The Nothingness of Nothing

[Rav]

Um,
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

Interesting article, but it doesn't change anything. I've considered similar explanations before. An "unphysical" state it still something, especially if it can be described as "unstable". I'm talking about the absence of absolutely anything and everything. Read that again. Absolutely anything and everything. Anything more than that is something.

If the physics community wants to assign their own special meaning to the word "nothing". Fine. That kind of thing happens all the time. It's just semantics. But then we're not talking about the same thing anymore are we? Or less incorrectly, the same no thing.

 

[quantum_wave]

Interesting article, but it doesn't change anything. I've considered similar explanations before. An "unphysical" state it still something, especially if it can be described as "unstable". I'm talking about the absence of absolutely anything and everything. Read that again. Absolutely anything and everything. Anything more than that is something.

If the physics community wants to assign their own special meaning to the word "nothing". Fine. That kind of thing happens all the time. It's just semantics. But then we're not talking about the same thing anymore are we? Or less incorrectly, the same no thing.

Take the statement, “If at first there was nothing …”. If I follow your post, most people should recognize the intent of that statement. If the discussion from there goes to the query, “How do you define nothing”, then the topic of “something coming from nothing” is delayed by a discussion of “how do you define nothing”. If the discussion of what we mean by nothing could ever be resolved, then the discussion of how something could come from nothing would pop back up in the queue.

786 and I agree to disagree about the universe, i.e. he says “God did it” and I say it has always existed. We both have personally rejected the “something from nothing” argument. He has an eternal God in place of nothing, and I have an eternal universe in place of nothing.

The question I asked Q earlier went unanswered. What I asked JamesR went unanswered. (I’m not feeling slighted because no one is compelled to answer anyone else’s question; we only answer if we want to and that is a feature of forum life). But what I was going for was to find out if I am missing any options on my list of possible explanations for the existence of the universe, and if the list is complete, then I would like someone who chooses the “something from nothing” option to explain their thinking.

List of options:
Something from nothing
God did it
The universe has always existed

 

[(Q)]

Books by physicists. I have read books that are generally dismissive of the issue and others where the physicist author does feel it is both important and puzzling.

My sense is you are unaware of the discussions around the anthopic principle.

No, you've just been reading the wrong books. Theres nothing important or puzzling about it, especially to physicists. You're probably referring to philosophers.

 

[Rav]

Well, it seems that I am not going to be able to leave this alone, so here goes.

The unphysical state undergoes a spontaneous phase
transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing mat-
ter. The transition nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any
agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, “The answer to
the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would
then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.”

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing.
An empty universe requires supernatural intervention—not a full one. Only
by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could
a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is
just what we would expect if there is no God.
University of Colorado at Boulder

I recommend that anyone who is interested in this topic go ahead and read the entire article to gain a proper perspective on what is being said of course, but this excerpt is what I want to respond to.

Honestly, although I have a lot of respect for physicists, they really need to stick to the physics. In all other areas they sometimes tend to demonstrate a significant lack of progress in their thinking. If anyone thinks that this is a compelling argument they need to examine it again.

First of all, and as I touched on previously, I find it rather absurd to address the question of how something can come from nothing while you're talking about nothing as a "state" that is capable of undergoing a "phase transition". Second, anyone who is convinced of the existence of God is simply going to point out that if the physics are indeed correct, then God is responsible for creating this unphysical state that the universe has transitioned from. This is not my contention, but the argument put forth at the end of the article is so glaringly weak that it deserved to be mentioned.

Having said all this, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am criticizing the physics. It's very interesting, what I've been able to understand of it so far anyway. But this isn't entirely about the physics as far as I am concerned because it seems just as ill-equipped to get it's collective head around the concept of nothing as anyone else.

 

[(Q)]

If you are saying that the "something from nothing" option is the right choice, and it would appear that is what you are saying, then can you elaborate on that choice and how you came to that conclusion?

It is the only logical choice and is the choice based on the current evidence. We just don't know exactly what the "nothing" was as of yet. It might be very similar to the way in which borrowed energy creates matter and then disappears again when the energy is returned.

 

[Dywyddyr]

then the topic of “something coming from nothing” is delayed by a discussion of “how do you define nothing”.

No thing. Not anything. Absence of everything.

then I would like someone who chooses the “something from nothing” option to explain their thinking.

Again? How many more times need you be linked to the relevant thread?

List of options:
Something from nothing
God did it
The universe has always existed

No.
Norsefire had a thread on this a long time ago, wherein he tried to "prove" that god was the logical option.
As was pointed out to him repeatedly in that thread and previous ones where he'd attempted it: one other option is "something no-one else has come up with yet".
By definition the laws of physics didn't apply to anything prior to the Big Bang.
For all we know it was a teapot that started it. (But not Trippy's pink perfect one - that's a myth ).

 

[quantum_wave]

It is the only logical choice and is the choice based on the current evidence. We just don't know exactly what the "nothing" was as of yet. It might be very similar to the way in which borrowed energy creates matter and then disappears again when the energy is returned.

Thank you for that.

Damn that ole logic. It seems to dance around from person to person and changes its hat with as it goes . But I appreciate you saying that it is the only logical choice but to me my choice is more logical. I would say that your choice still needs work but mine works without repair.

A universe that has always existed eliminates the supernatural invocation which science rightly ignores. Your view, something from nothing, also eliminates the supernatural and to that point it is science. But the next step in "something from nothing" is defining a nothing from which the universe can unfold. Scientists have maths that show it as a possibility, or at least I have seem some professionals in Sciforums allude to such math. Is that scientific effort to mathematically demonstrate that something can come from nothing the piece that makes "something from nothing" more logical?

May I ask what you see illogical about a universe that didn't come from nothing and that was not created, still being here.

 

[Rav]

List of options:
Something from nothing
God did it
The universe has always existed

I couldn't say that I believe that the universe has always existed unless I can expand the definition of "universe" to include states of existence that might be somewhat fundamentally different to what we see now. I certainly believe that something has always existed particularly because it seems that at some point there was no such thing as spacetime and therefore no such thing as time.

 

[quantum_wave]

No thing. Not anything. Absence of everything.

I buy that.

Again? How many more times need you be linked to the relevant thread?

So tell me what linking us to that thread is supposed to say about what you choose as the explanation for the universe existing. Is your choice based on the link? I refereed to professionals here who allude to the math so does that link contain the math that you accept as the explanation of how the universe came from nothing?

No.
Norsefire had a thread on this a long time ago, wherein he tried to "prove" that god was the logical option.
As was pointed out to him repeatedly in that thread and previous ones where he'd attempted it: one other option is "something no-one else has come up with yet".

I can buy that too.

By definition the laws of physics didn't apply to anything prior to the Big Bang.
For all we know it was teapot that started it. (But not Trippy's pink perfect one - that's a myth ).

Of course. but it is you that is speculating it could be a tea pot. The standard cosmology (BBT) does not address the cause of the Big Bang as you well know.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So tell me what linking us to that thread is supposed to say about what you choose as the explanation for the universe existing. Is your choice based on the link? I refereed to professionals here who allude to the math so does that link contain the math that you accept as the explanation of how the universe came from nothing?

One of the links in the OP gives the maths (and one is now dead, c'est la vie).
The one with the maths was also given above (the pdf in an earlier post of mine).
Ah, now we come down to it.
I can see how it could come from nothing, but do I accept that it did? Probably this week.
This is one of those questions where I just have to throw my hands up and say "Insufficient data for me to decide conclusively". So this week it's "something from nothing" next week it may be "cyclic universes" (although I have niggling dislikes of that, on an emotional basis more than anything "real").

Of course. but it is you that is speculating it could be a tea pot.

Nope, that was an illustration that it could be anything - the question is unanswerable to current science since science breaks down at shortly after the Big Bang. What happened prior to 10[sup]-43[/sup] of a second afterwards is lost to us.
Maybe forever.
So it's ALL speculation with little chance of a definitive resolution.
It's an "angels on pinheads" question... Green or purple...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

But this isn't entirely about the physics as far as I am concerned because it seems just as ill-equipped to get it's collective head around the concept of nothing as anyone else.

As I pointed out earlier, this is beyond the domain of physics. It gets us into cosmology, where physics (a science), math (an abstraction) and philosophy (a style of scholarship) collide in a noisy mess.

Have we even got a good definition of "nothing" yet??? Some of us define it as a universe of infinite spatial and temporal dimensions with no contents. Others insist that if there is "nothing," then that also means the abstractions we use for measurement such as space and time also do not "exist." But I'm not sure the word "exist" applies to abstractions. That would be like saying "mathematics does not exist." The sentence is grammatically correct but the words don't mean anything.

Just because we cannot measure a universe that provides us with no contents to use for spatial and temporal reference, this does not mean that it is not infinite. Besides, doesn't "infinite" mean "immeasurable" anyway?

 

[quantum_wave]

One of the links in the OP gives the maths (and one is now dead, c'est la vie).
The one with the maths was also given above (the pdf in an earlier post of mine).
Ah, now we come down to it.
I can see how it could come from nothing, but do I accept that it did? Probably this week.
This is one of those questions where I just have to throw my hands up and say "Insufficient data for me to decide conclusively". So this week it's "something from nothing" next week it may be "cyclic universes" (although I have niggling dislikes of that, on an emotional basis more than anything "real").


Nope, that was an illustration that it could be anything - the question is unanswerable to current science since science breaks down at shortly after the Big Bang. What happened prior to 10[sup]-43[/sup] of a second afterwards is lost to us.
Maybe forever.
So it's ALL speculation with little chance of a definitive resolution.
It's an "angels on pinheads" question... Green or purple...

Agreed.

 

[(Q)]

A universe that has always existed

... does not agree with current evidence.

May I ask what you see illogical about a universe that didn't come from nothing and that was not created, still being here.

There may not be anything illogical about it, but the evidence has to agree with it, which isn't the case.

 

[quantum_wave]

... does not agree with current evidence.

I know, but the evidence is that we observe an accelerating rate of separation between galaxies and galaxy groups. GR can back track to the instant after the Big Bang. The evidence doesn't support any of the three or four explanations of the existence of the universe, so none of the choices can claim support. As Dy points out, it is speculation from there. That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang, do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing, or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang . . . .

As noted earlier on this thread, that does not answer the question. The universe is "everything that exists," so if God exists he must be part of the universe. The question now has a footnote, "By the way, when and how did God come into existence?"

do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing . . . .

. . . . and then adding yet another footnote, "When and how did the first cause come into existence?"

. . . . or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.

That's a model I have suggested many times and strangely no one has really responded to it. We sense time flowing at a steady rate, but that's just a manifestation of our biology; all of our senses are quite limited and we lack senses to detect much of what's going on in the universe at all. In any case the universe is many billions of years old so perhaps the rate of change of the flow of time is now too small for our state of the art in measurement to detect in less than a million years.

But there's no reason time can't be graphed on a logarithmic scale instead of a linear one. This pushes the Big Bang back to minus infinity, and the question, "What came before the Big Bang?" becomes as meaningless as "What happens to atoms when the temperature falls below Absolute Zero?" Is there any good reason why time can't have an absolute zero like temperature?

Perhaps both of these statements are true:

• The universe has always existed.
• The universe has only existed for twelve billion years.

This illustrates my description of cosmology as a disagreeable merger of physics, mathematics and philosophy.

 

[quantum_wave]

As noted earlier on this thread, that does not answer the question. The universe is "everything that exists," so if God exists he must be part of the universe. The question now has a footnote, "By the way, when and how did God come into existence?". . . . and then adding yet another footnote, "When and how did the first cause come into existence?"That's a model I have suggested many times and strangely no one has really responded to it. We sense time flowing at a steady rate, but that's just a manifestation of our biology; all of our senses are quite limited and we lack senses to detect much of what's going on in the universe at all. In any case the universe is many billions of years old so perhaps the rate of change of the flow of time is now too small for our state of the art in measurement to detect in less than a million years.

But there's no reason time can't be graphed on a logarithmic scale instead of a linear one. This pushes the Big Bang back to minus infinity, and the question, "What came before the Big Bang?" becomes as meaningless as "What happens to atoms when the temperature falls below Absolute Zero?" Is there any good reason why time can't have an absolute zero like temperature?

Perhaps both of these statements are true:

• The universe has always existed.
• The universe has only existed for twelve billion years.

This illustrates my description of cosmology as a disagreeable merger of physics, mathematics and philosophy.

You are a wise and thoughtful person. I am reading about a cosmology right now that looks like it is aiming at the logarithmic concept of time though I haven't quite gotten that far yet. And I haven't taken enough time to contemplate it yet but I will have to think about if "approaches infinity" in looking back is the same things as "has always existed". If the rate at which time passes changes as time passes, is a second getting longer or shorter relative to the instant of the Big Bang? I guess it is easy to say Longer, and as we look back time would appear to speed up and looking forward time would appear to slow down. Do I have that right? I guess that regardless of the relative rate of the passage of time, motion and forces have to exit. The queston remains, have they always existed?

Good to know about your view on this topic and you are right, it goes to the cosmology of the universe.

 

[Doreen]

No, you've just been reading the wrong books. Theres nothing important or puzzling about it, especially to physicists. You're probably referring to philosophers.

oh, thank you massa, you right, me no can tell the job of dem smart book writers.

Try John D. Barlow, physicist
or
John Wheeler, physicist - his participatory version is definitely a strong version of the strong anthropic principle.

you ass.

I believe even Rees who does not hold the strong anthropic position acknowledges in his book Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology that some physicists are puzzled by 'fine tuning'. Kaku's albeit sensationalist book Physics of the Impossible says that there a portion of physicists find fine tuning puzzling.

In fact every time I have come across a reference to the issue in books by, yes, physicists, they mention that while there are not many who hold the strong anthropic position, there are a significant number who feel the fine tuning needs to be explained and find it puzzling.

Q your approach is smug and religious and I will now enter you as my first ignore person. You are a snide, closeminded ass who thinks whatever you say has to be true.

Bye.

 

[quantum_wave]

Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Peace be unto you

You know what 786, I completely overlooked your reference to the "no-boundary" proposal. Then as the discussion recently took a turn with FR's reference to logarithmic time I remembered your reference to it.

How do you see the no-boundary proposal from your perspective of "God did it".

 

[(Q)]

I know, but the evidence is that we observe an accelerating rate of separation between galaxies and galaxy groups. GR can back track to the instant after the Big Bang. The evidence doesn't support any of the three or four explanations of the existence of the universe, so none of the choices can claim support. As Dy points out, it is speculation from there. That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang, do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing, or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.

We go with the evidence, which has nothing to do with gods or steady state universes.

 

[(Q)]

oh, thank you massa, you right, me no can tell the job of dem smart book writers.

you ass.

Well done.

I believe...

Yes, I know.

Kaku's albeit sensationalist book Physics of the Impossible says that there a portion of physicists find fine tuning puzzling.

That's why I take Kaku's sensationalism with a grain of salt, because that's all it is; sensationalism. Clearly, you've been disallusioned to take it seriously.

In fact every time I have come across a reference to the issue in books by, yes, physicists, they mention that while there are not many who hold the strong anthropic position, there are a significant number who feel the fine tuning needs to be explained and find it puzzling.

Who, exactly?

Q your approach is smug and religious and I will now enter you as my first ignore person. You are a snide, closeminded ass who thinks whatever you say has to be true.

Bye.

I'm so sorry that you have decided you can no longer defend yourself in a debate and have resorted to ad homs. Putting me on ignore speaks volumes about you, not me.