A thread about "Nothing"

[Bungle_Bear]

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

You.... haven't.... responded.... to.... what.... I.... requested.

 

[Halbhh]

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?

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

 

[Halbhh]

So are you saying we need to assume that the science of our universe necessarily needs to exist?

Our physics evidently does exist, and also it's generally understood by physicists that this Universe is merely (only, entirely) simply physics in action.

If so where does God fit in?

Originator. To be the creator of the Universe would mean to be the creator of the physics that operates the Universe.

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

Yes, by definition of what physics is -- 'how nature works'.

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.

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.

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

In the case of not having a physics there (the 'TrueNothing' as we are calling it including that there is an absence of physics of any kind), the answer from a physics oriented point of view would be: a lack of anything to change it.

Having Multiverses or Eternal Inflation, etc., would not remove the basic question: Why does anything exist at all?

 

[Halbhh]

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?

"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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Having Multiverses or Eternal Inflation, etc., would not remove the basic question: Why does anything exist at all?

Having a God would not remove the basic question either: Why does anything exist at all?

The answer, "Because God always exists" or, "Because quantum mechanics always exists" both have the same problem. How do we know the thing proposed is eternal?

But if we find that the very laws of physics do not prevent a state of true nothing from creating something, is that our answer to why something exists?

 

[doubtingmerle]

"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.

I agree.

Therefore we cannot know what might being going on in other universes totally outside our universe. We cannot know if they have a different quantum mechanics or no quantum mechanics at all.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Yes, I agree that in a realm of eternal inflation with quantum mechanics, it could well be possible that universes keep popping into existence.

But that does not explain where the eternal inflation and quantum mechanics come from.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

From nothing.

So again, back to the question you have not yet answered: "Can you explain to me how you know universes cannot pop into existence [from nothing] if there is nothing at all?"

 

[Halbhh]

But that does not explain where the eternal inflation and quantum mechanics come from.

Yes.
And the same general question arises for any theory about how this or other Universes arose -- all theories still leave that basic question: Why does anything exist at all, instead of nothing?

(i.e., if there is an other physics that causes a universe to come into existence, then why does that physics exist: where did it come from? etc. Note that if anything causes something to come into existence, then that anything is the cause, and one goes back by causes, step by step to....? to what? To an eventual uncaused initial originating cause? i.e. 'God' by whatever naming you use...)

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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?

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).
They do this by testing for the telltale effects of this, throughout that process.
There is no evidence of any of that in the Koons/Carrier analysis ... There is no 'checking in' with 'external reality' reference sources. Its all one big thought experiment (using logic), with the mind alone, playing the role of judge, jury and executioner, but tracking back to the original basis of all that logic, we find what I posted in post #51 .. which is complete word salad.
Its word salad because the concepts are objectively untestable and are entirely dependent on merely ambiguously defined, circular word definitions assumed as being 'true'. Science only ever uses operationally tested definitions .. which means things tested in reality .. not just 'inside' someone's head, having merely assumed 'true' logical posits as their bases.

'Nothing' is objectively untestable, so when I'm thinking scientifically, I am justified by ejecting it, and any consequential analysis of it, from any useful analysis.

Science assumes no 'true' posits as part of its process as a safeguard towards ensuring that its final inferences are not reliant on assumed truths (or beliefs).

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."

There's way more involved than just that (see my above explanation .. which is just the tip of a huge iceberg).

The posit that nothing can come from nothing is an extremely common posit that has been imagined many times.

'Imagined' .. yes .. Is it even objectively testable in principle? .. No.

How can you possibly say that nobody has ever thought about the concept that nothing can come from nothing?

I wouldn't say that. Analysis of the concept however, would not be following the scientific method.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Don't take any of this personally .. I assure you, there's no need to do so, in this instance. I respect your views and would like to thank you for your tenacity.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

5) Something is testable. Nothing isn't. That's all that matters.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

6) Because we logically feel compelled to ask this question, even when there will be no answer forthcoming any time soon.

 

[SelfSim]

6) Because we logically feel compelled to ask this question, even when there will be no answer forthcoming any time soon.

What is 'logical compulsion'?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is all a big to-do about nothing!

 

[doubtingmerle]

5) Something is testable. Nothing isn't. That's all that matters.

How can this possibly explain why there is something rather than nothing?

Something is testable: Therefore there is something?

I am sorry, that explains nothing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

6) Because we logically feel compelled to ask this question, even when there will be no answer forthcoming any time soon.

Again, this doesn't appear to address the question.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because we ask the question?

Nope. Asking the question does not cause universes to exist.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This is all a big to-do about nothing!

Look at this thread, folks. There is Nothing to see here.

 

[sjastro]

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

You could have just said, "I agree."

I certainly do not agree as whataboutism arguments are invariably based on logical fallacies.
You could just as easily have argued tooth fairies exist or 1+1=2 is invalid in other universes.

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?

This whataboutism is based on the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.
Not only have you failed to demonstrate the conditions where quantum mechanics is not applicable but these other universes or realms may not actually exist for the conditions to apply.
In other words you have created an alternate reality where magically quantum mechanics does not apply to outside universes which are causally connected to our own for reasons completely unknown.

Quantum mechanics is hard enough to explain in our universe; positing an alternate fantasy world where it doesn’t work is a lot harder.

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.

Where quantum mechanics comes from is a metaphysical question not a scientific one.
Science is about explaining the how not the whys.

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.

Too long did not read.