The Philosophy of Something Coming from Nothing

[Sorcerer]

@iNOW seen it a few years ago from memory in the video he says something along the lines of "so why then did the universe come to exist? well becasue it had to."

 

If it had to, then why wasn't it always in existence?

[iNow]

If it had to, then why wasn't it always in existence?

How do you know it wasn't?

[michel123456]

How do you know it wasn't?

Strange question.

Does that mean that you agree that the universe was never created ?

Or are you meaning that nobody knows?

[StringJunky]

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be an informed opinion. You can believe whatever you want, but sometimes your beliefs will be contrary to what reality suggests. This appears to be one of those times.

 

If we define that nothing is the absence of all things, it follows that, nothing lacks potentiality, therefore, something can not come from nothing. It’s a trivially correct logical argument...one does not need to be informed.

Edited January 4, 2012 by StringJunky

[tar]

Inow,

 

Listened to the talk by Mr. Krauss.

 

Don't know about this wheighing the universe thing. And can't get my head around the clumping of the Cosmic Backgound Radiation. I am not convinced that assumptions are not required to be made, before you can do a calculation.

 

I feel that "empty space" is manipulated as a "thing" (much to Owl's and my dismay). Something that "gets larger".

 

I have a feeling that some things are getting out of hand, in terms of the conflicting consequences. If this and that is observed, then all matter and energy we know about is only less than 1 percent of the mass and energy the universe is made of?

 

Such a result would indicate to me that somebody is making an incorrect assumption and it is taking them on a wild goose chase.

 

And it is disturbing to be that Mr. Krauss finds such a need to rank on religion. Does not seem humble at all. Sounds to me like someone who is already comfortable with their own personal God, and feels superior to non-believers.

 

I was looking up at the stars the other night from a hot tub in a hollow in rural West Virgina.

 

The universe is unimaginably large. What we see of it is contingent upon us being here and now. I do not think there is a better way to imagine it. Unlikely that an idealistic view of it, from "outside", considering it one thing, is going to be correct. There are going to be some incorrect assumptions made. Primarily because you can not "see" it, without holding to light speed as the max.

 

I am guessing that "distance" is not properly handled all the time, in every cosmological argument. I don't know how one would "get outside" the universe, to see it expanding. And what exactly one is using as a baseline "time".

 

As in what the universe is doing "now". Right now, here, it is doing exactly what we see it doing. Any "standard candle" is NOT standard in the sense that the farther away it is, the younger and smaller the universe was when it burned. There seems to be a jump from now what we see, to then as now, to there as later, in ways that seem inappropriate to me. For instance Mr. Krauss was talking about civilizations existing on planets in the distant galaxies. Does he mean then (which is the now we see) when the galaxy was so much younger, that enough heavy elements were not yet present due to the repeated star creation and death required for life as we know it to exist? Or does he mean in the Godlike now that we imagine that galaxy to be in, in the billions of years it has had to evolve as its light traveled to us? And what is our distance from that galaxy? What it was when the light that we are seeing now left it? What it appears to be as the light arrives? What it is figured to be, given some guess at apparent distance plus the increase in distance due to expansion in the last billions of years?

 

And in any case, the universe is just unimaginably huge. I do not understand how anyone could pretend to contain it, and "get outside" it, to comprehend it as "one thing". One thing, whose absence would be nothing.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

Strange question.

Does that mean that you agree that the universe was never created ?

Or are you meaning that nobody knows?

It was merely pointing out that Sorcerer was arguing from a premise which was itself potentially false. I cut off his argument at the ankles instead of accepting it as valid and responding.

 

 

 

It’s a trivially correct logical argument...one does not need to be informed.

The logic is fine. The premise is unfounded. That's where I addressed my challenge. If your premises are flawed, then your conclusions can only be correct by accident.

 

 

 

 

If this and that is observed, then all matter and energy we know about is only less than 1 percent of the mass and energy the universe is made of?

Strange, but seemingly true. Here's a short four minute summary discussing exactly that (it's a bit of a promo for his book, but covers the point you made concisely and correctly):

 

And it is disturbing to be that Mr. Krauss finds such a need to rank on religion. Does not seem humble at all.

So?

[StringJunky]

The logic is fine. The premise is unfounded. That's where I addressed my challenge. If your premises are flawed, then your conclusions can only be correct by accident.

 

I'm the first tio admit that I'm not well-read in formal logic, but wouldn't you consider the premise to be axiomatic ie it's the starting point from which we start a train of logic? From WIKI:

 

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

[iNow]

I don't consider it axiomatic since it is hardly self-evident. I do not accept his axiom as valid, and hence reject the argument he's based upon it.

 

Ultimately, though... He said was speaking about his opinion, and I was suggesting that his opinion doesn't appear very well informed. I said he can believe whatever he wants, but in this instance his beliefs seem contrary to reality. All of the philosophy and logic and definitional arguments in the world don't help in this instance IMO.

[StringJunky]

I don't consider it axiomatic since it is hardly self-evident. I do not accept his axiom as valid, and hence reject the argument he's based upon it.

 

Ultimately, though... He said was speaking about his opinion, and I was suggesting that his opinion doesn't appear very well informed. I said he can believe whatever he wants, but in this instance his beliefs seem contrary to reality. All of the philosophy and logic and definitional arguments in the world don't help in this instance IMO.

 

OK, is my argument axiomatic with regard to my definition of nothing?

[iNow]

Since you're asking if it's self-evident that the absence of all things unquestionably leads to the conclusion that there is no potentiality, I'd have to say, no.

[owl]

If we define that nothing is the absence of all things, it follows that, nothing lacks potentiality, therefore, something can not come from nothing. It’s a trivially correct logical argument...one does not need to be informed.

Agreed. Also agreeing with TAR.

 

I feel that "empty space" is manipulated as a "thing" (much to Owl's and my dismay). Something that "gets larger".

 

Yes. Like “time,” space is reified by giving it properties like shape and ability to expand. If space is absence of ‘things” then there is no “it” with such properties. So nothing still means no thing.

So how did “things” (matter/energy) appear ‘in the first place,' so to speak? In an eternal cosmos, there is no beginning , no “in the first place.” So where was “it all” before the Bang?

Sitting still waiting for “the beginning”... or magically appearing “out of no-thing-ness?

 

I don’t think so. Bang/Crunch is the only cosmology, therefore, that makes sense to me. And I am confident that the "bugs" will eventually be worked out.

[StringJunky]

Since you're asking if it's self-evident that the absence of all things unquestionably leads to the conclusion that there is no potentiality, I'd have to say, no.

From my perspective, to be internally consistent with the premise that I've expressed, the history of the Universe has no beginning and therefore could not come from nothing. Rather ironically, in the face of your known avid atheism, your position only makes sense to me if we invoke an "externally" existing god-like or supernatural entity initiating something from nothing...but it still wouldn't come from nothing because the supernatural being would be the potentiality.

 

Perhaps you could provide an argument or scenario that circumvents my premise?

[iNow]

From my perspective, to be internally consistent with the premise that I've expressed, the history of the Universe has no beginning and therefore could not come from nothing.

It appears I was misunderstanding your actual position. Given the way you've expressed it here, we don't disagree. IF the universe has no beginning, then yes... It very clearly follows that asking "what it came from," whether that be nothing or something, is meaningless. My apologies.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

[StringJunky]

It appears I was misunderstanding your actual position. Given the way you've expressed it here, we don't disagree. IF the universe has no beginning, then yes... It very clearly follows that asking "what it came from," whether that be nothing or something, is meaningless. My apologies.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

That's ok. I find this kind of discussion interesting because one has to endeavour to be so disciplined and precise in how things are defined or else we are like members in a band all playing different tunes at the same time. It's strange subject matter talking about nothing!

Edited January 4, 2012 by StringJunky

[owl]

That's ok. I find this kind of discussion interesting because one has to endeavour to be so disciplined and precise in how things are defined or else we are like members in a band all playing different tunes at the same time. It's strange subject matter talking about nothing!

Interesting for me too. You have just defined ontology in your own way.

How "things" are defined is ontology.

How "no thing" (nothing) is defined is ontology.

Sorting out the differences between concepts/theories and the world as it is, which science tries to comprehend, is the job of both scientists and philosophers.

I'd like to see the war between science (specifically physicists/mathematicians) and philosophers of science... over.

(Wrong thread for that comment. Sorry.)

 

Mystics seem to understand the 'void' the lack of "things" , emptiness... better than physicists, as I understand the concepts.

Where there are no "things"... no-thing-ness remains.

[StringJunky]

Interesting for me too. You have just defined ontology in your own way.

How "things" are defined is ontology.

How "no thing" (nothing) is defined is ontology.

Sorting out the differences between concepts/theories and the world as it is, which science tries to comprehend, is the job of both scientists and philosophers.

I'd like to see the war between science (specifically physicists/mathematicians) and philosophers of science... over.

(Wrong thread for that comment. Sorry.)

 

Mystics seem to understand the 'void' the lack of "things" , emptiness... better than physicists, as I understand the concepts.

Where there are no "things"... no-thing-ness remains.

 

A 'void' is a state within a container. 'Emptiness' is a state within a container...these two are not necessarily synonymous with "lack of things". Nothing, as I previously defined it, includes the absence of the container...the "container" is a fabrication of your mind which you need to shed it in order to comprehend the true nature of nothing in its purest sense but it's nigh on impossible because you are left with nothing to visualise...that's what nothing is. It has zero dimension and consequently no existence of any sort.

[owl]

A 'void' is a state within a container. 'Emptiness' is a state within a container...these two are not necessarily synonymous with "lack of things". Nothing, as I previously defined it, includes the absence of the container...the "container" is a fabrication of your mind which you need to shed it in order to comprehend the true nature of nothing in its purest sense but it's nigh on impossible because you are left with nothing to visualise...that's what nothing is. It has zero dimension and consequently no existence of any sort.

Who said anything about a container? Not me.

I said:

Mystics seem to understand the 'void' the lack of "things" , emptiness... better than physicists, as I understand the concepts.

Where there are no "things"... no-thing-ness remains.

 

I have not fabricated any container.

 

Mystics understand, by direct experience, consciousness with no content... awareness sans the usual 'what we are aware of'... thoughts, images, concepts, mental 'things.'

 

Why do you say that I need to "shed" what I never wore... belief that nothingness/void needs a container?

 

Space is emptiness. Stuff, things/energy/forces, exist in space. Obviously, where occupied by things, it is not empty. There is no possible "end of space." Space must be infinite, because on the "other side" of any imaginary boundary or "container" is.... nobody knows... even if nothing, that is just more space.

Now do you understand what I meant? No container.

[Sorcerer]

How do you know it wasn't?

It is far more relevant to say the universe alway existed than saying theres something "north of the north pole". Even though I'm not 100% convinced there actually was a big bang and that quote was Hawkings metaphor on the subject, it still applies to any first cause argument. How can there be a first cause, when a cause was needed to make that first cause, it is just an endless repetition. It is so much easier to say the universe always existed, take from that what u want. It can be applied to the big bang theory, it can be applied to a total 0 energy universe, it can be applied to a multiverse, a cyclic universe and a created universe from God, after all theists claim God always existed.

 

I'm saying nothing doesn't exist, so therefore something alway existed, how hard is that to understand for a 1 premise single conclusion argument?

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sorcerer

[michel123456]

It is far more relevant to say the universe alway existed than saying theres something "north of the north pole". Even though I'm not 100% convinced there actually was a big bang and that quote was Hawkings metaphor on the subject, it still applies to any first cause argument. How can there be a first cause, when a cause was needed to make that first cause, it is just an endless repetition. It is so much easier to say the universe always existed, take from that what u want. It can be applied to the big bang theory, it can be applied to a total 0 energy universe, it can be applied to a multiverse, a cyclic universe and a created universe from God, after all theists claim God always existed.

 

I'm saying nothing doesn't exist, so therefore something alway existed, how hard is that to understand for a 1 premise single conclusion argument?

 

I agree on the basis.

But it is difficult to grasp.

"always existed" is about eternity, and eternity is the infinite in time, meaning infinite both ways: no beginning, no end.

Although infinite is a notion that we can deal with mathematically and logically, it remains difficult to swallow.

[Sorcerer]

Things which we cannot perceive are commonplace throughout science and theology. To me nothing is harder to perceive than infinity, atleast infinity exists. LOL reminds me of calculus, as 1 approaches 0.... theres both tied into one... mind f**k. Just incase u don't understand that : there are an infinite ammount of numbers between 1 and 0.

 

edit: ok someones going to ask me what in science is perceiveable, I will just say now "uncertainty principle": We cannot perceive both momentum and posistion concurrently. Also, space is warped by gravity, I know u can try to perceive it, but really? Space is just the distance between matter, wouldn't it be easier to say the distance between matter is changed?

 

To me there is something inherently wrong with our modern understanding of physics, IE we cannot find a Grand unified theory. It's back to the drawing board, I hope perhaps string theory can work..... oops theres another few dimensions we cannot perceive.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sorcerer

[StringJunky]

Who said anything about a container? Not me.

I said:

 

 

I have not fabricated any container.

 

Mystics understand, by direct experience, consciousness with no content... awareness sans the usual 'what we are aware of'... thoughts, images, concepts, mental 'things.'

 

Why do you say that I need to "shed" what I never wore... belief that nothingness/void needs a container?

 

Space is emptiness. Stuff, things/energy/forces, exist in space. Obviously, where occupied by things, it is not empty. There is no possible "end of space." Space must be infinite, because on the "other side" of any imaginary boundary or "container" is.... nobody knows... even if nothing, that is just more space.

Now do you understand what I meant? No container.

OK understood. It's just that using words like "empty" and "void", to me at least, implies space and a container to hold that space in, not that you explicitly said it.

 

 

 

I agree on the basis.

But it is difficult to grasp

"always existed" is about eternity, and eternity is the infinite in time, meaning infinite both ways: no beginning, no end.

Although infinite is a notion that we can deal with mathematically and logically, it remains difficult to swallow.

I agree, it is a tough pill to swallow but if one starts with a premise that appears logical and we accept it then we have no choice but to accept the resulting consequences of that premise, just like, if we accept a fixed velocity for light then time and space can not be invariant. Logical consistency in a sequence, stemming from a premise, is one of the things that allows scientists to make predictions and sometimes actually push the boundaries of knowledge.

Edited January 5, 2012 by StringJunky

[tar]

 

 

 

 

So?

 

Just an observation. I do not think I am alone in desiring to understand the universe "correctly".

 

It's a rather large and extensive thing, in terms of size and scale in both time and distance. In fact it is everything there ever was and ever will be, everywhere and every time that there is.

 

More than anyone can grasp. Even Mr. Krauss.

 

If one feels they have a handle on it...they most likely are deluding themselves, in some sense or another.

 

As each of us has our ways to handle it, and as handling it together is less lonely, I am cautious about anytime that someone feels they hold the only key.

 

All in all Mr. Krauss is in rather the same spot as someone cirling the stone in Mecca, or reaching Nirvana on a hilltop. It is little help to me to be "outside" the reachers conception of the universe. I am rather certain that I am in the same universe, as well, and have equal rights and responsibilities to it.

 

In a hundred billion years it will be this or that way? Come on. What are we having for dinner?

 

Regards, TAR

[Sorcerer]

@ TAR

 

I feel the same way, it seems to me there are alot of atheist out there who take it as a hard core religion, they feel the need to fight against any idea that contradicts their dogma. Perhaps they need to go back and rethink what it means to be atheist. Agnostics win .

 

Relax people you beleive your gonna die and then nothing happens, so who really cares?? People if you care so much about life and what people beleive go start an atheist organised religion. LOL

 

I used to attend humanist groups, then I realised those guys were a bunch of c**ts and now I think all humans are a source of conflict/destruction. So ironic humanists, yet they seem to think for humans to acheive a better world they need to force their point of view onto other people, this is the source of conflict.

 

We as a species are doomed, because even those that want to make it a better place for everyone are only thinking about themselves.

[iNow]

I do not think I am alone in desiring to understand the universe "correctly".

Indeed, but just because we share a desire to correctly understand the universe in which we exist does not mean that religion or faith-based beliefs are deserving of any special deference. The fact that one mocks religion has nothing to do with the fact that this person may not fully comprehend the wonder and awe of the verse.

 

He gave a presentation about the physics and cosmology of the question. Even a remedial understanding of either shows how clearly the religious position is absurd. Stating so openly does nothing to negate the physics based discussion points.

 

 

 

I feel the same way, it seems to me there are alot of atheist out there who take it as a hard core religion, they feel the need to fight against any idea that contradicts their dogma.

What dogma is that, exactly? Please, do share with all of us what scriptures or teachings or beliefs are shared by non-believers. This should be interesting. Do you have a similar set of principles and dogma for people who don't believe in santa claus? Also, what is teh dogma of people who don't collect stamps?

 

 

Perhaps they need to go back and rethink what it means to be atheist. Agnostics win

Perhaps you need to figure out what each of these words mean before you continue looking foolish. You can be either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but not just an agnostic. Further, atheists do not generally assert that god does not exist, merely that there is no good reason to accept that one does.

 

Do agnostics about the easter bunny ALSO win? Do agnostics about the tooth fairy ALSO win? Do agnostics about Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Ba'al, and the countless other gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology ALSO win?

 

You should rework your positions and ensure they're not so flawed before putting them forth in such a self-assured way. This is just a nickel's worth of free advise.

[owl]

I agree on the basis.

But it is difficult to grasp.

"always existed" is about eternity, and eternity is the infinite in time, meaning infinite both ways: no beginning, no end.

Although infinite is a notion that we can deal with mathematically and logically, it remains difficult to swallow.

Yes. But which is harder to imagine/believe: That the whole universe popped into existence out of nothing (thread title) or that the universal law of conservation of energy/matter is true and requires an eternal cosmos? The former is the equivalent of "god created it all," but for "lets just say we don't know what this agent of creation is."

 

As I said, a cosmic beginning and ending is a product of linear thinking.