Believe in magic or a flawed logic?

[Moontanman]

That is the anthropic principle.

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

 

 

I know that and it is relevant... I would say I am an adherent to the weak anthropic principle.. no creator or fine tuner, we just adapted to this universe because we are here... I see no reason to assume other wise or to stifle investigation into reality or to assume the life we see and are part of is the only possibility but at the moment we are the only ones we can observe...

Edited October 20, 2013 by Moontanman

[The Believer]

Well, the empty glass needs an explanation too. The glass is man-made, it is a by-product of a living organism, so IMHO it is not a good metaphor.

 

The objective of the metaphor was to point out the question of the existence of any content in a container. If the container is empty then I see no reason for the recquirement of any explanation for the non-existence of any content in a container. What I meant is that we do not ask the reason for the non existence of something. Only when something exists, we ask why and how does it exist? Have you ever encountered statements like "why is there no stone in my pocket?" or " How can there be no monkey in your backyard?" without any conditions?

 

My speculation consists of saying that you have 2 things in the balance:

On the left you have the Universe with galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, quarks, radiation, living organisms, everything that we know is possible because we actually observe it. You could even add to the left all that is theorized could happen and that we cannot observe.

On the right of the balance you have...Nothing. In this view, it should not be a surprise if the balance leans on the left.

 

The question is not what leans on which side. The question is how does this universe and the things in it exist? why and how is it possible for something to exist.?Offcourse we have the universe with galaxies, stars, atoms, planets, living organisms etc and we observe it. But that's not the end of the story. It's a basic urge to ask why and how does these things exists? It's a very basic and fundamental question any untrained person can ask or should ask. We can't just be contended with the fact that this universe and things in it simply exist, we are compelled to ask by logic and common sense, why and how. Well I know, as you have mentioned earlier that you do not know. Well I am happy with your honest answer. Perhaps we will never know. Thank you.

Edited October 20, 2013 by The Believer

[Moontanman]

An analogy that is reasonably accurate is the whale carcass on the bottom of the ocean, the scavengers that live on it, some colonize the carcass, might see the whale as being specifically designed for them because it fits their needs so well but it is they who adapted to the whale carcass not the whale that was made just for them...

[michel123456]

 

The objective of the metaphor was to point out the question of the existence of any content in a container. If the container is empty then I see no reason for the recquirement of any explanation for the non-existence of any content in a container. What I meant is that we do not ask the reason for the non existence of something. Only when something exists, we ask why and how does it exist? Have you ever encountered statements like "why is there no stone in my pocket?" or " How can there be no monkey in your backyard?" without any conditions?

 

The question is not what leans on which side. The question is how does this universe and the things in it exist? why and how is it possible for something to exist.?Offcourse we have the universe with galaxies, stars, atoms, planets, living organisms etc and we observe it. But that's not the end of the story. It's a basic urge to ask why and how does these things exists? It's a very basic and fundamental question any untrained person can ask or should ask. We can't just be contended with the fact that this universe and things in it simply exist, we are compelled to ask by logic and common sense, why and how. Well I know, as you have mentioned earlier that you do not know. Well I am happy with your honest answer. Perhaps we will never know. Thank you.

 

(emphasized by me)

Working on it.

Not me but a lot of people are working on it. I find that fascinating.

[The Believer]

If there was nothing you would not be here to question why... No matter what the first cause is or even if there was one if it hadn't happened you would not be here to ask the question.

 

 

Ofcourse if there was nothing I would not be here asking the questions. That is is very obvious and I do not deny that. The universe already exists.But that answer is totaly irrelevant to my question. I did not argue that there should have been "nothing". I asked what is it that causes "something" to exist rather than "nothing". In the beginning of my thread I asked whether that cause came magically from nothing or always existed?. If your children ask you "father how were we born in this world?"

then would you reply, " children if you were not born then you would not be here asking me that question". That would be an irrelevant reply because that does not address the "how" of the question.

To further my point it makes no difference how unlikely the universe, no matter how many 10 to quadrillions odds you think are stacked against the universe being the way it is if it wasn't you wouldn't be here to ask the questions...

 

 

The question is not about the unlikelihood of the universe but about the cause of its existence. When I asked "why there is something rather than nothing" I did not favour for "nothing". I meant what makes "something" possible that cancels out "nothing". When your house is on fire, you don't just accept the way it is. Unless you believe in magic, you enquire into the cause of the fire.

If things were different... Things would be different...

That is the most basic answer that can be given, the unlikelihood of the universe has nothing to do with anything, we are already here...

 

 

I don't understand how can that be the most basic answer to my most basic question. I did not ask for the reason of the unlikelihood of the universe. Because as I argued earlier with michel123456 that we no need no explanation for the non existence of something but we need explanation for the existence of something. Ofcourse we are already here and that is where the question arises. why and how?

Edited October 21, 2013 by The Believer

[StringJunky]

I don't understand how can that be the most basic answer to my most basic question. I did not ask for the reason of the unlikelihood of the universe. Because as I argued earlier with michel123456 that we no need no explanation for the non existence of something but we need explanation for the existence of something. Ofcourse we are already here and that is where the question arises. why and how?

 

If it was always here you don't need to ask that question. You are stuck in the position that it did come into existence, so you are trying to find a solution to a problem that may not actually exist....based on the conservation of energy it had to always have existed. Even if that energy came as consequence of some factor external to the universe as we know it, it was not created, it was transferred. We don't know what the mechanism was but there was one and when a scientist says it came from nothing, or makes statements implying this, he really means he doesn't know.

[The Believer]

If it was always here you don't need to ask that question. You are stuck in the position that it did come into existence, so you are trying to find a solution to a problem that may not actually exist...

 

If it was always here and you are suggesting that I don't need to ask that question!? Seriously, do you consider that a scientific, rational and a logical statement? Asking questions has always been a job of scientists, philosophers and seekers of ultimate truth and reality. I do not understand how can a scientific person not ask the most basic question regarding the existence of something. It's the most basic thing that a rational person or a scientist can do. How can a logical person be contented by accepting the things the way they are without logic and reason and proper scientific investigation?

 

based on the conservation of energy it had to always have existed. Even if that energy came as consequence of some factor external to the universe as we know it, it was not created, it was transferred.

 

So based on the conservation of energy you are saying that it had to always have existed. So what do you exactly mean when you say it had always existed? Do you mean it had no beginning? If it had no beginning then do you imply that it was unborn or un-created? But if it was unborn or uncreated then how is it possible that it exists? It contradicts. Things can either be created or un-created, born or unborn, exist or don't exist. There can always be only two possibilities. If according to conservation of energy if it was never created then the question is how is it possible that it exists? Can you explain to me scientifically what exactly do you mean by the statement "it always existed"? Was it created or uncreated?

[swansont]

I do not understand how can a scientific person not ask the most basic question regarding the existence of something. It's the most basic thing that a rational person or a scientist can do. How can a logical person be contented by accepting the things the way they are without logic and reason and proper scientific investigation?

There are almost limitless unanswered questions in science. You tend to focus on the ones that are most interesting to you. Just because a question is interesting to you is not a reason for others to spend time considering it.

 

 

So based on the conservation of energy you are saying that it had to always have existed. So what do you exactly mean when you say it had always existed? Do you mean it had no beginning? If it had no beginning then do you imply that it was unborn or un-created? But if it was unborn or uncreated then how is it possible that it exists? It contradicts. Things can either be created or un-created, born or unborn, exist or don't exist. There can always be only two possibilities. If according to conservation of energy if it was never created then the question is how is it possible that it exists? Can you explain to me scientifically what exactly do you mean by the statement "it always existed"? Was it created or uncreated?

Has it been established that there is any net energy in the universe? There's a whole bunch of negative gravitational potential energy out there.

[Moontanman]

 

 

Ofcourse if there was nothing I would not be here asking the questions. That is is very obvious and I do not deny that. The universe already exists.But that answer is totaly irrelevant to my question. I did not argue that there should have been "nothing". I asked what is it that causes "something" to exist rather than "nothing". In the beginning of my thread I asked whether that cause came magically from nothing or always existed?. If your children ask you "father how were we born in this world?"

then would you reply, " children if you were not born then you would not be here asking me that question". That would be an irrelevant reply because that does not address the "how" of the question.

 

The question is not about the unlikelihood of the universe but about the cause of its existence. When I asked "why there is something rather than nothing" I did not favour for "nothing". I meant what makes "something" possible that cancels out "nothing". When your house is on fire, you don't just accept the way it is. Unless you believe in magic, you enquire into the cause of the fire.

 

I don't understand how can that be the most basic answer to my most basic question. I did not ask for the reason of the unlikelihood of the universe. Because as I argued earlier with michel123456 that we no need no explanation for the non existence of something but we need explanation for the existence of something. Ofcourse we are already here and that is where the question arises. why and how?

 

 

 

You are missing my point, we have no example of anything being "created" why do you require an example of he universe being created? Everything we know comes from something, at this point in time we cannot answer where the universe came from. It's here, we are a apart of it. If you had no knowledge of where humans came from, lets say you lost your long term memory and were isolated on an island, how would you answer the question of where do people come from? You would look around, see animals reproducing, and see the similarity of humans to other animals and be willing to surmise that humans come in the world via some similar process even if the animals you observed reproduced in ways that had nothing to do with the ways humans reproduced. We are in that predicament, all we have is the universe, we have no examples of any other universe to postulate from but we do see natural processes causing many things to form. It's not a stretch to think the universe came about due to natural processes you have yet to observe.

[The Believer]

There are almost limitless unanswered questions in science. You tend to focus on the ones that are most interesting to you.

 

Ofcourse we have the right to focus on the questions that we find most interesting because that would be very reasonable to do so. The reason why a nuclear physicist deals with the questions and problems regarding the field of nuclear physics is because he finds it interesting. I am sure he doesn't practice in that field at gun point against his own will.

Just because a question is interesting to you is not a reason for others to spend time considering it.

 

 

Well I do not expect every one in this world to find my question interesting and spend time on it. We all are different so we all have different tastes and interests. Those who do not want to spend time considering my question here are free no to do so. I did not force anyone here to give answers to my questions. It's their free choice and free will whether they want to consider my question or not. My question was meant for those who were interested in answering it.

Has it been established that there is any net energy in the universe?

 

Well to be honest, I have no clue at all. All I know there is this energy in this universe and I just want to know where this energy came from in the beginning. Out of nothing, out of something or was always there.?

 

There's a whole bunch of negative gravitational potential energy out there.

 

I don't really know what this "negative gravitational potential energy" means. But I would like to ask you regarding that, does the existence of this negative gravitational potential energy mean that the universe came out of absolute nothing?

[Moontanman]

The Believer, you keep questioning where the universe came from and don't seem to be willing to accept that at this point we don't know as an answer. So i want to ask where do you think it came from and can you back that up with evidence?

[swansont]

Ofcourse we have the right to focus on the questions that we find most interesting because that would be very reasonable to do so. The reason why a nuclear physicist deals with the questions and problems regarding the field of nuclear physics is because he finds it interesting. I am sure he doesn't practice in that field at gun point against his own will.

 

Well I do not expect every one in this world to find my question interesting and spend time on it. We all are different so we all have different tastes and interests. Those who do not want to spend time considering my question here are free no to do so. I did not force anyone here to give answers to my questions. It's their free choice and free will whether they want to consider my question or not. My question was meant for those who were interested in answering it.

 

This doesn't seem to jibe with the earlier comment that "I do not understand how can a scientific person not ask the most basic question regarding the existence of something" Personally, I prefer the questions that I have a chance of answering.

 

Well to be honest, I have no clue at all. All I know there is this energy in this universe and I just want to know where this energy came from in the beginning. Out of nothing, out of something or was always there.?

 

I don't really know what this "negative gravitational potential energy" means. But I would like to ask you regarding that, does the existence of this negative gravitational potential energy mean that the universe came out of absolute nothing?

I have no idea. I was merely giving some context to the claim that implied the energy of the universe had to be created. It's possible, AFAIK, that the net energy of the universe is zero, which modifies one of the limitations on the discussion.

[The Believer]

The Believer, you keep questioning where the universe came from and don't seem to be willing to accept that at this point we don't know as an answer.

 

Well actually to be frank, I accept that you or anybody here don't know the answer. And by the way, it was only the first time that I had asked that question to swansont. I didn't ask that same question to you or anybody else to whom I had already asked. swansont was new in the scene so I had to ask him too. I guess there is no harm asking the same question to different peoples in the hope of getting the answer.

 

 

So i want to ask where do you think it came from and can you back that up with evidence?

 

 

To be honest with you, I don't actually know where it came from. If I had known I wouldn't have asked you or any one else here. I just have no clue at all, I am just a seeker of truth.

 

still from my point of view, all I would like to say is that, there can always be only three absurd possibilities, either it came from absolute nothing, which is ridiculously absurd because it sounds like fairy tale magic, or it came from "something else" which is absurd too because it leads nowhere as we can never reach the ultimate point that way; or it was "always there" meaning it had no beginning, meaning if it had no beginning then it was unborn, but if it was unborn then how come it exists. which means this is also absurd.

 

So all I wanna say is that I don't know really.Finally I would like to say that, either believe in a fairy tale magic or a flawed logic. We've got only these two choices. That's what I believe. cheers

Edited October 22, 2013 by The Believer

[Moontanman]

Well actually to be frank, I accept that you or anybody here don't know the answer. And by the way, it was only the first time that I had asked that question to swansont. I didn't ask that same question to you or anybody else to whom I had already asked. swansont was new in the scene so I had to ask him too. I guess there is no harm asking the same question to different peoples in the hope of getting the answer.

 

 

 

To be honest with you, I don't actually know where it came from. If I had known I wouldn't have asked you or any one else here. I just have no clue at all, I am just a seeker of truth.

 

still from my point of view, all I would like to say is that, there can always be only three absurd possibilities, either it came from absolute nothing, which is ridiculously absurd because it sounds like fairy tale magic, or it came from "something else" which is absurd too because it leads nowhere as we can never reach the ultimate point that way; or it was "always there" meaning it had no beginning, meaning if it had no beginning then it was unborn, but if it was unborn then how come it exists. which means this is also absurd.

 

So all I wanna say is that I don't know really.Finally I would like to say that, either believe in a fairy tale magic or a flawed logic. We've got only these two choices. That's what I believe. cheers

 

 

The logic is flawed because you are strawmanning the question, those are not the only possibilities. As i pointed out earlier everything we know has a naturalistic explanation, I would be willing to bet quite a bit that the universe we see will eventually be found to have a naturalistic explanation, I see no reason to assume it will not, just like the formation of planets has a naturalistic explanation that we didn't understand at one time....

[The Believer]

The logic is flawed because you are strawmanning the question,

Could you please point out which part of my logic is flawed? I would appreciate it very much.

 

those are not the only possibilities.

 

 

 

But for me, I fail to see the possibility of anymore possibilities. I doubt if anyone can think of any other possibilities than those three given my me.

 

As i pointed out earlier everything we know has a naturalistic explanation, I would be willing to bet quite a bit that the universe we see will eventually be found to have a naturalistic explanation, I see no reason to assume it will not, just like the formation of planets has a naturalistic explanation that we didn't understand at one time...

 

Well let's hope one day we will get a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe. That would the great. I wish I get the explanation before I die.

[Moontanman]

I've already given you at least two other possibilities in this thread, I suggest you go back and look at them again, i do not mean to be condescending but it appears you have your own standards and they do not include considering anything but those two possibilities.

[jajrussel]

It would seem to me that the current apparent accepted explanation of gravity would suggest how one might get something from nothing in that space curves. I was watching a few minute clip on the behavior of black holes dealing with an inner horizon where centrifugal force slows things back down to the speed of light. If I remember correctly it was suggested that one should view a black hole as space actually falling inward faster than light until it reaches a point where centrifugal force creates this inner horizon.

 

So, now I am wondering if space is exhibiting a curve in one direction and centrifugal force is opposing that direction would space begin to present mass/energy characteristics, or something from nothing?

[The Believer]

I've already given you at least two other possibilities in this thread, I suggest you go back and look at them again,

 

Well, The two possibilities that you gave are :

 

1 . ekpyrotic model, about which when asked you said, " Actually the idea is that the brane collisions are cyclic over vast amounts of time embedded in a multidimensional bulk space."

 

2. The 4D star collapsing model, about which yoy said, "The 4D star collapsing into a black hole tearing a hole in space time resulting in another universe is interesting to me.".

 

Those are just the model of the origin of the universe. So I would like to ask you how does these two possibilities differ from my second possibility where I said "it came from something else"? Whether the universe came from brane collisions or from the 4d star collapsing, it simply denotes that it came from "something else". which is exactly the same as my second possibility of "it coming from something else". So my logic that the possibility of "it coming from something else" is absurd because we can never reach the ultimate point this way. This logic also applies to to those two models that you gave. Because the question will eventually arise as "where from the "branes" and the "4d star come from?". you would probably say it came from "something else".

 

So those two possibilities that you gave are exactly the same as my second possibility. they are not all different.

 

i do not mean to be condescending but it appears you have your own standards and they do not include considering anything but those two possibilities.

 

 

Well that's not at all true. I am very much open minded and would love to accept if there exists any other possibilities which are different than mine. I've clearly shown you above how your given possibilities are exactly the same as mine. They are not different. A television can either be switched on or off, there can never be any third possible mode. Likewise as I had argued earlier, for the existence of something, you can only have three possibilities : it came from absolute nothing, it came from some thing else, or it was eternal meaning it always existed.

 

If you can think of any other possibilities than these three then I would appreciate it very much and accept it.

[jajrussel]

I forgot while reading that this is a philosophical discussion, and not a speculative one.

 

From a philosophical point it would seem to me that all logic is flawed if it can have more than one outcome, but logic would allow that I choose. I do not believe that we can get something from nothing, but I do believe that we can get something from what appears to be nothing.

 

Something can be divided incrementally, so definitive adjectives that describe something are logical, and it should be expected that they can be flawed, because of our limited understanding, but is the attempt to define something, illogical simply because our understanding is limited?

 

The term (absolute nothing), seems to imply that nothing can exist in of itself in a state that is incremental. How can you divide nothing? There is nothing to divide, so no adjective is needed. Adjectives define something, so when you use an adjective like absolute with the word (nothing) you are giving nothing a quantitative measure, which may be confusing, even invitingly misleading to ones who are reading your philosophical presentation.

 

After rereading your first post I am wondering if your intent was theosophical rather than philosophical. From my point of view it is okay if it was.

[The Believer]

I do not believe that we can get something from nothing, but I do believe that we can get something from what appears to be nothing.

if you do not believe that we can get something from nothing then I see no reason or logic for you to say that you believe that we can get something from what appears to be nothing. what appears to be nothing may not be actually the nothing that we all know and understand. Nothing simply means no-thing or the non existence of anything.The term "nothing" is not complex at all and should not be confusing to anyone as far as i understand.

 

but is the attempt to define something, illogical simply because our understanding is limited?

 

 

The attempt to define something should not be illogical because of our limited understanding. But as I have pointed out earlier in the beginning of my post, when we attempt to understand or define the "cause" of the universe, unfortunately for us, logic and reasoning fails explicitly. It is sad but the bitter truth that, with logic if we go deeper and attempt to define the cause of the universe, we will definitely fail because logic will betray us.

The term (absolute nothing), seems to imply that nothing can exist in of itself in a state that is incremental. How can you divide nothing? There is nothing to divide, so no adjective is needed. Adjectives define something, so when you use an adjective like absolute with the word (nothing) you are giving nothing a quantitative measure, which may be confusing, even invitingly misleading to ones who are reading your philosophical presentation.

 

 

The adjective "absolute" is not necessarily used for defining something of its quantitative measure. The word "absolute" is not restricted to only one meaning. It has several meanings. If we say a girl is "hot", it will not necessarily mean that her body temperature is very high. It could mean she is attractive. Likewise when I used the word absolute with nothing, I meant it is undoubted, uncontested, unequivocal, clear, in its true sense.So keeping these meanings in view, i used the adjective absolute with the word "nothing". And whether absolute or not, nothing simply and explicitly means the non existence of anything. And I don't understand how can this be misleading to anyone.

 

After rereading your first post I am wondering if your intent was theosophical rather than philosophical. From my point of view it is okay if it was.

 

Well good point, but my intent was philosophical.

[Moontanman]

 

Well, The two possibilities that you gave are :

 

1 . ekpyrotic model, about which when asked you said, " Actually the idea is that the brane collisions are cyclic over vast amounts of time embedded in a multidimensional bulk space."

 

2. The 4D star collapsing model, about which yoy said, "The 4D star collapsing into a black hole tearing a hole in space time resulting in another universe is interesting to me.".

 

Those are just the model of the origin of the universe. So I would like to ask you how does these two possibilities differ from my second possibility where I said "it came from something else"? Whether the universe came from brane collisions or from the 4d star collapsing, it simply denotes that it came from "something else". which is exactly the same as my second possibility of "it coming from something else". So my logic that the possibility of "it coming from something else" is absurd because we can never reach the ultimate point this way. This logic also applies to to those two models that you gave. Because the question will eventually arise as "where from the "branes" and the "4d star come from?". you would probably say it came from "something else".

 

So those two possibilities that you gave are exactly the same as my second possibility. they are not all different.

 

 

Well that's not at all true. I am very much open minded and would love to accept if there exists any other possibilities which are different than mine. I've clearly shown you above how your given possibilities are exactly the same as mine. They are not different. A television can either be switched on or off, there can never be any third possible mode. Likewise as I had argued earlier, for the existence of something, you can only have three possibilities : it came from absolute nothing, it came from some thing else, or it was eternal meaning it always existed.

 

If you can think of any other possibilities than these three then I would appreciate it very much and accept it.

 

 

The last two are basically the same and with out some evidence "I don't know" is the most honest answer that can be given...

[StringJunky]

. It is sad but the bitter truth that, with logic if we go deeper and attempt to define the cause of the universe, we will definitely fail because logic will betray us.

If one says that the universe always existed logic doesn't fail because there is no cause to look for. Besides this, until there is more hard data we are just hand-waving.

Edited October 23, 2013 by StringJunky

[The Believer]

If one says that the universe always existed logic doesn't fail because there is no cause to look for. Besides this, until there is more hard data we are just hand-waving.

If one says that the universe always existed, then he probably means it had no beginning. If it had no beginning it means it was unborn or uncreated. But if it was unborn or uncreated then how come it exists now? It is clearly contradictory and fails here. Is there any other meaning of the phrase "always existed"? What do you exactly mean when you say or any one says "it always existed"? Can you define this phrase?

[StringJunky]

What do you exactly mean when you say or any one says "it always existed"? Can you define this phrase?

There was never a time in the past that it didn't exist.

Edited October 23, 2013 by StringJunky

[jajrussel]

If one says that the universe always existed, then he probably means it had no beginning. If it had no beginning it means it was unborn or uncreated. But if it was unborn or uncreated then how come it exists now? It is clearly contradictory and fails here. Is there any other meaning of the phrase "always existed"? What do you exactly mean when you say or any one says "it always existed"? Can you define this phrase?

 

You ask what someone means. You ask them to tell you what someone else means even though you have stated explicitly what they probably mean. Then you refute the probable meaning that you yourself have given.

 

I am curious. What is your motivation?

 

What do you believe?