Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You.... haven't.... responded.... to.... what.... I.... requested.From ... a ... purely ... physical ... standpoint ... NOTHING doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If these same laws apply always, even outside our universe, is it possible that, instead of popping particles in and out of existence, they can occasionally pop universes in and out of existence?
Our physics evidently does exist, and also it's generally understood by physicists that this Universe is merely (only, entirely) simply physics in action.So are you saying we need to assume that the science of our universe necessarily needs to exist?
If so where does God fit in?
Yes, by definition of what physics is -- 'how nature works'.Are universal processes something that necessarily needs to exist in all possible universes?
I don't expect physics in other Universes would be identical to ours here in this Universe. Of course we don't know, as it's speculative theory, but one prominent speculative theory about other Universes holds they have distinct physics unlike ours.Observing that the laws of physics are constant, as far as we can tell, in all the known universe, is not a proof that these laws must always apply to any possible universe.
Put another way, what is it that would cause the TrueNothing to stay what it is?
"claim to know for sure" isn't a physics type of thinking. Physicists come up with theories and various physicists try to find ways to test those theories by thinking and building equipment to observe what would be unique supporting evidence we could observe to give some support to a theory, or alternatively to evidence that would disprove a particular theory. But theories about multiverses may be forever untestable, it's thought. But even that is uncertain.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?
Reminds me of the man who sued his doctor because the doctor amputated the wrong leg. He lost his case. He didn't have a leg to stand on.From ... a ... purely ... physical ... standpoint ... NOTHING doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Having a God would not remove the basic question either: Why does anything exist at all?Having Multiverses or Eternal Inflation, etc., would not remove the basic question: Why does anything exist at all?
I agree."claim to know for sure" isn't a physics type of thinking. Physicists come up with theories and various physicists try to find ways to test those theories by thinking and building equipment to observe what would be unique supporting evidence we could observe to give some support to a theory, or alternatively to evidence that would disprove a particular theory. But theories about multiverses may be forever untestable, it's thought. But even that is uncertain.
Yes, I agree that in a realm of eternal inflation with quantum mechanics, it could well be possible that universes keep popping into existence.You may have gotten this answered already, but the answer is that's speculated to be a possibility, in the speculative (not yet with supporting evidence) theory usually called 'eternal inflation'.
Here's a summary section, but you can read the whole wiki for more background:Eternal inflation - Wikipedia
From nothing.The question doesn't make any sense.
Nothing suddenly created everything from?
Yes.But that does not explain where the eternal inflation and quantum mechanics come from.
The difference between a scientifc enquiry and the Koons/Carrier analysis, is that an observer following the scientific method, by necessity, tracks the consequences of their own thought process and assumptions, because they're accutely aware that their own actions can, and usually do, influence the outcomes of their experiment (or observations).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?
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?
There's way more involved than just that (see my above explanation .. which is just the tip of a huge iceberg).doubtingmerle said: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."
'Imagined' .. yes .. Is it even objectively testable in principle? .. No.doubtingmerle said:The posit that nothing can come from nothing is an extremely common posit that has been imagined many times.
I wouldn't say that. Analysis of the concept however, would not be following the scientific method.doubtingmerle said:How can you possibly say that nobody has ever thought about the concept that nothing can come from nothing?
The standard Cosmological model (Big Bang) is largely based on the objectively testable, observable universe. It incorporates some predictions from hypothetical components which may pan out to be testable. Science has no need to assume that any of it 'is true'. Any assumptions in that regard, are just for the sake of expediency and held in obeyance until testing happens. Science doesn't deal in assumed 'truths' The closest science ever comes to a concept of 'truth', is never better than its last best tested theory.doubtingmerle said: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.
I campaign for distinguishing science from the belief in the existence of assumed truths. The fact that science ejects them is its strength .. and scientific thinking can be woeful at times .. but its still better than all the other ways of thinking about reality.doubtingmerle said: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?
5) Something is testable. Nothing isn't. That's all that matters.Why is there something rather than nothing? I am seeing four views offered:
1) Because there always was God.
2) Because there always was quantum mechanics.
3) Because there always was matter, energy, and physics.
4) Because, even if there was nothing, processes that form universes could sometimes begin spontaneously.
Does that cover it? Feel free to reply to this post and add another alternative if I missed your view.
Why is there something rather than nothing? I am seeing four views offered:
1) Because there always was God.
2) Because there always was quantum mechanics.
3) Because there always was matter, energy, and physics.
4) Because, even if there was nothing, processes that form universes could sometimes begin spontaneously.
Does that cover it? Feel free to reply to this post and add another alternative if I missed your view.
What is 'logical compulsion'?6) Because we logically feel compelled to ask this question, even when there will be no answer forthcoming any time soon.
How can this possibly explain why there is something rather than nothing?5) Something is testable. Nothing isn't. That's all that matters.
Again, this doesn't appear to address the question.6) Because we logically feel compelled to ask this question, even when there will be no answer forthcoming any time soon.
Look at this thread, folks. There is Nothing to see here.This is all a big to-do about nothing!
I certainly do not agree as whataboutism arguments are invariably based on logical fallacies.I agree. That is basically what I said in the post you responded to.
You could have just said, "I agree."
This whataboutism is based on the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.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?
Where quantum mechanics comes from is a metaphysical question not a scientific one.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.
Too long did not read.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?