" to expand into.

 

This is also one of the reasons physics or science is different from math. Math has its own terms and is a way of putting any logical thing into terms of numeric values, and doesn't have to apply to reality at all since it follows its own logical system. Science is based on the observation of things in reality, and some relation ships can be easily used if they are put into mathematical terms, but the math is its own system, separate from reality in any way. Never in the universe does (1+1=2) actually occur. You just have two apples, and you bring them closer together, and thats it. They aren't counted as the same grouping by anything, unless you want to make up that description for it so make it easier to look at it. You could try saying something about entanglement, but mathematically that would be 1+1=1 anyway, since if you could determine that it's two different things being grouped together, then you've already measured it and collapsed the entanglement.

Edited January 16, 2011 by steevey

[Moontanman]

I think I'm going to have to read this book...

[granpa]

everything came from everything not from nothing

 

 

time itself has a beginning.

 

you can only go so far back in time just like you can only go so far north.

 

eventually you reach a point where you simply cant go any further north.

 

 

in the beginning everything was a singularity but it wasnt nothing.

 

 

nonexistence does not now nor has it ever existed.

 

 

the 'event' is the indivisible atom of existence.

 

 

at a deep quantum level events are not caused.

 

rather they are 'influenced' by previous events.

 

the first event was not influenced by any previous event.

 

it didnt need to be.

[steevey]

everything came from everything not from nothing

 

 

time itself has a beginning.

 

you can only go so far back in time just like you can only go so far north.

 

eventually you reach a point where you simply cant go any further north.

 

The space the universe can expand into is infinite, and since the universe contained 0 volume, it's existence is continuous throughout infinity, there's no telling how long it could have been there as a point of 0 volume. According to mathematics, its still existent right now.

 

 

in the beginning everything was a singularity but it wasnt nothing.

Singularity= a point of 0 volume. Sounds pretty nothing to me. But that's not to say there wasn't improbability of some sort. Which doesn't really make sense for blackholes, since if it was actually nothing, why would it have such powerful gravity? I mean since the fabric of space is only a mathematical way to describe space, not an existent thing, there can't be any holes in it.

 

 

 

 

 

at a deep quantum level events are not caused.

 

rather they are 'influenced' by previous events.

 

We can't really assume that in any way, otherwise scientists wouldn't bother to keep doing experiments with that type of QM. There could be any number of things causing the quantum mechanical improbability we see, and if they are influenced by past events, that still effects them in a specific way. But I suppose then if its all connected like that, the only way to determine everything would be to find the first event, and work your way up to figuring out how each thing influenced the next.