The Philosophy of Something Coming from Nothing

[StringJunky]

StringJunky,

 

But ignorance suggests ignoring something.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I meant it in the sense of not being aware. If cause and effect is the correct sequence of occurrence then it follows that an apparent absence of observable events beyond T=0 is due to lack of knowledge not that there was an actual total absence of things before it. T=0 is the beginning of a set of events but is not inclusive of those events that precede it, which at this time are invisible to us.

 

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't or didn't exist...it is only apparently that way.

[tar]

I meant it in the sense of not being aware. If cause and effect is the correct sequence of occurrence then it follows that an apparent absence of observable events beyond T=0 is due to lack of knowledge not that there was an actual total absence of things before it. T=0 is the beginning of a set of events but is not inclusive of those events that precede it, which at this time are invisible to us.

 

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't or didn't exist...it is only apparently that way.

 

StringJunky,

 

I think you are right, and I had an insight, just before I read your post, that I would like to share.

 

Reality is evident. It already exists. It is actual.

An individual is 100% real, in that every component of an individual can be explained in real terms, even if imaginary thoughts or numbers may be useful in doing it.

So in the realm of human thought, imaginary things are real when they are meant to be referring to actual reality. However imaginary things are not real when they are meant to be referring to something that is actually NOT the case.

 

We, in the sense that ALL our thoughts are already an image of reality, are not in a position to take anything as far as it ACTUALLY can go. Although we are in a position to work backward.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

So much that is said about nothing can be taken seriously or taken as a joke, and make just as much sense, either way from any starting point. Depending of course on what you are talking about, actual nothing, or imaginary nothing, and who you are talking about it to, and what "insights" you are bringing to the table, and what "insights" the other has in mind.

 

It does not appear that humans can know nothing. And you can take that just about any way you wish to take it.

Edited December 24, 2011 by tar

[Sorcerer]

Ok cant be bothered looking through all this now. But perhaps ur confusing the concept of nothing with 0 the mathematical number. It still holds a place.

 

0 = -1 +1

-1 is a real number

+1 is a real number

0 is just a way of looking at them canceled out

 

we will never perceive 0, I see why ur having a problem with nothing

[iNow]

Ok cant be bothered looking through all this now. But...

All of the best posts I've ever read begin exactly this way...

[davef]

I might not be up on the latest but it seems like many people believe that the universe,or not nothing, starts at a point in what is now time. I think something like 15,000,000,000 years ago? And I think people believe that it started at a certain point in what is now space. So by that model, if you had a vehicle that could travel fast enough, say 100,000,000,000 times the speed of light or more, couldn't you travel past the outer edge of something, the universe, and into nothing. You would be in whatever existed before something. It seems like you would be in endless nothing except you and your vehicle.

[tar]

Except we are at the same point along with everything else already. That is, traveling as fast as you possibly can, and even 1000 times or a million or a billion times faster than that, will not be fast enough to get you out of reality. Even if you arrived at a boundry of some sort, you would have no way to cross, without taking your "real" vehical with you, thus proving you had not actually reached the boundry of reality. Cause you are really sitting there, with your real vehical. If you "crossed" you would no longer be "in" reality. Seems it can only be an imaginary trip. Not only because C is the speed limit, but because ALL of reality is already accounted for "inside" the point. That is, the point is/was not itself "in" reality. It was not a player on a stage, or something that exploded to fill a volume that preexisted. Space and time and matter and us remain inside the point, and can not leak out. You can't leave because you have no place to go, and no time to make the trip.

 

Ok cant be bothered looking through all this now. But perhaps ur confusing the concept of nothing with 0 the mathematical number. It still holds a place.

 

0 = -1 +1

-1 is a real number

+1 is a real number

0 is just a way of looking at them canceled out

 

we will never perceive 0, I see why ur having a problem with nothing

 

So can we use "nothing" as the thing that is holding "everything" in place?

[davef]

I might not be up on the latest but it seems like many people believe that the universe,or not nothing, starts at a point in what is now time. I think something like 15,000,000,000 years ago? And I think people believe that it started at a certain point in what is now space. So by that model, if you had a vehicle that could travel fast enough, say 100,000,000,000 times the speed of light or more, couldn't you travel past the outer edge of something, the universe, and into nothing. You would be in whatever existed before something. It seems like you would be in endless nothing except you and your vehicle.

 

It seems pretty absurd, a vehicle sitting out there beyond the edge of the universe in nothing. But is there anything resisting the universes' expansion? What would prevent this very fast and durable imaginary craft from entering pre-existence conditions? If it is out there then it could examine nothing. If it could launch a thermometer on a tether from the outside of the craft, couldn't it measure the temperature of nothing? The vehicle itself is a measuring device at least as far as establishing minimum dimensions. It would be worth checking out in that even though there is nothing there-that is where something comes from (they say.)

 

Except we are at the same point along with everything else already. That is, traveling as fast as you possibly can, and even 1000 times or a million or a billion times faster than that, will not be fast enough to get you out of reality. Even if you arrived at a boundry of some sort, you would have no way to cross, without taking your "real" vehical with you, thus proving you had not actually reached the boundry of reality. Cause you are really sitting there, with your real vehical. If you "crossed" you would no longer be "in" reality. Seems it can only be an imaginary trip. Not only because C is the speed limit, but because ALL of reality is already accounted for "inside" the point. That is, the point is/was not itself "in" reality. It was not a player on a stage, or something that exploded to fill a volume that preexisted. Space and time and matter and us remain inside the point, and can not leak out. You can't leave because you have no place to go, and no time to make the trip.

 

 

 

So can we use "nothing" as the thing that is holding "everything" in place?

 

I see your point. I guess I'm just implying that a physicall edge to reality, a line between something and nothing, is bothersome and playing around with it. I also think that the idea of there being a starting point timewise to the universe is kind of weak. Science has been doing big metaphorical gorrilla dunks all over religion on a lot of things but it doesn't seem like anyone can even buy a layup as far as definitely explaining how there is all this stuff around. Just BAM there it is, it's fast and getting faster.

[tar]

If it is out there then it could examine nothing

Davef,

 

Couple problems.

 

If its out where?

 

What would it be examining?

 

And, if the vehical found nothing to have any characteristics at all, that would immediately make it something, something "other than" nothing. Nothing would then be merely another aspect of reality, that went right along with the rest of it. And, nothing would no longer have the same character, or lack there of, once a vehical is sitting in it. 'Cause there would be this vehical thing sitting in it.

 

So even if we were to find a peep hole, through which we could examine nothing, we would, once finding the peep hole, put our eye up against the peep hole and say "hum, nothing there". Nothing at all.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

or we might say "nothing to be found in that direction"

 

so you can look for nothing in any direction you choose, without even leaving your chair

 

anytime you find nothing in the direction you look, you have evidently found it

 

so it could be what is on the other side of the big bang, and if so, we already know everything there is to know about it, or at least a lot of what there is to know about it, or at the very least, at least something, 'cause if we know something, we know at least that nothing is not that thing

[owl]

Just read the thread. One of my favorite subjects in cosmology.

Seems like the game is over in my philosophy thread, so I'd like to play here, if it's not over yet.

 

davef, #2:

If there is something now, then doesn't that leave you with one of two possibilities? 1. There was always something or 2. something can come from nothing

 

Exactly. And if the latter is literally incredible magic, the cosmos is/has been/will remain eternal... no beginning or ending.

A cyclic cosmos (with many unanswered questions, of course) makes best sense then as the Big Picture, in my opinion, because “it all” had to come from somewhere and could not just sit there as a singularity or a ball-o-everything waiting for the show to “begin.”

 

View PostJustinW, on 23 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Or you could look at it this way. Due to resistance, the energy of the entire everything will at some point wink out of existance. There for becoming nothing. So something could turn into nothing, but does that mean that nothing could also turn into something?

 

This denies the universal law of conservation of energy/matter... that it can neither be created nor destroyed but only changes form. Who re-wrote that law of physics?

 

daveF post 32:

...

Science has been doing big metaphorical gorrilla dunks all over religion on a lot of things but it doesn't seem like anyone can even buy a layup as far as definitely explaining how there is all this stuff around. Just BAM there it is, it's fast and getting faster.

 

That has been one of my pet peeves for many years. If the laws of physics melt down at "singularities" and such... or at ground zero and time zero of the Bang, then we must just ignore the question, "Where did it all come from?"

But curious minds will not ignore such a major cosmological question... even if we can not answer it definitively.

 

As I've said before, "something out of nothing" is the same cop out as the religious belief that it all came out of god's Magic Hat.

[michel123456]

As I've said before, "something out of nothing" is the same cop out as the religious belief that it all came out of god's Magic Hat.

 

That's why if we could rule out this "nothing" as something impossible, then we could make a positive statement that "something" must be.

That would be the first step.

The second step would be then to state that "anything" can be (choice A). In this case, many other universes with different structures may have been, or will be, and we are here contemplating this one thanks to the anthropic principle. But then again it is a disguised manner for making the human being so special. It also gives no importance to a bunch of physical constants that could be otherwise, and to anything that could be otherwise.

Or

the second step would be to state that this universe is the single one way to be (choice B), no other way is possible. That would mean that we are condamned to search how the hell is that possible, this universe.

Because choice A is boring and choice B is much more difficult and exciting, I vote B.

Edited December 29, 2011 by michel123456

[JustinW]

As I've said before, "something out of nothing" is the same cop out as the religious belief that it all came out of god's Magic Hat.

But it does make about as much sense.

 

 

So not only CAN you get something from nothing, you MUST have nothing to have something.

It is sufficient and nescessary.

 

To me this is a dizzying conversation. (not that it's hard to make me dizzy ) Is it even a consensus that nothingness actually exists? Or is it just an imaginary phrase brought about to explain the state of something that is absent.

[owl]

That's why if we could rule out this "nothing" as something impossible, then we could make a positive statement that "something" must be.

That would be the first step.

The second step would be then to state that "anything" can be (choice A). In this case, many other universes with different structures may have been, or will be, and we are here contemplating this one thanks to the anthropic principle. But then again it is a disguised manner for making the human being so special. It also gives no importance to a bunch of physical constants that could be otherwise, and to anything that could be otherwise.

Or

the second step would be to state that this universe is the single one way to be (choice B), no other way is possible. That would mean that we are condamned to search how the hell is that possible, this universe.

Because choice A is boring and choice B is much more difficult and exciting, I vote B.

 

I agree with you here. Especially with this 'it's all about how we see it' philosophy.

 

michell:

But then again it is a disguised

manner for making the human being so special.

 

I agree. 'How we see it is how it is'... is idealism. But now the Cap ‘n asks me to define “is.”

(Another thread.)

What it is vs how we see it. Pretty simple but so hard to see.

 

Found a little more 'time' to reply.

 

That's why if we could rule out this "nothing" as something impossible, then we could make a positive statement that "something" must be.

That would be the first step.

 

Yes. But the language of "something" and "nothing" has such different meaning in different cultures.

The most simple meaning is that nothing is the absence of any 'thing'; i.e., no 'thing.'

But now we must define "thing." A quagmire of linguistics. Physics in general does not 'believe in' emptiness, no-thing-ness.

 

The second step would be then to state that "anything" can be (choice A). In this case, many other universes with different structures may have been, or will be, and we are here contemplating this one thanks to the anthropic principle.

 

I will not vote for that choice either.

 

Or

the second step would be to state that this universe is the single one way to be (choice B), no other way is possible. That would mean that we are condamned to search how the hell is that possible, this universe.

Because choice A is boring and choice B is much more difficult and exciting, I vote B.

 

Another way to say that, I think, is that many choices (DNA adaptations, whatever in the case of known lifeforms) have made the universe what it is.

It is no longer about what it would have been with other circumstances.

[StringJunky]

To me this is a dizzying conversation. (not that it's hard to make me dizzy ) Is it even a consensus that nothingness actually exists? Or is it just an imaginary phrase brought about to explain the state of something that is absent.

 

I think so...the extent of its meaning all depends on which things you define as absent and that then becomes the definition of nothing in a particular scenario.

[URAIN]

That's why if we could rule out this "nothing" as something impossible, then we could make a positive statement that "something" must be.

That would be the first step.

The second step would be then to state that "anything" can be (choice A). In this case, many other universes with different structures may have been, or will be, and we are here contemplating this one thanks to the anthropic principle. But then again it is a disguised manner for making the human being so special. It also gives no importance to a bunch of physical constants that could be otherwise, and to anything that could be otherwise.

Or

the second step would be to state that this universe is the single one way to be (choice B), no other way is possible. That would mean that we are condamned to search how the hell is that possible, this universe.

Because choice A is boring and choice B is much more difficult and exciting, I vote B.

 

Dear Michel

 

Here suppose anyone theory accepted at speculation discussion as fine,

 

(In speculation P.P. Principle "Nothing has never existed. In any time." is accepted as fine.)

 

 

Then also, Does he can't use his theory to answering the theory related topics in the forum ? If given response to related thread, then

 

how it will be hijacking the thread?

 

I am asking this, because I thought to give response to this thread. (This thread is also related to the P.P. Principle theory)

 

But already I had a bad experiance.

 

 

On thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62236-theory-of-the-creation-of-everything/ ( I request you, for taking a glance on this thread.)

[michel123456]

dear URAIN

I looked at the thread.

You are not the only one with bad experiences. A few days after my arrival here one of my threads was sent to the waste basket.

 

You agree that "Nothing has never existed", it is part of your theory. So what?

We may be 3 or 4 clowns here to agree on that, that doesn't help much. We need some arguments.

The law of conservation of energy is a good one. But it is an empirical observation of the universe, it is not emergent from anything. So you cannot use it as a premise.

[owl]

michel:

The law of conservation of energy is a good one. But it is an empirical observation of the universe, it is not emergent from anything. So you cannot use it as a premise.

 

If the premise is that something can not come from nothing, then energy/matter has not emerged from nothing. There was no “beginning” and there will be no end. Cosmos is eternal if there was no magic beginning out of a void and no ending... like entropy ‘destroys’ everything. It wouldn’t. If it all just disperses, then there will be no more organized universe. It runs down and scatters out.

 

What a waste, for one thing. Re-cycling is a good idea on all levels.

 

What if we all just had one allotted orgasm?... one Big Bang? Admittedly not a scientific argument. Just a little off the wall musing on a one shot cosmos.(Not ‘philosophy of science.’)

 

But I would not create a one time Bang universe. A waste of matter and energy. I would recycle energy/matter. Our little arguments against a cyclical cosmos do not preclude the possibility. More matter for gravity will be “found”, I think. More found all the time. And the bending of light argument against that cosmology needs a lot of work. (The critic knows who he is.)

[Sorcerer]

Imo opinion something cannot come from nothing.

 

1. Nothing by definition does not exist

Therefore at no time was there nothing for something to come from it.

 

2. Nothing has no properties

Time is a property

Therefore at no time did something come from nothing.

 

Because there is no time before something and because nothing doesn't exist, it is not possible to argue that there was nothing 'existing' before a beginning for any ammount of time.

 

Therefore something always existed.

 

____________________________________________

 

I have heard arguments that 0 (or as they try to argue nothingness) can be split into positive and negative side, which allows it to have existence.

These arguments fail in that there is a property of that nothingness, which is the precondition which allows it to split into something.

Therefore even the balanced total 0 energy is not nothing. It has the property which allows it to become something.

[iNow]

Imo opinion something cannot come from nothing.

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.

[Sorcerer]

Actually observations cannot extend beyond the CMB, and the Hubble volume. IMO the idea of a creation event, as in the big bang is just as much fantasy as God the creator.

 

Instead of trolling why not try to INFORM me?

[michel123456]

That's all about "Time".

As long as we haven't clearly understood what time is, the whole discussion is a waste of ...time.

[Sorcerer]

Time is the movement of matter within space, that has NOTHING to do with nothing.

[ydoaPs]

Imo opinion something cannot come from nothing.

 

1. Nothing by definition does not exist

Therefore at no time was there nothing for something to come from it.

 

2. Nothing has no properties

Time is a property

Therefore at no time did something come from nothing.

 

Because there is no time before something and because nothing doesn't exist, it is not possible to argue that there was nothing 'existing' before a beginning for any ammount of time.

 

Therefore something always existed.

 

____________________________________________

 

I have heard arguments that 0 (or as they try to argue nothingness) can be split into positive and negative side, which allows it to have existence.

These arguments fail in that there is a property of that nothingness, which is the precondition which allows it to split into something.

Therefore even the balanced total 0 energy is not nothing. It has the property which allows it to become something.

Why are you applying a formal system designed to describe the operation of something to the operation of nothing? That's like trying to loosen a torqued nut using lime Jello.

[iNow]

why not try to INFORM me?

 

 

 

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

[JustinW]

That was an interesting talk by Krauss. It answered some questions I've had, and brought about some new ones which I will ask in another thread.

 

Essentially I think Sorcerer's opinion of nothing was more feasable as to the philisophical question here. The term nothingness that Krauss uses (empty space) is still actually something, because it has energy and weight. Empty space is still space, so it is something. So although it can be the "nothing" that which the universe was created, it cannot be the true form of nothing. So the question still stands...Does nothing even exist? And if empty space, as observed, has energy then where did that weight and energy come from? Something or nothing?

[owl]

Actually observations cannot extend beyond the CMB, and the Hubble volume. IMO the idea of a creation event, as in the big bang is just as much fantasy as God the creator.

....

Yes! And when physicists/cosmologists say that "physics breaks down" at the "singularity" or at a ball-of-all-there-is,...

that "How did it appear/manifest in the first place?"... is a meaningless or invalid question... that is simply the physics version of agnosticism.

It is good to admit that we don't know. It is another thing to insist on unknowable magic regarding cosmic genesis.

 

And an eternal, oscillating, Bang/Crunch cosmos does not require magic. (Beginnings and endings are the products of linear thinking.)