A thread about "Nothing"

[Hans Blaster]

What do you think?

A theologian and an ancient historian debate cosmology?

Pass. This is not science.

 

[Bradskii]

A theologian and an ancient historian debate cosmology?

Pass. This is not science.

So a theologian, a historian and a cosmologist walk into a bar. And the barman says 'Is this some sort of joke?'

 

[SelfSim]

Are you applying this to Koons or to Carrier, or both?

Both!

 

[SelfSim]

I understand that you have no answers. Cheers!!

Compliments will get ya nowhere!

 

[doubtingmerle]

A theologian and an ancient historian debate cosmology?

Pass. This is not science.

Ok, but we cannot state that, since an explanation was made by a theologian or an ancient historian, therefore that explanation is not science.

Why is it not valid to say that, if there really was Nothing, there would then be no physical laws that prevent universes from popping up out of nothing?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Mathematicians and physicists will tell you there is no such thing as nothing.
Nothing is something.

Here is the mathematical description for nothing.
Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

Here is the physics description of nothing.

Interesting video. Thanks. I watched the first half.

The video is working under the assumption that the laws of physics apply. Yes, if the laws of physics apply as we know them, then there can be no such thing as a state of nothing in which there is no matter and no energy. There will always be quantum fields that can create virtual particles.

But can we say that our laws of physics need to work in all possible universes? If so, why is it that these laws of physics absolutely need to be, and could not be otherwise?

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.

But if we assume that the laws of physics must apply in any possible universe, then the state of Nothing is really a state of Nothing-plus-the-laws-of-physics. In such a state, virtual particles can and do pop in and out of existence. 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?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What blows me away is some dude thinking he can resolve a self invented conundrum, by way of a thought experiment, without first recognising the existence of his own mind in, (and its obvious total influence over), his mental picture of 'Nothing'!

This is the very reason why philosophy, (for philosophy's sake), acquires the reputation of being a complete waste of time.

OK, perhap's Carriers definition of Nothing is not a good definition.

Can you give us a better definition of Nothing, please?

If we decide that "nothing" cannot be defined, then the creationists argument that nothing comes from nothing is invalid. That would be like stating that nothing comes from ffeelelsds, where ffeelelsds is undefined.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There obviously is Something. Why be concerned with Nothing?

Good question.

For it is creationists who keep wanting to talk about a state of nothing. They state that if there was once nothing then there could be no universe. Ergo, God.

When a creationist tells me the universe cannot come from nothing, should I tell him to shutup, there is something, so don't mention "nothing"? Can we invalidate the entire argument by saying "nothing" is not something to talk about?

 

[SelfSim]

Why is it not valid to say that, if there really was Nothing,

But there was 'a something' in that very statement ... you gave it a name: 'Nothing'. You also asserted it existed. The word 'Nothing' carries a meaning and so does 'was' (or 'existed' or 'real', or 'really'). You then asserted that 'Nothing' existed by using those words together in a sentence. All these words convey meanings/concepts. Who are those meanings/concepts intended for in the hypothetical image portrayed in the statement? An English speaking human of course, so we have someone speaking words with a pre-existing meanings, ie: 'Nothing', which is conveyed to a human listener, who is able to comprehend that meaning. 'Really was Nothing', there, just went up in a puff of smoke! The conditional part, (the 'if') is completely moot.
If we time travel (in our minds) back to the time the hypothetical refers to, do we also carry those meanings along with us? The answer is a resounding: Yes! Of course we do! So we've now carried those meanings and concepts back to a time when there's supposed to be Nothing! Its completely ridiculous!

There's lotsa stuff posited as existing in that statement, or, is one simply expected to choose to completely ignore all of those meanings/concepts and just pretend none of it is present in the timeframe of the hypothetical, simply because it suits the purpose of provoking a perpetual-loop discussion?

there would then be no physical laws that prevent universes from popping up out of nothing?

Well given there is all the stuff I mention above in the hypothetical, including perceiving human minds, then there must also exist the potential for them to also invent Laws from those perceptions.

I'm sorry, but the questions these dudes are raving about is completely pointless and flawed by their lack of observing how much has to be taken back and put back in place, in order to even recreate the hypothetical conditions once we're back there in time.
Its just my imagination vs yours, with no attachment to our other perceptions from which we'd normally observe, hypothesise, test and build the meaning science gives to its version of a consistently testable, independently verifiable, objective reality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In that imagined situation where there isn't even such a thing as for example multiverses or any other such initiators of a particular new universe, you are imagining a universe coming into existence without any kind of initiating factor/impulse....

You'd have to imagine a truly non-physical (non real)...'process' (for lack of a word, when no processes even exist) which is unlike all scientific theories of every kind.

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? Are universal processes something that necessarily needs to exist in all possible universes?

In which case, universal processes seem to be more powerful than God. For they must necessarily exist, and can not be changed.

Put another way, what is it that would cause the TrueNothing to suddenly not be what it is?

Put another way, what is it that would cause the TrueNothing to stay what it is?

And if you say the laws of physics would cause this, then you don't have TrueNothing. You have Nothing-except-the-laws-of-physics.

So, imagining such a non-physical initiating thingy, you have in effect something sorta like...'God' by another name.... It's like you didn't want to use the word 'God', so you just described a version of creationism without using the term 'God'....

Yes, we have a universe. Somehow it came into existence. Whatever it is that caused it is sometimes referred to as God by scientists, even though they don't believe in the Christian God. If you want me to define whatever it is that caused the universe as God, I could do that.

But would that confuse people into thinking I was referring to the Christian God when I wasn't? I want to use words that will be understood.

Using the word "God" as an arbitrary name for the processes that started the universe does not prove that the processes that started the universe have a mind, or consists of three persons.

 

[Astrid]

Interesting video. Thanks. I watched the first half.

The video is working under the assumption that the laws of physics apply. Yes, if the laws of physics apply as we know them, then there can be no such thing as a state of nothing in which there is no matter and no energy. There will always be quantum fields that can create virtual particles.

But can we say that our laws of physics need to work in all possible universes? If so, why is it that these laws of physics absolutely need to be, and could not be otherwise?

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.

But if we assume that the laws of physics must apply in any possible universe, then the state of Nothing is really a state of Nothing-plus-the-laws-of-physics. In such a state, virtual particles can and do pop in and out of existence. 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?

Science does not work with "proof".

If there are other universes, we can figure that two
plus two will still be four, in universes that " popped into
being".

Different physics for them might be, who knows.
But it has zero to do with us.

 

[AV1611VET]

For it is creationists who keep wanting to talk about a state of nothing.

Yup.

Else science will be more than happy to fill in that gap with:

1. A promordial atom.
2. A static universe.
3. Some other assumption.

When you play connect-the-dots, you have to start somewhere.

They state that if there was once nothing then there could be no universe. Ergo, God.

Absolutely.

Picture a chalkboard in a classroom, written all over it with formulas and speculations and whatnots.

Then some child comes up, takes an eraser and erases the whole thing and says, "Now. Start from there."

This is one of my favorite pictures:

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok, but we cannot state that, since an explanation was made by a theologian or an ancient historian, therefore that explanation is not science.

Why is it not valid to say that, if there really was Nothing, there would then be no physical laws that prevent universes from popping up out of nothing?

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.

2. From what others have said in this thread, it is clear that they are approaching the problem from the point of view of philosophy which is also not a scientific endeavor. I'm not saying their discussion is unworthy of consideration in the whole, I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the "physical science" section of CF.

(It's too bad the "philosophy" section was shut down, as this would be perfectly fine there and the rest of us could avoid it as such.)

 

[SelfSim]

.. Using the word "God" as an arbitrary name for the processes that started the universe does not prove that the processes that started the universe have a mind, or consists of three persons.

In a way, the hypothesiser, in the hypothetical where there's supposed to be a 'TrueNothing', has actually taken on the role of God as an observer and then denied their own existence in that scenario! Its completely sick, twisted .. and completely intellectually dishonest!

Also, cause and effect is a concept our minds create in order to make sense of our perceptions/observations. In scientific thinking, it is frequently referred to as 'time's arrow'. Whenever its invoked, by necessity, the existence of a human mind is implied ... (unless one is expected to simply skim over and completely ignore that inconvenient truth). There is no evidence that 'cause and effect' exists independently from a human mind. The idea that it does, can be shown as being a pure belief via the scientific method.

 

[sjastro]

Interesting video. Thanks. I watched the first half.

The video is working under the assumption that the laws of physics apply. Yes, if the laws of physics apply as we know them, then there can be no such thing as a state of nothing in which there is no matter and no energy. There will always be quantum fields that can create virtual particles.

But can we say that our laws of physics need to work in all possible universes? If so, why is it that these laws of physics absolutely need to be, and could not be otherwise?

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.

But if we assume that the laws of physics must apply in any possible universe, then the state of Nothing is really a state of Nothing-plus-the-laws-of-physics. In such a state, virtual particles can and do pop in and out of existence. 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 universe is surrounded by a particle horizon beyond which nothing is observable as a photon emitted from a receding object exceeding the speed of light will never reach us.
Other universes are well beyond this horizon and their existence or otherwise is unfalsifiable making any claims about the laws of physics being the same or different unsupportable.

When it comes to our own universe physicists like to dabble in a bit of philosophy based on the weak anthropic principle to deal with why the universe seems to be fine tuned.

The weak anthropic principle (WAP) is the truism that the universe must be found to possess those properties necessary for the existence of observers. The WAP is not a theory of physics. Rather, it is a methodological principle.

The same principle can be applied in addressing your thread; if the laws of physics didn’t exist there would be no one asking the question whether a universe can pop out of nothing!

 

[doubtingmerle]

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?

Our universe is surrounded by a particle horizon beyond which nothing is observable as a photon emitted from a receding object exceeding the speed of light will never reach us.

Exactly. So could there be realms with different physics?

Other universes are well beyond this horizon and their existence or otherwise is unfalsifiable making any claims about the laws of physics being the same or different unsupportable.

Exactly! That is what I have been saying.

The same principle can be applied in addressing your thread; if the laws of physics didn’t exist there would be no one asking the question whether a universe can pop out of nothing!

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In a way, the hypothesiser, in the hypothetical where there's supposed to be a 'TrueNothing', has actually taken on the role of God as an observer

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.

and then denied their own existence in that scenario! Its completely sick, twisted .. and completely intellectually dishonest!

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.

Also, cause and effect is a concept our minds create in order to make sense of our perceptions/observations. In scientific thinking, it is frequently referred to as 'time's arrow'. Whenever its invoked, by necessity, the existence of a human mind is implied ... (unless one is expected to simply skim over and completely ignore that inconvenient truth). There is no evidence that 'cause and effect' exists independently from a human mind. The idea that it does, can be shown as being a pure belief via the scientific method.

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?

 

[Lost4words]

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

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm not saying their discussion is unworthy of consideration in the whole, I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the "physical science" section of CF.

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?

 

[renniks]

Why does the universe exist? Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?

For a minute, let's think about Nothing. When I will use the word "Nothing" with a capital N in this thread, I will refer to a state of reality in which there truly is nothing. No matter. No energy. No spacetime. No God. No laws of physics. No second law of thermodynamics. No law of conservation of energy. No law that says universes don't spontaneously spring into existence out of nothing. No...

Wait, What?

If there is nothing that prevents universes from spontaneously springing into existence, then in our hypothetical state of Nothing, what prevents universes from popping into existence? If Nothing exists, do universes keep popping up?

Perhaps you would say it is actually impossible for the state of Nothing to exist in such a way that it has no law preventing it from generating multiple universes. But in that case we don't really have Nothing. We do have a state that excludes some things like matter and energy, yes, but which does have some laws, such as a law stating that "no thing comes from Nothing". If Nothing cannot exist without having such a law, then we have our answer as to why there is something rather than Nothing. There is something rather than Nothing, because some things (or some laws) absolutely need to exist.

If some things or some laws absolutely need to exist, then which laws need to exist? Must the law that prevents universes from spontaneously creating themselves exist? How do you know?

You might say that the law that states universes do not come from Nothing has to be true, for that is what we observe in our universe. But how is this relevant to our hypothetical state that we will call Nothing? The fact that some event is not observed in The Milky Way does not prove it is impossible in Nothing.

Richard Carrier discusses this at Koons Cosmology vs. The Problem with Nothing.

What do you think?

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