A thread about "Nothing"

[doubtingmerle]

I think it's the latest theory by atheists trying to prove that God isn't necessary... I also think it's ridiculous.

Can you explain to me how you know universes cannot pop into existence if there is nothing at all?

 

[renniks]

Can you explain to me how you know universes cannot pop into existence if there is nothing at all?

Can you explain how they can?

 

[SelfSim]

@doubtingmerle : Please note I'm not directing my comments towards yourself. No offence is intended .. in fact far from that.

In what way does the opening post take on the role of God? I ask 9 questions in the opening post. It is all about us not knowing, and asks questions about it. If you think there was any sentence that dogmatically takes on the role of God, then please echo that sentence back to me. I cannot find it.

In order to perceive 'Nothing', one must have something to compare it with, in order to conclude its existence. You didn't disclose that in your questions (or its posits) so asking me to repost that is not doable. That doesn't alter the existence of an undisclosed 'true' premise preceding the hypothetical though.

What is never disclosed in such discussions is the role the observer plays. The observer in your question is obviously a self-aware, conscious logical thinker who has historical knowledge of everything, everywhere, including physical laws .. That is the role of some 'God', who exists outside of some universe, where its noticing 'Nothing' in that universe.

In what way is it sick and twisted to ask questions? In what way is that dishonest? If I made a statement that was sick and twisted, then please echo it back so we know what you are talking about.

Its the undisclosed presence of the observer who obviously plays a very active role the hypothetical, that is intellectually dishonest. That observer, (along with all of its 'baggage'), is obviously there in the hypothetical, and yet its just blotted out and pretended as playing no role whatsoever .. which is observably, just not so as the hypothetical plays out (as a product of logical consequence) in the ensuing analysis.

Please note; I'm not singling you out and 'having a go' at you here. This bizarre idealisation is extremely common amongst humans, (including hypothesising scientists) its like some sort of blind spot or something we all have, but its particularly negligent when some philosopher just skims over this glaring omission whilst they proceed to exercise logic in their analysis in order to defeat some never tested or disclosed posit, which was only ever imagined as being 'true' (or 'false') in the first place!

Science deals constantly with cause and effect. Science is constantly studying what causes diseases, chemical reactions, life processes, etc. If the scientific method is constantly studying cause and effect, how is it that the scientific method has shown that cause and effect is a pure belief?

Science makes use of cause and effect but it always tests for this. These tests have a very clear purpose which is to be of practical use .. not furthering intellectually posited, untestable idealisations such as 'Nothing'.

 

[SelfSim]

Can you explain to me how you know universes cannot pop into existence if there is nothing at all?

There is no 'nothing at all' in the hypothetical! There is an active self-aware, conscious observing human mind present in it!

 

[sjastro]

I am still trying to understand how "I don't know if the laws of physics we experience are truly the same everywhere" is a bad assertion. Can somebody please explain that to me?

If a multiverse exists that is unfathomly extended beyond what we can possibly observe, how can anybody claim to know for sure what physics takes place in those far reaches?

And if the laws of physics can be entirely different, then how can people possibly claim they know with absolute certainty that things cannot possibly be such that there universes sometimes just pop into existence?


Exactly. So could there be realms with different physics?

Exactly! That is what I have been saying.


Really? Why can it not be that there was a realm with different physics in which universes pop up out of Nothing? If that was so, then yes, I could still be here asking if that is so.

Since this is a science forum whataboutisms do not make compelling arguments.
In order for your question to have any scientific merit we would need to be able to make comparisons between our universe and others in the multiverse to determine if the laws of nature are universal or multi-universal.
These other universes if they exist are causally disconnected from our own making any such comparisons impossible.

The only universe we can use as point of reference is our own and our understanding of “nothing” is far different from the classical physics notion of “nothing”.
Quantum Field Theory has redefined our understanding of “nothing” as being “something” and is supported by experiments.
Space-time is not simply a frame of reference where we can plot the time and spatial coordinates of an object but is a source for vacuum energy which is the “something”.

 

[AV1611VET]

I once had a bag of nothing which i bought from an empty shop.

How'd they taste?

 

[SelfSim]

How'd they taste?

Hypothetically .. or in reality?

 

[Hans Blaster]

In what way was the question in the OP, "Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?" not about science?

It is a question we cannot answer, true, but it is certainly a question about the universe we can ponder.

And once we ask why there is a universe rather than nothing at all, we would need to define, "nothing at all".

If we define "nothing at all" as "no matter or energy, but with all the laws of physics", then that only pushes back the question to, "Why are there laws of physics, rather than no laws at all"?

And if we define "nothing at all" as "no matter or energy, and not even laws of physics", then what prevents anything and everything from happening sometime someplace?

It's a (perhaps) interesting philosophical question to define Nothing. If their was a Nothing with no spacetime, no quantum fields, no forces, then there would have been no action principle for anything to ever happen (also since there is no time this sentence is getting very weird). From the state of Nothing, no thing could have happened; no universes could have been created, nothing.

It's only from a Something (what ever it was) that could have had time, space, and physics and from which a Universe could have come into existence. This brings us to what we can only call the most ultra-weak form of the Anthropic principle: Nothing could not have been the state of the Cosmos, or there wouldn't be any Something and since beings live within Something are required to ask the question "Why is there Something rather than Nothing?" the answer is the obvious, but not particularly enlightening, conclusion -- because if there was Nothing, there would be no one to ask the question.

Do I need a historian and theologian to explain this to me? No. No one really does.

 

[Lost4words]

How'd they taste?

Like nothing i ever tasted before!

 

[SelfSim]

It's a (perhaps) interesting philosophical question to define Nothing. If their was a Nothing with no spacetime, no quantum fields, no forces, then there would have been no action principle for anything to ever happen (also since there is no time this sentence is getting very weird). From the state of Nothing, no thing could have happened; no universes could have been created, nothing.

I think the supposed counter argument, (from the OP linked article), is that Nothing is unstable because there are no physical laws for sustaining 'nothing coming from nothing', therefore something can come from nothing is still possible .. (and then its argued that it is actually probable that something will come from nothing).
(All interwoven with bunch of philsophical-logic so-called 'Principles' like the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason', Principle of Indifference, Occam's Razor, etc, which are a load of y'know what, IMHO).

It's only from a Something (what ever it was) that could have had time, space, and physics and from which a Universe could have come into existence. This brings us to what we can only call the most ultra-weak form of the Anthropic principle: Nothing could not have been the state of the Cosmos, or there wouldn't be any Something and since beings live within Something are required to ask the question "Why is there Something rather than Nothing?" the answer is the obvious, but not particularly enlightening, conclusion -- because if there was Nothing, there would be no one to ask the question.

Only under the belief where 'Nothing comes from nothing' .. but Nothing can be argued from philosophical so-called 'Principles', as being unstable (see my above summary of this part of the OP paper).

Do I need a historian and theologian to explain this to me? No. No one really does.

The analysis looks to me to be partially based around the mathematics of Infinity .. (which, I think, is also believed to have been one of the contributing factors for Kurt Godel going round the twist and eventually off the deep-end, eh?)

 

[SelfSim]

Those so-called Principles of Philosophy (more appropriately, so-called Laws of Thought), date back to Aristotle's day and Aristotlean thinking.
They can be expressed thusly:
Warning .. a bunch of word-salad follows:

The laws of thought can be most intelligibly expressed thus:

1. Everything that is, exists.
2. Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
3. Each and every thing either is or is not.
4. Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.

There would then have to be added only the fact that once for all in logic the question is about what is thought and hence about concepts and not about real things.
— Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4, "Pandectae II", §163

Interestingly, 'Nothing' features quite heavily in all that gobbledygook ..

 

[doubtingmerle]

Can you explain how they can?

I asked you first. Once again, can you explain to me how you know universes cannot pop into existence if there is nothing at all?

Should I assume you avoided the question because you could not answer it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

@doubtingmerle
What is never disclosed in such discussions is the role the observer plays. The observer in your question is obviously a self-aware, conscious logical thinker who has historical knowledge of everything, everywhere, including physical laws .. That is the role of some 'God', who exists outside of some universe, where its noticing 'Nothing' in that universe.

All scientific inquiries involve an observer. Are all such inquiries, "completely sick, twisted .. and completely intellectually dishonest!" (your words including the ellipsis). If not, why is it only my inquiry that is completely sick and twisted? Your rule, if true, would seem to apply to all of science.

Are all scientists who ask questions about things they don't understand playing the role of God?

Its the undisclosed presence of the observer who obviously plays a very active role the hypothetical, that is intellectually dishonest. That observer, (along with all of its 'baggage'), is obviously there in the hypothetical, and yet its just blotted out and pretended as playing no role whatsoever .. which is observably, just not so as the hypothetical plays out (as a product of logical consequence) in the ensuing analysis.

I am an observer and I don't understand why you write this. I am an observer, are you going to tell me I am completely sick and twisted every time I make a sentence that does not include the words, "I am an observer". I am an observer, I notice that you do not state you are an observer. I am an observer, are all of us that ever make a sentence without those words completely sick and twisted?

I am an observer, there, is that what you are looking for?

Please note; I'm not singling you out and 'having a go' at you here.

Understood. What you appear to be attacking is anybody and everybody who ever makes a sentence that does not include the words, "I am an observer."

This bizarre idealisation is extremely common amongst humans, (including hypothesising scientists) its like some sort of blind spot or something we all have, but its particularly negligent when some philosopher just skims over this glaring omission

Ah, it is extremely common for people to write sentences that do not include the words, "I am an observer."

Yes, I agree. That is extremely common.

whilst they proceed to exercise logic in their analysis in order to defeat some never tested or disclosed posit, which was only ever imagined as being 'true' (or 'false') in the first place!

The posit that nothing can come from nothing is an extremely common posit that has been imagined many times. How can you possibly say that nobody has ever thought about the concept that nothing can come from nothing?

Science makes use of cause and effect but it always tests for this. These tests have a very clear purpose which is to be of practical use

Science tests posits when it can, but sometime it cannot. Science can posit what happened in the Big Bang, but it can never duplicate the Big Bang to test the posit. Often science posits that a given treatment is effective, and verifies it is effective, but it does not understand the cause and effect.

.. not furthering intellectually posited, untestable idealisations such as 'Nothing'.

I really don't understand why this gets you so upset. I find 18 million hits on "nothing comes form nothing" on the Internet. (source) Are you going to write to all 18 million of them and tell them they are sick and twisted? Are you going to criticize all of them for discussing an untestable idea such as nothing?

 

[doubtingmerle]

These other universes if they exist are causally disconnected from our own making any such comparisons impossible.

I agree. That is basically what I said in the post you responded to.

You could have just said, "I agree."

The only universe we can use as point of reference is our own and our understanding of “nothing” is far different from the classical physics notion of “nothing”.
Quantum Field Theory has redefined our understanding of “nothing” as being “something” and is supported by experiments.
Space-time is not simply a frame of reference where we can plot the time and spatial coordinates of an object but is a source for vacuum energy which is the “something”.

Understood, this is the mainstream physics understanding of "nothing". Within the realm of reality that we can observe, quantum mechanics is always in effect, and always is a source of vacuum energy even in what we consider to be empty space. So there really cannot be "truly nothing". There is always quantum mechanics, and that can do things like make virtual particles.

But how can we state that quantum mechanics must always work the same in all possible realms? In your post you state that we cannot know what other universes would be like. So how can we know that other universes would have the same quantum mechanics as us? Could it not be that they work with a completely different set of physics?

Scientists often answer the creationist "nothing comes from nothing" argument by appealing to quantum mechanics. That begs the question of where quantum mechanics come from. After reading Carrier, I am inclined to agree with him that we can take it further: If it was possible that there was nothing, then that by definition means there is no restriction to that "nothing" leading to universes.

The link I put in the opening post was not the best link to use. I should have linked to The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists. There he makes a point by point case including 8 propositions. I would be interested in knowing which of those 8 propositions you agree with.

 

[doubtingmerle]

From the state of Nothing, no thing could have happened; no universes could have been created, nothing.

How do you know this?

 

[doubtingmerle]

1. Until either of them have demonstrated they have bloody clue what they are talking about in relation to physical cosmology, then it probably isn't scientific.

How would one know that Carrier has no "bloody clue" on this unless he reads Carrier's work?

I have posted a link to a second Carrier article, The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists. There he makes a point by point case including 8 propositions. I would be interested in knowing which of those 8 propositions you agree with.

 

[renniks]

I asked you first. Once again, can you explain to me how you know universes cannot pop into existence if there is nothing at all?

Should I assume you avoided the question because you could not answer it?

The question doesn't make any sense.
Nothing suddenly created everything from?

 

[AV1611VET]

From a purely physical standpoint, NOTHING doesn't have a leg to stand on.

That's why empiricists deny the spiritual realm, as it can't be detected in the physical realm.

But even after the first day of the creation week -- when the heaven and the earth were in physical existence -- God was still creating ex nihilo.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

From a purely physical standpoint, NOTHING doesn't have a leg to stand on.

That's why empiricists deny the spiritual realm, as it can't be detected in the physical realm.

But even after the first day of the creation week -- when the heavens and the earth were in physical existence -- God was still creating ex nihilo.

If nihilo = NOTHING, your God did not exist. If nihilo = quantum nothingness, your God appears to be redundant. If nihilo = something else, please explain what that something was.

 

[AV1611VET]

If nihilo = NOTHING, your God did not exist. If nihilo = quantum nothingness, your God appears to be redundant. If nihilo = something else, please explain what that something was.

From ... a ... purely ... physical ... standpoint ... NOTHING doesn't have a leg to stand on.