Do You Really Exist?

Most Awesome Raithere Dude,

Again, I Thank You for your discussion!

According to the site you gave me, “The Casimir effect is caused by the fact that space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that continually form out of nothing and then vanish back into nothing an instant later.” From my ignorance (and I emphasize that) of the subject I would still have to make some very basic conclusions.

1. “The Casimir effect is caused…” Still looks a lot like cause and effect at work not something from absolute nothingness. What you apparently are calling nothing I would have to call something. That Something is as stated above “space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs”. That is something not nothing. Can you tell me what causes the cause of this effect?

2. The net result of the Casimir effect appears to be nothing, they “form out of nothing and then vanish back into nothing an instant later.”. How does this account for the formation of anything eternal or anything else for that matter? Something that self anialates in an instant is really the same as nothing happening or being created at all. What lasting outcome is there? How do we get to a physical universe from here? How does this help explain anything about the existance of this material universe?

3. You seem to be a little free with your use of the word “Absolutely…” , as if there is no alternative or possibility of error. I am sure you do not really intend that, but there it is, just thought I’d mention it.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!
 
Last edited:
Hi 1 dude,

It is not really the singularity that is the causality. Even that is caused. Vacuum fluctuations are also manifestations. It is the absolute, that is the cause, or rather the mind that has imagined us, and the virtual quanta. It doesn't exist, yet it does, it's complex, beyond anyones comprehension.
 
1Dude said:
Have you ever thought about the beginning?
Click to expand...
yes,I came to conclusion that there wasnt any.BB is just a part of endles changes the universe is going thru.
I mean, what was really here first, at the beginning of time? There are two simple possibilities. The first theory is that in the beginning there was Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. The second theory says that in the beginning there was Something. You and I know that only one of these theories can be correct, but which one is it? Which one is true?
Click to expand...
since you cant make something out of nothing,I guess there must have always been something.
Something outside the material universe must be eternal or else you and I don’t really exist.
Click to expand...
not really
,you know you exist,the universe exists,and it had no begining and no end.
at least that theory makes the most sense imo.
 
I dont remember my early childhood, does that mean that I wasn't aware or dint exist? As I grew older I became more aware of my environment. Does that mean awareness is gained by knowledge or by hormonal changes that makes one more aware? As I recall after puberty I was more aware of my environment then any other time. If we assume that it takes knowledge to become aware does that mean that the more we know the more aware we are? Or is it a combination of brain development and knowledge that makes one more aware?

Does that mean that a person who knows more is more aware then another that knows less? Are there different levels of awareness that limits us as to how much we can know? I'm sure that awareness and existance are interactive, the more we are aware of, the more we think we exist.
 
1Dude said:
“The Casimir effect is caused…” Still looks a lot like cause and effect at work not something from absolute nothingness. What you apparently are calling nothing I would have to call something. That Something is as stated above “space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs”. That is something not nothing. Can you tell me what causes the cause of this effect?
Click to expand...
It depends upon what you mean by nothing. If by nothing you mean no particles, no matter or energy in the form of even electrons or photons, then you may consider the virtual particles to come from nothing. But what we seem to have found is that there isn’t really such a thing as empty space. Instead there is energy (called ‘vacuum energy’ or ‘zero point energy’ ZPE) just waiting to become something. I’m not even sure the term ‘energy’ really fits because it’s not really existent until it becomes something.

(If someone has a better handle on this please correct me.)

The net result of the Casimir effect appears to be nothing, they “form out of nothing and then vanish back into nothing an instant later.”.
Click to expand...
This is why I love this forum and people like you. This is an excellent question that forces me to learn more. I’ve been trying to clarify where the consensus lies on this matter which is why it’s taken me so long to reply. So far I haven’t been able to come up with a clear answer but here are my thoughts:

Since the Casimir Effect is detectable there must be a net loss of energy somewhere. Two particles are created out of ZPE, they exert a force upon something and then collide annihilating each other. So does that mean there is a net loss in the ZPE? Is the ZPE energy infinite or will it run out at some point? Could this cause a net gain in the total energy in the Universe (and maybe the cause of the acceleration in the rate of expansion of the Universe) or do other pairs gain energy during their brief lives returning to ZPE with more energy than they had to start?

Clearly I’m going to have to study ZPE further.

How does this account for the formation of anything eternal or anything else for that matter?
Click to expand...
Well, one theory is that the entire Universe could have been caused by such a background fluctuation. Aside from the issue of energy I refer to above the idea is that the Universe as a whole has a zero sum of energy. That is, when matter and energy are summed against the negative effect of gravity it balances out. This would allow for it to simply occur spontaneously from a background fluctuation and as strange as it sounds this is compatible with the known laws of physics.

You seem to be a little free with your use of the word “Absolutely…” , as if there is no alternative or possibility of error. I am sure you do not really intend that, but there it is, just thought I’d mention it.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m familiar with the concept and experiment and know that a high energy input is not required in the formation of virtual particles.

But I do need to explain myself every so often particularly to people who are new here like you. I tend to come off much more assured and aggressive in my writing than I actually am. This is deliberate. I’ve found that sounding meek, unsure, or reasonable is a wonderful way to be ignored in forums like this. I’m here to discuss ideas and get feedback on my thoughts not to just wank-off into the ether. I tend to assert my positions quite strongly and come off a bit egotistical because people react strongly in reply. I try not to get carried away with it because I’m not really looking for an emotional response but unless you make people a little uncomfortable they tend to ignore what you’re saying or at least refrain from really critiquing your posts. So on a personal level, I apologize if I sometime come off sounding like an arrogant ass but please have a go at my ideas there’s nothing I like better that a intelligently thorough rebuttal.

~Raithere
 
the original problem, of nothing being in the box, or being able to enter the box is flawed. It doesnt acount for time travel. If a being from the year 3000 goes back to the dawn of time, into the box and starts some variety of life there, then there will be life inside the box.
i know there is the argument that nothing was there in the first place, but with time travel, no-one can understand it, so time travel is a possible answer.
 
Although this discussion is way out of my practical knowledge radar, I'd like to throw a theoretical coin in the wishing well...

Raithere said:
Well, one theory is that the entire Universe could have been caused by such a background fluctuation. Aside from the issue of energy I refer to above the idea is that the Universe as a whole has a zero sum of energy. That is, when matter and energy are summed against the negative effect of gravity it balances out. This would allow for it to simply occur spontaneously from a background fluctuation and as strange as it sounds this is compatible with the known laws of physics.
Click to expand...
Since we really know very little of how the universe is constructed (although we know a bit of what it is constructed with), it's fair to say that what we call "universe" is really just the presence of information. "Nothing" would be the absence of any information, and I think that's what most people mean with "before the beginning". My point is that if there was anything that could fluctuate, even if just in the background, a "-verse" already existed. Even if we let "nothing"=static ZPE, then there is no precedent for it to fluctuate a universe of this magnitude in and out of existence. It needs some kind of equation (=information) to describe its state.
 
"I think , therefore I am."

Well, matter is matter, and it doesnt necessary need to think or be conscious to actually exist.

We dont create existence, we just discover it after born.
 
Most Awesome Raithere Dude,

What do You think about this gentleman's thought? This seams to make sense to me. If the universe is eternal then it basically would have burned up an eternity ago. There would be no light or usable energy now. Again, I am still learning about such things.

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics Prove the Existence of God?

- by John M. Cimbala
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University

In this short article, I summarize my ideas about the second law of thermodynamics, and why I believe it points to a creator God.

A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.

As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:
crazymikey said:
It is not really the singularity that is the causality. Even that is caused. Vacuum fluctuations are also manifestations. It is the absolute, that is the cause, or rather the mind that has imagined us, and the virtual quanta. It doesn't exist, yet it does, it's complex, beyond anyones comprehension.
Click to expand...

You actually kinda make sense to me! Thanks for adding your input!
 
Jenyar said:
Since we really know very little of how the universe is constructed (although we know a bit of what it is constructed with), it's fair to say that what we call "universe" is really just the presence of information.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure how to interpret 'how the universe constructed' as opposed to 'what it is constructed with' in context. I tend to think of the primary laws of physics as depictive of the Universe's 'construction' in terms of functional mechanisms but certainly there is much left unknown.

I also have a bit of a problem with 'information' as well (I find it problematic in the definition of DNA too). While in a particular sense we can regard existence as data or information there is a qualitative difference between 'existence' and 'information'. Particularly that information has no active principle.

"Nothing" would be the absence of any information, and I think that's what most people mean with "before the beginning". My point is that if there was anything that could fluctuate, even if just in the background, a "-verse" already existed. Even if we let "nothing"=static ZPE, then there is no precedent for it to fluctuate a universe of this magnitude in and out of existence. It needs some kind of equation (=information) to describe its state.
Click to expand...
I follow you but the problem is that this would leave no room for God or anything else. At some point in reduction we're faced with either an eternal 'something' or spontaneous existence from nothing.

~Raithere
 
1Dude said:
What do You think about this gentleman's thought? This seams to make sense to me. If the universe is eternal then it basically would have burned up an eternity ago. There would be no light or usable energy now. Again, I am still learning about such things.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting argument but it falls short of necessitating God. There are a number of other possibilities:

1. Spontaneous existence. In which the Universe is of a finite age and it will either continue to expand until there is no more usable energy left or it will at some point contract again. If it contracts energy will once again become available. Perhaps the Universe will condense again to a point and explode in another Big Bang, over and over.

2. A Universe of infinite space. Our popular perception of the Universe as an expanding sphere may simply be incorrect. The Universe could be infinite in size and the observable 'universe' is merely an explosion of matter within this infinity (perhaps one of an infinite number of 'universes'). All kind of strange things could happen with an infinite Universe because the second law of thermodynamics would really only be a local phenomena in such a Universe.

3. Our Universe exists within some undefined meta-Universe (Metaverse). The conditions of this Metaverse allow for the occurrence of universes.

4. The Universe does not have a temporal 'edge'. The theory here (ref. Hawking and Brane theory) as well as I understand it is that time, as well as causation, is wrapped up in a singular Universe. In this case the concept of 'what happened before the Universe' have no context, time actually an effect of entropy. Hawking also postulated the 5d Brane 'collisions' that cause the expansion of our 3d universe might occur periodically resulting in periodic 'Big Bangs' within an ever expanding Universe.

The sum of it is that while the entropy argument is a consideration it is definitely not the last word.

~Raithere
 
Raithere said:
1. Spontaneous existence. In which the Universe is of a finite age and it will either continue to expand until there is no more usable energy left or it will at some point contract again. If it contracts energy will once again become available. Perhaps the Universe will condense again to a point and explode in another Big Bang, over and over.
Click to expand...

Coolest Raithere,

I thought I read that the calculated mass of the universe indicated that the universe is incapable of contracting back on itself again. There is apparently not enough mass existing in the universe to counter the momentum of the planitary bodies as they spread ever farther away from each other. There does not seam to be enough gravity or anything else to do this. Also, for what it's worth, the cycling universe theory, expanding and contracting forever and ever without end, has always reminded me of the perpetual motion machine problem. How is it not the same thing? Are perpetual motion machines now possible after all?

Thank You!
 
1Dude said:
I thought I read that the calculated mass of the universe indicated that the universe is incapable of contracting back on itself again. There is apparently not enough mass existing in the universe to counter the momentum of the planitary bodies as they spread ever farther away from each other. There does not seam to be enough gravity or anything else to do this.
Click to expand...
The jury is still out on this one. You’re right in that there is not enough quite enough visible matter in the Universe to pull it back again. The problem is that there is not enough visible matter to keep the galaxies from flying apart, yet they remain which indicates that there’s something there that we cannot see. Thus ‘dark matter’ has been hypothesized formed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) which are predicted by Super Symmetry theory and would help to explain the galaxies (there are some other theories as well that I’m less familiar with). It might also indicate that there is enough matter to collapse the Universe.

However, there is a new twist in the plot. Not only is the Universe expanding but the expansion seems to be accelerating, which brings up all sorts of new questions.

Also, for what it's worth, the cycling universe theory, expanding and contracting forever and ever without end, has always reminded me of the perpetual motion machine problem. How is it not the same thing? Are perpetual motion machines now possible after all?
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that we’re supposed to be dealing with a closed system in this scenario. Entropy does not state that energy disappears; only that it diffuses out till it reaches the lowest possible level. No energy can be lost as the Universe expands and contracts and expands again because there is no place else for the energy to go.

~Raithere
 
Most Awesome Coolest Raithere,

Thanks again for your interesting input! What then could possibly account for an accelerating universe? That blows my mind just a bit. Is this really something that has actually been observed in the universe?
 
Last edited:
Most Cool Raithere Dude,

Please let me take a minute and revise and greatly simplify my original statement for your consideration.

Definition:
Absolute Nothingness is the complete absence of the existence of all things whether in the form of matter, energy, space, or anything else known or unknown. It is the total absence of existence.

Revised Hypothesis:

No real and actual thing can come from Absolute Nothingness for it has no existence, no energy, no matter, no space, or anything else known or unknown from which to create it. No real and actual thing can really and actually “spontaneously generate” or create itself from Absolute Nothingness. To do this it would have to either pre-exist itself or be created by something else. If it pre-exists itself then “it” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If something else created it then that “something else” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If a first cause of any kind exists then that “first cause” actually exists and again we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If there are fluctuations of space or energy, or the pre-existence of particles, or the pre-existence of anything of any kind whatsoever then it is not Absolute Nothingness.

Now, if Absolute Nothingness ever existed, then there would be Absolute Nothingness right now. For Something cannot come from Absolute Nothingness. However, Something does exist. In fact You exist. Therefore, the very fact that You exist is proof that Absolute Nothingness never existed. Now, if Absolute Nothingness never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.

What Do You Think?
 
Last edited:
Do You Really Exist?
Click to expand...
No.
Which of us does that make psychotic?

Honestly, I quickly read through the first post and thought it was pretty thorough, well thought out and impressive.
I look forward to giving it real time and attention and replying to it.
 
1Dude said:
Thanks again for your interesting input! What then could possibly account for an accelerating universe? That blows my mind just a bit. Is this really something that has actually been observed in the universe?
Click to expand...
It's based upon some educated hypotheses, but yes:

"Ever since two teams of astronomers announced in 1998 that the expansion of the universe appeared to accelerating with time, other teams of astronomers have been double-checking their conclusions with data from other sources. Although some astronomers still have doubts about the accelerating universe, evidence in its favour continues to grow. The latest comes from studies of the deviation of galaxy velocities from a smooth universal expansion (I Zehavi and A Dekel 1999 Nature 401 252)."

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/3/9/6/1

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/accelerating.html

1Dude said:
Please let me take a minute and revise and greatly simplify my original statement for your consideration.
Click to expand...
The sign of an open mind and true intelligence. I hope I don't sound patronizing it's just a fairly rare occurrence to find someone who really wants to explore.

What Do You Think?
Click to expand...
I think it's great. There's only one additional consideration I can think of. We don't really know the extent of the principle of causation. That is, is there some state where the rules just simply don't apply and phenomena can just occur spontaneously, without cause? And could absolute nothingness be such a state (primal chaos?)? In support, Hawking tied causality and time to entropy which would indicate that causality is dependent upon existence. The question of what caused the Universe winds up making no sense, there is no 'before' to consider.

Hawking:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~cronos/rycanada/enpsyche/hawkover.html

"The Day Time Began"
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/daybegan.html

~Raithere
 
If you stress about questions which have NO possible answer at all then you're gonna live a miserable life. Better you stress over questions with a million answers, coz then you can have a fight over which is the best. At least thats fun ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top