Nothing or something?

[mr.spaceman]

Hello everyone I'm newbie here I think I have a very important question.

 

There is the idea that Universe could pop out into existence from nothing. Due to the quantum fluctuation.

 

No longer needed divine creators or any mediators to create the Universe. Laws of physics produced the universe. OK, I'm sure that idea of divine creators is pretty unlikely. I believe that the whole Universe (from creation until the end) must depend on Physical laws.

but I have a question: Do we need some scene? Where can be happened anything? As I heard, some scientists claim that until big-bang nothing existed literally. If there was simply nothing, how could physical laws produced the universe? Literally, nothing means also that there're no even physical laws, which can produce the Universe.

 

Do the physical laws require "place" or some scene to occur fluctuations or anything. Can they act without the Universe? if there's no Universe and nothing at all?

 

Did anyone regard this issue as a problem? I understand like this: If there's literally nothing, you can't get out of something. It's necessary to exist physical laws, but physical laws - where? where they exist? and how they exist. what they control? I suspect that existence of physical laws require something. Where they can act. Now we have something rather than nothing,

However, we use this word "nothing" because we don't understand this condition "something"

"something" this is not normal, there's no space time no energy and so on.

 

I heard one scientist said that in this case, the word "nothing" is an artifact that we have no idea about it

 

 

What do you think about this?

Edited July 1, 2012 by mr.spaceman

[StringJunky]

I heard one scientist said that in this case, the word "nothing" is an artifact that we have no idea about it

 

 

What do you think about this?

 

That's probably the general agreement..."nothing" just means that they are stumped.

[robheus]

Here's some thoughts from hegel about this in Science of Logic - Doctrine of Being.

 

Remark 4: Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

 

§ 170

 

What has been said indicates the nature of the dialectic against the beginning of the world and also its end, by which the eternity of matter was supposed to be proved, that is, the dialectic against becoming, coming-to-be or ceasing-to-be, in general. The Kantian antinomy relative to the finitude or infinity of the world in space and time will be considered more closely under the Notion of quantitative infinity. This simple, ordinary dialectic rests on holding fast to the opposition of being and nothing. It is proved in the following manner that a beginning of the world, or of anything, is impossible:

 

§ 171

 

It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself.

 

§ 172

 

It is obvious that in this proof nothing is brought forward against becoming, or beginning and ceasing, against this unity of being and nothing, except an assertoric denial of them and an ascription of truth to being and nothing, each in separation from the other. Nevertheless this dialectic is at least more consistent than ordinary reflective thought which accepts as perfect truth that being and nothing only are in separation from each other, yet on the other hand acknowledges beginning and ceasing to be equally genuine determinations; but in these it does in fact assume the unseparatedness of being and nothing.

 

§ 173

 

With the absolute separateness of being from nothing presupposed, then of course — as we so often hear — beginning or becoming is something incomprehensible; for a presupposition is made which annuls the beginning or the becoming which yet is again admitted, and this contradiction thus posed and at the same time made impossible of solution, is called incomprehensible.

 

§ 174

 

The foregoing dialectic is the same, too, as that which understanding employs the notion of infinitesimal magnitudes, given by higher analysis. A more detailed treatment of this notion will be given later. These magnitudes have been defined as such that they are in their vanishing, not before their vanishing, for then they are finite magnitudes, or after their vanishing, for then they are nothing. Against this pre notion it is objected and reiterated that such magnitudes are either something or nothing; that there is no intermediate state between being and non-being ('state' is here an unsuitable, barbarous expression). Here too, the absolute separation of being and nothing is assumed. But against this it has been shown that being and nothing are, in fact, the same, or to use the same language as that just quoted, that there is nothing which is not an intermediate state between being and nothing. It is to the adoption of the said determination, which understanding opposes, that mathematics owes its most brilliant successes.

 

<a name="0175"> § 175

 

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry. For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition sublates itself. It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth.

 

[Bill Angel]

Hello everyone I'm newbie here I think I have a very important question.

 

There is the idea that Universe could pop out into existence from nothing. Due to the quantum fluctuation.

 

 

but I have a question: Do we need some scene? Where can be happened anything? As I heard, some scientists claim that until big-bang nothing existed literally. If there was simply nothing, how could physical laws produced the universe? Literally, nothing means also that there're no even physical laws, which can produce the Universe.

 

Do the physical laws require "place" or some scene to occur fluctuations or anything. Can they act without the Universe? if there's no Universe and nothing at all?

 

Did anyone regard this issue as a problem? I understand like this: If there's literally nothing, you can't get out of something. It's necessary to exist physical laws, but physical laws - where? where they exist? and how they exist. what they control? I suspect that existence of physical laws require something. Where they can act. Now we have something rather than nothing.

 

What do you think about this?

 

I think that you have touched upon the great key question that pertains to reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Theory: How can the fabric of spacetime itself emerge from a quantum fluctuation?

[mr.spaceman]

I think that you have touched upon the great key question that pertains to reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Theory: How can the fabric of spacetime itself emerge from a quantum fluctuation?

 

I guess you emphasis that first problem in this case is to reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Theory and if isn't complete yet. it's too early talk about quantum fluctuations producing spacetime?

[robheus]

I guess you emphasis that first problem in this case is to reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Theory and if isn't complete yet. it's too early talk about quantum fluctuations producing spacetime?

 

How can fluctuations exist without spacetime?

[mr.spaceman]

How can fluctuations exist without spacetime?

 

my general question was same

[robheus]

my general question was same

 

Yep. Quantum fluctuations "happen" in space time, so this means space time is to be assumed always for any physical event to take place.

[mr.spaceman]

Yep. Quantum fluctuations "happen" in space time, so this means space time is to be assumed always for any physical event to take place.

 

Then why some scientists say that universe can start duo to the Quantum fluctuations, from nothing?

 

For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

[Aethelwulf]

Then why some scientists say that universe can start duo to the Quantum fluctuations, from nothing?

 

For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

 

I've called this a mechanical problem of the universe. One can argue our normal sense of cause and effect breaks down. I've often thought that of a solution. But many physicists will say, a universe from nothing... which is a bit of paradox, after all, if it truly was the kind of ''nothingness'' one can try to think about, then what good does it to infer on such an existence? I believe Steven Hawking has made a similar argument.

[mr.spaceman]

truly was the kind of ''nothingness'' one can try to think about, then what good does it to infer on such an existence?

 

What do you mean?

[Aethelwulf]

What do you mean?

 

Well, if nothing existed, then it can't be spoke about. This isn't about a nothingness, like having no eggs in your basket. Nothingness is the absolute definition of no characteristic whatsoever, so one cannot speak about such a reality, because it isn't one.

[robheus]

Then why some scientists say that universe can start duo to the Quantum fluctuations, from nothing?

 

For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

 

Same question here. And btw. I just happened to e-mail lawrence kraus about this particular issue. Hope he responds.

[Aethelwulf]

Same question here. And btw. I just happened to e-mail lawrence kraus about this particular issue. Hope he responds.

 

Yes, please inform us what he says.

[robheus]

Well, if nothing existed, then it can't be spoke about. This isn't about a nothingness, like having no eggs in your basket. Nothingness is the absolute definition of no characteristic whatsoever, so one cannot speak about such a reality, because it isn't one.

 

Not only does such a reality not exist it is not even possible to exist. You can not have total absence of some stuff, if there ain't no stuff in the first place. A universe without light isn't dark, since dark is absence of light, and if there is no light, neither there is absence of light.

[Aethelwulf]

Not only does such a reality not exist it is not even possible to exist. You can not have total absence of some stuff, if there ain't no stuff in the first place. A universe without light isn't dark, since dark is absence of light, and if there is no light, neither there is absence of light.

 

Yeah, totally.

 

Anything that has a meaning, is contained within space and time. Anything without this meaning, has no meaning or context in physics.

[David Levy]

Quote: For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

 

If the universe some how began from nothing, Is there a chance that we have got someting in several steps???

 

So, instead of just one big bang which was started from nothing, why there is no possibility to get several or even many steps that generate the energy/matter which was needed for the Big Bang?

 

Hence, there was someting long before the big bang...

[robheus]

Quote: For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

 

If the universe some how began from nothing, Is there a chance that we have got someting in several steps???

 

So, instead of just one big bang which was started from nothing, why there is no possibility to get several or even many steps that generate the energy/matter which was needed for the Big Bang?

 

Hence, there was someting long before the big bang...

 

You have to clearly understand that the meaning of the word nothing does not allow it to be used in a sense that it could be even the infinitessimal small something you refer to. Nothing is just nothing not the contrary of itself.

 

Without there being something (whatever it is, whatever way it can be determined) neither there is nothing, because something and nothing are just like the two coins of the same medal. One can not be defined without the other.

 

(likewise in physics, you can not define matter without space and vice versa).

[Aethelwulf]

Quote: For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

 

If the universe some how began from nothing, Is there a chance that we have got someting in several steps???

 

So, instead of just one big bang which was started from nothing, why there is no possibility to get several or even many steps that generate the energy/matter which was needed for the Big Bang?

 

Hence, there was someting long before the big bang...

 

If you want to talk about steps, there was the first. This was energy. After that era, there was the second step, which was matter. The later step is often called the dark energy era, but I have never fully understood this. Maybe someone with better knowledge on me on these ''latter steps/era's'' could explain it to me.

 

What I can tell you however, is that there are no steps required for Big Bang... the mechanical problem of cause and effect may induce the idea that maybe more is needed in our theory, but certainly not in the sense you are meaning.

 

You have to clearly understand that the meaning of the word nothing does not allow it to be used in a sense that it could be even the infinitessimal small something you refer to. Nothing is just nothing not the contrary of itself.

 

Without there being something (whatever it is, whatever way it can be determined) neither there is nothing, because something and nothing are just like the two coins of the same medal. One can not be defined without the other.

 

(likewise in physics, you can not define matter without space and vice versa).

 

good example, ''the coin'' example.

[mr.spaceman]

Well, if nothing existed, then it can't be spoke about. This isn't about a nothingness, like having no eggs in your basket. Nothingness is the absolute definition of no characteristic whatsoever, so one cannot speak about such a reality, because it isn't one.

 

This seems so obvious, I agree, but sometimes I think - our understanding is limited with our universe, the creation of the universe itself is far more complicated to comprehend. What if nothingness can create something? what if "nothingness" is problem because it's out of our logic, imagination and understanding.

Maybe it's philosophical thoughts

However my Interest is does pure scientific hypotheses access, happening anything from nothing? I admit that it's out of human logic and understanding, but some aspects of Quantum mechanics are also out of the human mind, but Quantum mechanics works.

 

Yes, please inform us what he says.

 

good idea

[robheus]

Well, if nothing existed, then it can't be spoke about. This isn't about a nothingness, like having no eggs in your basket. Nothingness is the absolute definition of no characteristic whatsoever, so one cannot speak about such a reality, because it isn't one.

 

Looks like you describe an inexisting world. Which is clearly not the case.

 

Nothing is just the opposite of something, and since both are indeterminate both are still nothing. They are - in this unity - not seperated, but united in becoming and ceasing to be.

[Aethelwulf]

This seems so obvious, I agree, but sometimes I think - our understanding is limited with our universe, the creation of the universe itself is far more complicated to comprehend. What if nothingness can create something? what if "nothingness" is problem because it's out of our logic, imagination and understanding.

Maybe it's philosophical thoughts

However my Interest is does pure scientific hypotheses access, happening anything from nothing? I admit that it's out of human logic and understanding, but some aspects of Quantum mechanics are also out of the human mind, but Quantum mechanics works.

 

 

 

good idea

 

Most of this, if not everything spoke about ''before the big bang'' can indeed be considered as philosophical.

 

The only time when it will be scientific, is when we have a direct evidence that something can exist below our current standard of measurements.

[Airbrush]

There is the idea that Universe could pop out into existence from nothing. Due to the quantum fluctuation.

 

"Nothing" is an absurd term to use when discussing cosmology. Empty space is not as empty as you might think. The universe popped out of something. Nothing never existed, nor will it ever exist.

[mr.spaceman]

"Nothing" is an absurd term to use when discussing cosmology. Empty space is not as empty as you might think. The universe popped out of something. Nothing never existed, nor will it ever exist.

 

Then why some scientists use this word: "nothing"

 

I don't mean empty space.

 

 

What do you think, what was this basic "something" where universe might start

[granpa]

the universe had a beginning

time itself had a beginning.

yet there was never a time when 'nothing' existed.

 

everything did not come from nothing.

everything came from everything.

 

in the beginning 'everything' was a singularity.

 

http://www.city-data.com/forum/philosophy/1561741-original-state-existence.html