The Philosophy of Something Coming from Nothing

[michel123456]

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.

 

To me, the answer is Time.

I like to repeat myself twice:

as long as we don't understand what Time really is, the whole discussion is a waste of ...time.

[owl]

To me, the answer is Time.

I like to repeat myself twice:

as long as we don't understand what Time really is, the whole discussion is a waste of ...time.

 

To which “we” do you refer as not understanding what time really is?” Maybe you really meant, “ As long as I don’t understand what time really is...”

 

This reply is a bit of philosophy of time. (That will put off the superior physicists!... A very small joke.)

 

The discussion is a waste of time for those who reifiy time.

 

That is how we got "time travel" as a pseudo- 'scientifically approved’ possibility promoted from an artifact and tool of science fiction. This is about the fictional “timescape” which reifies it into a kind of terrain we can travel through.

 

Who here “believes in” time travel? Hawking does, but he is very imaginative and over- rated as a cosmologist in my opinion.

 

But right now, in sanctioned relativity theory, we have text book “time dilation” which allows clocks (ticking at different rates) to “measure” time and give various “elapsed times” for what a “day” and “year” is.

 

I’ll go with one Earth rotation as a “day.” I would measure that rotation in units of time on a “master clock” (designated by agreement among geo-physical scientists) on the Equator at sea level with a reference point (for one rotation) in deep space, a distant star.

 

Then clocks can “tick away” in whatever inertial environment we place them and we could have a standardized designation for “one day or year” (in all familiar fractional units) to which the various other clocks could synchronize... with appropriate conversion factors from relativity’s math... without the reification of “time dilation”... and stupidest of all... “length contraction.”

 

Oopse! all the last about time should hve been in my 'philosophy as relevant...' thread.

Will move it as 'time' allows.

Edited January 6, 2012 by owl

[tar]

Inow,

 

Well, back to nothing.

 

Mr. Krauss' belittling of religions bothered me, not because I don't agree that many religious (god made me do it) types of reasoning are baseless in my imagination, but because he doesn't offer anything better to satisfy my need for "life after death".

 

I put this in the "nothing" discussion, because as far as I know, I knew nothing before I was born, and I will know nothing, after I die. However, it doesn't "seem" that way to me. I feel a belonging to my past, my family, my nation, my race, life on Earth, and our Solar System. And I feel a responsibility to leave my family and society and the Earth, in at least as good a condition as it was in during my life. I have a sense or knowledge, that it will continue after my death, and while TAR2 will know nothing after his death, there will be memories of me, that will continue after I die. In the works I leave behind, in the thoughts of those who I have touched, in the continuance of those established things, that I helped to maintain. There will still be something. Something that I care about, even though I will not be around to know about it.

 

I am not in a position to claim that I would know or feel these things if there was not religion. I said my prayers when I was young, I went to Sunday School. I learned "a way" that people, together, dealt with the enormity and power of the universe, and learned "a way" to hold oneself responsible for "life after death". It might not be important that it will not be me that is living after I die. But that there is still going to be life...and I, while I am alive, am responsible for behaving in a manner that will honor and protect that life. On whose authority?

 

Mr. Krauss does not answer this. Its all an accident according to him. The whole universe will disperse and there will be nothing but lonely peices of rock or lonely stars around...with "nothing" to look at, "nothing" to know.

I don't personally agree with him. He does not "know" what will or will not be the case in 100billion years. The universe is not finished doing what it is doing, and it has not done yet what it is going to do, next.

 

And if this particular clump of "accidental" chemical arrangements called "TAR2" can know and care about "something"...then the universe is capable of such...if it was ONLY me, that knew and cared about anything. However, I know it to be the case that there is not only me, but MUCH else that exists. And at least some of this much else, is similar to me in its ability to know and care about "something".

 

If the universe has "accidentally" created consciousness in a mere 13.72 billion years...who is Mr. Krauss to even take a wild guess at what could develope in another 100billion years...much less declare that he KNOWS how it will be. I would be willing to bet big money that he has no clue. 'Course I can not lose or win such a bet, because neither Mr. Krauss nor I will be here to collect. But it is rather arrogant for him to claim such knowledge, and belittle the universe, and increase his own value in such a manner, as to claim knowledge of it in such a way.

 

On whose authority does he imagine that such a pronouncement would mean anything to anybody, much less be correct?

 

Could be that as Owl suggests, the universe will "chrunch" again to a singularity and emerge out the "other side" in a "different" way, with elements of what it has "learned" in this cycle, carried through to "form" the reality of the next stage. Who is to say that "this" universe was not created by a "former" one on the other side, that had "evolved", and intelligent beings, who "knew" what was occurring left "messages" for the next cycle to find.

 

In anycase...there is not nothing. Reality is here to stay. Even if I won't be around to know about it. Someone, or something will. Seems to be a guarantee. How in the world could it be otherwise?

 

Even if a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one around...there is still woods.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

So, to summarize... You want to believe in an afterlife, Krauss is rude to believers, and he cannot possibly predict the future 100 billion years from now... so there! Okay. Not good enough for me, but okay.

 

As for whether or not Owl is correct, I plan to stick with the folks who use evidence and coherent logic to make their points instead of semantic games and philosophical web spinning.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Mr. Krauss has taken what we know at the moment and carried the equations forward for 100 billion years to "visualize" a universe, this universe, in the state it will then be in.

 

We can not even "visualize" the state the universe is currently in, except for how it looks from here and now.

 

With Mr. Krauss' knowledge that empty space is boiling with virtual particles that pop in an out of existence, and with our recent finding that we can only "see" less than one percent of the matter and energy in even the local universe, there seems to be much that can "happen" in the universe, without our knowledge of it happening.

 

So on what basis does he rule out matter and energy changing characteristics, a little at a time, to form "new" arrangements. Or that the "knowledge" we have gained about the universe in the last 100 years, and our ability to "see" and understand more what the universe is about...given 100 billion years of exploration, will not allow us to "see" further than we can know?

 

If flights of fancy are disallowed for religion and philosophy, then they should be at least recognized as such, when engaged in by a scientist.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

[owl]

 

Even if a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one around...there is still woods.

 

Regards, TAR2

Are you sure? Maybe when you are not looking at it, it ceases to exist. Some idealists believe that crap!

 

A realist like myself knows that the falling tree makes sound waves whether ears hear them or not. Squirrels , if present, will hear the sound, even if no all-important humans are around to decide whether or not the falling tree made a sound.

[Sorcerer]

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 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.

 

Atheist dogma = god doesn't exist.

 

Agnostic = a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. (from dictionary.com)

 

No there are no agnositc theist or agnostic athiests, these are just your way of twisting the word to your meaning.

 

And who's looking foolish now?

 

And as for ur allusions (as in tooth fairy etc) to the 2nd definition of agnostic "a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study." Don't twist my meaning by changing it with a similie, you know what the topic is about.

 

Just to reitterate iNow.

 

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

 

How can there be a first cause, when a cause was needed to make that first cause? It is just an endless repetition.

 

Please answer 2 these questions above all and refrain from adhominem attacks.

[Ben Banana]

If the big bang is the point of reflection...then nothing is on the other side.

 

I could throw out the words: "And after that, there's negative everything, like a number line!"

 

But, that toss-out just doesn't make any new ideas which are useful. I don't think you could even bring it to enough consistency to affect our progress around this unanswered question, in anyway. To be an effective philosopher, you can't just speculate. Let's not get our philosophy programs canceled just because so little "philosophers" today really know what philosophy is. Philosophy is awesome, but its community sucks.

 

Edit:

Oh! I didn't notice how there's currently 5 pages.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[tar]

Ben Bowen,

 

I was merely proposing that if nothing is the opposite of something, then the absence of everything that there is, would be nothing. And that we are unlikely to find such on "this side" of the big bang. That is, that if space and time and reality are on this side, then no space, no time and no real thing is on the other.

If that means nothing to you, then it is an appropriate description.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

Atheist dogma = god doesn't exist.

Wrong. Try again. Most atheists don't make the positive assertion that "there is no god." Most atheists simply state that there is no valid reason nor evidence to assume one does.

 

Agnostic = a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. (from dictionary.com)

This is correct.

 

No there are no agnositc theist or agnostic athiests, these are just your way of twisting the word to your meaning.

This, however, is not correct and it is trivially easy to show false. Not only am I not "twisting the word to my meaning," I seem to be the only one of us using it the way other learned people use it.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

 

An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God(s) they believe in.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known

 

 

And who's looking foolish now?

Indeed, sir. Who's looking foolish now, indeed.

 

 

And as for ur allusions (as in tooth fairy etc) to the 2nd definition of agnostic "a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study." Don't twist my meaning by changing it with a similie, you know what the topic is about.

Can you please clarify your position? I am not able to grasp your meaning here, nor am I very clear to what precisely you are referring.

 

 

Just to reitterate iNow.

 

I'm saying: nothing doesn't exist, so therefore something always existed.

I heard you the first time. I'm telling you to prove it.

 

 

How can there be a first cause, when a cause was needed to make that first cause? It is just an endless repetition.

We don't seem to disagree on this point. I'm unsure why you feel the need to argue it with me.

 

 

Please answer 2 these questions above all and refrain from adhominem attacks.

You should look up the definition of an ad hominem attack. I have not put forth any toward you in this thread. If you'd like to debate this point as well, I'm glad to do so.

[Moontanman]

Isn't the idea that "Nothing Exists" an oxymoron?

[StringJunky]

Isn't the idea that "Nothing Exists" an oxymoron?

 

Absolutely...and a fine example at that.

[Sorcerer]

I heard you the first time. I'm telling you to prove it.

 

The words alone DON'T NEED PROOF, they are logically correct. If I was to say a circle is round would you say prove it? If I was to say a square has 4 sides would you say prove it? There is no need to prove something which by definition is the statement.

 

And how would you go about proving the counter explanation the existence of nothing?

 

As for agnoistic atheists and agnostic theists, they are not truely agnostic because they hold a beleif in one side of an argument even though they agree they cannot have any knowledge of it. How can you beleive in something without knowledge of it? It is just the noun atheist or theist, with the adjective agnostic in front and an oxymoron. Agnostic the noun is not the same thing.

 

I suppose YOU had to look up ad hominem attack. (you were alluding to my arguments being false by calling me a fool, without even backing up why, just shove that ok.)

 

Oh and if you don't disagree that there is no first cause, then tell me what gave rise to the nothing that you claim could've come before/given rise to the universe? And if something gave rise to that nothing, why do u need the nothing inbetween - and how can there BE nothing inbetween?

[iNow]

The words alone DON'T NEED PROOF, they are logically correct.

This is why I tend to avoid philosophy.

 

As for agnoistic atheists and agnostic theists, they are not truely agnostic because they hold a beleif in one side of an argument even though they agree they cannot have any knowledge of it.

Simply repeating yourself doesn't suddenly make your position any more valid or accurate.

 

Oh and if you don't disagree that there is no first cause, then tell me what gave rise to the nothing that you claim could've come before/given rise to the universe?

I don't know, and that's a perfectly acceptable answer.

[A Tripolation]

As for agnoistic atheists and agnostic theists, they are not truely agnostic because they hold a beleif in one side of an argument even though they agree they cannot have any knowledge of it. How can you beleive in something without knowledge of it?

 

I am an agnostic theist. I believe in a deity. I do not purport to know the absolute truth that this deity exists. That is why I say "I believe" and not "I know".

 

 

I suppose YOU had to look up ad hominem attack. (you were alluding to my arguments being false by calling me a fool, without even backing up why, just shove that ok.)

 

I can't find where he used an ad hom against you. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

Oh and if you don't disagree that there is no first cause, then tell me what gave rise to the nothing that you claim could've come before/given rise to the universe? And if something gave rise to that nothing, why do u need the nothing inbetween - and how can there BE nothing inbetween?

 

Cause is related to time. If there was no time, there can be no cause. Current physics is aligned with the fact that there was no time before the singularity event. Your statement is illogical.

[Sorcerer]

Trip, then you are a theist, and you are agnostic about theology. Agnosticism itself is a middle ground, in this philosophy there is no knowledge in which a belief in a deity or a beleif in a lack of one can be formed. If you say you believe in a deity then you'd need to explain what a deity is, to explain what a deity is you would need to have some knowledge of it. Perhaps I am taking the meaning of belief a little to far, perhaps fantasy can be held under the term belief.

 

You gotta go back a few pages, personally I found his tone was condescending from the start. And then he just resorted to calling me foolish. Never IMO has he sucessfully countered my arguments, and he seems to use evasion more than direct discussion.

 

That's assuming there was a singularity. But yes, if there was then I agree, its the "north of the north pole" argument.

 

iNow seems to think that saying "I don't know" somehow makes his claim - that nothing can exist - valid.

 

Let me refresh this point,

 

iNow agrees there was no first cause.

iNow claims that it is possible the universe came from nothing.

Since there is no first cause there was a cause which led to the nothing that the subsequent universe came from.

If you have 3 causes one of which is nothing, then there are only 2 causes. (1+0+1=2) The nothing inbetween is irrelevant and non-existant.

[throng]

[Sorcerer]

Seen it throng - it is rather a universe from a template, there were conditions that allowed for something to come into existence, in order to have conditions there needs to be something.

[iNow]

iNow seems to think that saying "I don't know" somehow makes his claim - that nothing can exist - valid.

I have made no such claim. If you disagree, then please quote precisely what I've said which inclines you to suggest otherwise.

[A Tripolation]

Trip, then you are a theist, and you are agnostic about theology. Agnosticism itself is a middle ground, in this philosophy there is no knowledge in which a belief in a deity or a beleif in a lack of one can be formed.

 

No, you're completely wrong.

 

 

You gotta go back a few pages, personally I found his tone was condescending from the start. And then he just resorted to calling me foolish. Never IMO has he sucessfully countered my arguments, and he seems to use evasion more than direct discussion.

 

Yeah, that's iNow. You'll get used to it after a while. And even if he called you "foolish", he didn't say "You're foolish and that's why you're wrong." That would be an ad hominem. He just called you foolish.

 

 

That's assuming there was a singularity. But yes, if there was then I agree, its the "north of the north pole" argument.

 

So according to current observational evidence, I'm right? Thanks.

[ydoaPs]

Trip, then you are a theist, and you are agnostic about theology. Agnosticism itself is a middle ground, in this philosophy there is no knowledge in which a belief in a deity or a beleif in a lack of one can be formed.

As Trip said, you're incorrect. Agnosticism is not a middle ground. One is a theist or one is not a theist; it's that simple. What the (incredibly often misused) term actually refers to is the inability (either pragmatic or epistemic) to know whether or not a deity exists rather than referring to the belief about whether or not a deity exists.

 

 

iNow agrees there was no first cause.

iNow claims that it is possible the universe came from nothing.

Since there is no first cause there was a cause which led to the nothing that the subsequent universe came from.

If you have 3 causes one of which is nothing, then there are only 2 causes. (1+0+1=2) The nothing inbetween is irrelevant and non-existant.

Nothingness is unlike anything you've ever encountered. It is NOTHING. There's no space, no time, no mass. It lacks completely all that there is to be something. It lacks the properties lending to regularity which allows us to create descriptions of its behaviour such as mathematics, logic, and physics. Since it lacks both causality and conservation of energy, who's to say something can't come from nothing uncaused?

 

Cause is related to time. If there was no time, there can be no cause. Current physics is aligned with the fact that there was no time before the singularity event. Your statement is illogical.

Furthermore, it's nonsensical to speak of causing something to begin to exist from nothing. How, exactly, does one cause that which does not exist to do anything?

 

Oh and if you don't disagree that there is no first cause, then tell me what gave rise to the nothing that you claim could've come before/given rise to the universe?

Nothing doesn't need a cause.

[iNow]

Yeah, that's iNow. You'll get used to it after a while. And even if he called you "foolish", he didn't say "You're foolish and that's why you're wrong." That would be an ad hominem. He just called you foolish.

It's nice being understood.

 

Just to be pedantic, though... This is what I said:

 

 

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.

[Sorcerer]

As Trip said, you're incorrect. Agnosticism is not a middle ground. One is a theist or one is not a theist; it's that simple. What the (incredibly often misused) term actually refers to is the inability (either pragmatic or epistemic) to know whether or not a deity exists rather than referring to the belief about whether or not a deity exists.

 

Ok lets agree to disagree, after all we're getting far offtopic here.

 

Nothingness is unlike anything you've ever encountered. It is NOTHING. There's no space, no time, no mass. It lacks completely all that there is to be something. It lacks the properties lending to regularity which allows us to create descriptions of its behaviour such as mathematics, logic, and physics. Since it lacks both causality and conservation of energy, who's to say something can't come from nothing uncaused?

 

Simply because of the fact that nothing doesn't exist.

 

 

Furthermore, it's nonsensical to speak of causing something to begin to exist from nothing. How, exactly, does one cause that which does not exist to do anything?

 

That's correct, there can be no time before anything existed, therefore something always existed.

 

 

Nothing doesn't need a cause.

 

And cause doesn't need a nothing......

[ydoaPs]

Simply because of the fact that nothing doesn't exist.

Nothingness isn't a thing to be able to exist! It's the state of affairs where there is absolutely no something in existence.

[StringJunky]

Simply because of the fact that nothing doesn't exist. -Sorcerer

 

Nothingness isn't a thing to be able to exist! It's the state of affairs where there is absolutely no something in existence. - ydoaps

 

Aren't you both saying the same thing? If you are not it's rather subtle.

Edited January 12, 2012 by StringJunky