A thread about "Nothing"

[AV1611VET]

1. In the beginning: M = Ø
2. After first day of creation: M = Earth (5.972 x 10²⁴ kg)
3: Subsequent days of creation raised the level of mass/energy to its current level.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

So you just assume that quantum mechanics always exists everywhere and always? What can possibly be wrong with stating that we don't know if every realm of reality has our quantum mechanics?

Note that I am not saying that I know that quantum mechanics is not the same everywhere. I say I don't know. But I strongly suspect it may be different in different realms outside of our spacetime.

You however, appear to refuse to acknowledge it could be different in other universes. I don't see how you can claim to have that knowledge.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Too long did not read.

I did not ask you to read all of it. I asked you if you agreed to the 8 propositions there. That wouldn't take too long. Here are the first 4.

• Proposition 1: That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen.

• Proposition 2: The most nothingly state of nothing that can ever obtain, is a state of affairs of zero size lacking all properties and contents, except that which is logically necessary.

• Proposition 3: If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than what is logically necessary.

• Proposition 4: If nothing governs or dictates what will become of Nothing (other than what is logically necessary), then nothing (other than what is logically necessary) prevents anything from happening to that Nothing.

 

[sjastro]

So you just assume that quantum mechanics always exists everywhere and always? What can possibly be wrong with stating that we don't know if every realm of reality has our quantum mechanics?

Note that I am not saying that I know that quantum mechanics is not the same everywhere. I say I don't know. But I strongly suspect it may be different in different realms outside of our spacetime.

You however, appear to refuse to acknowledge it could be different in other universes. I don't see how you can claim to have that knowledge.

I make no assumptions one way or the other because these are irrelevant questions in science.
Quantum mechanics like any other theory is developed to explain how things work, and stands or falls based on experiment and observation.
Apart from being unable to test the validity of quantum mechanics on other universes, experiments and observations do not address the metaphysical aspect of where quantum mechanics or any other theory comes from.

Your arguments form a general template based on the argument of personal incredulity fallacy which can be applied to any subject.
For example let’s theorize there is a certain individual (not you) is this forum incapable of forming coherent posts; applying your template we should not discount the possibility that in one of these other universes there is a counterpart of this individual who can make perfectly sensible posts.

Now seriously do you think this is a scientific argument given a similar reasoning is applied in addressing quantum mechanics?

 

[sjastro]

I did not ask you to read all of it. I asked you if you agreed to the 8 propositions there. That wouldn't take too long. Here are the first 4.

• Proposition 1: That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen.

• Proposition 2: The most nothingly state of nothing that can ever obtain, is a state of affairs of zero size lacking all properties and contents, except that which is logically necessary.

• Proposition 3: If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than what is logically necessary.

• Proposition 4: If nothing governs or dictates what will become of Nothing (other than what is logically necessary), then nothing (other than what is logically necessary) prevents anything from happening to that Nothing.

This link is relevant in a philosophy forum, and not a science forum.
Another aspect of science you should be aware of is science is about disproving things not proving them.
The Steady State theory of the universe despite being a mathematically elegant and logical model crashed and burned as observation revealed a cosmic radiation background the theory did not predict.
It doesn't matter how impressive a theory may appear it doesn't prove anything, it can only be supported by experiment and observation.

 

[J_B_]

I think there's a problem with the limitations of language.

Yes. There is a constant problem of people arguing semantics as if they are arguing logic. The two are not the same thing. Logical conclusions do not arise from semantic games.

'Could there be something north of the north pole'. It makes no sense.

I agree. It's nonsense.

The clause 'when absolutely nothing exists...' in the blog doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately, here you are wrong. The phrase is just fine. Language is not about tearing apart its informal construction to search for logical flaws. If you want to search for logical flaws, you'll need to ask the person to present their argument in a formal way, such as propositional logic. Common language is not so constructed. It is simply a contextual form meant to draw upon common experience. If you understand what the guy is saying, the sentence was a success regardless of whether it adheres to formal logic. In fact, Noam Chomsky is famous for constructing nonsense sentences that are grammatically correct.

I understand what is meant by "nothing exists".

Ipso facto there has always been...something. And I go with an eternally cyclic universe. So no begining.

Here you've come full circle. You start off arguing that we can't make "nothing exists" logical via semantic games and end with a semantic game of your own which asserts that there is "no beginning". But you're basically using the same argument to assert there is no beginning as the one that asserts nothing exists - you objected to the very same argument you end up using.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand what is meant by "nothing exists".

But it makes no sense. If there is no thing then there isn't any thing that can exist. 'Nothing exists' is an illogical statement. As is 'north of the north pole'.

'Existence' is the equivalent of 'the north pole'. You can't go any further north than the north pole and you can't go back to a point where existence becomes nothing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But it makes no sense. If there is no thing then there isn't any thing that can exist.

Right. If there is no thing, then there isn't anything. But how does that prevent something from coming from nothing?

Do you say something always existed? What? Quantum mechanics?

 

[doubtingmerle]

This link is relevant in a philosophy forum, and not a science forum.

The link I posted (The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists) does indeed discuss science. Read the second and third paragraphs. They include a link to the book by Krauss , this paper from Physical Review --Spontaneous Creation of the Universe from Nothing, and this paper --Quantum Fluctuations in Cosmology and How They Lead to a Multiverse.

And the fourth and fifth paragraphs have numerous references to the scientific literature.

How many scientific papers must a link reference before you will allow me to use that link in this forum?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Another aspect of science you should be aware of is science is about disproving things not proving them.

I am a fan of Karl Popper. So yes, I am aware of this.

Thus, as we come up with postulates on how the universe began, scientists will try to think of experiments that can test the concepts. But of course, testing if X will cause a Big Bang is not possible. (Or if it is possible, then I would strongly recommend that we don't try X to see if it causes another Big Bang ) We can do our best to test bits and pieces of the most likely models. I am all for that.

The Steady State theory of the universe despite being a mathematically elegant and logical model crashed and burned as observation revealed a cosmic radiation background the theory did not predict.

Absolutely. The Steady State Model of the universe has been abandoned long ago. I have in no way supported that.

I tend to think there is some sort of multi-verse with possibly many universes popping up for all eternity. Our universe is one of many. What causes this? Scientists have long postulated that quantum effects in an inflationary field cause this. But what causes the quantum effects and inflationary field? That is where my link comes in. It could well be that an eternal state of Nothing is impossible. If there is ever Nothing, then something would at times spontaneously come from that Nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it makes no sense. If there is no thing then there isn't any thing that can exist.

Brad, do you understand my point that renders this point moot?

On the first day of creation, God spoke the earth into existence ex nihilo.

Now we have something: we have the earth in existence.

But God continues creating ex nihilo.

This means that NOTHING and SOMETHING coexist; and still do today.

Can God create something ex nihilo tomorrow?

Sure He can.

NOTHING still exists: it's not going anywhere.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I make no assumptions one way or the other because these are irrelevant questions in science.

Huh? I asked you if you agreed with these postulates. The first postulate was, "That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen."

It goes without saying that postulate 1 is true. It is trivially true. Yet you appear to be so set on arguing, you won't even agree with me when I make an obvious statement--"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen."

You tell me you "make no assumptions one way or the other" on this postulate--"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen." Huh? Are you even reading what I write? Are you making a serious attempt to understand me?

Though you may disagree with most of what I say, if you see something you agree with, it would be OK for you to say, "I agree on that point."

Quantum mechanics like any other theory is developed to explain how things work, and stands or falls based on experiment and observation.

I agree on that point.

Your arguments form a general template based on the argument of personal incredulity fallacy which can be applied to any subject.
For example let’s theorize there is a certain individual (not you) is this forum incapable of forming coherent posts; applying your template we should not discount the possibility that in one of these other universes there is a counterpart of this individual who can make perfectly sensible posts.

Now seriously do you think this is a scientific argument given a similar reasoning is applied in addressing quantum mechanics?

Word salad.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus, as we come up with postulates on how the universe began, scientists will try to think of experiments that can test the concepts.

It's simple how the universe began.

Any child can understand it.

God spoke it into existence.

A good question though, and, I think, the point of this thread, is WHO was God speaking to?

God was speaking to NOTHING, and NOTHING obeyed.

In your OP, you said:

If there is nothing that prevents universes from spontaneously springing into existence,

This is where confusion sets in.

There IS NOTHING ... it is the "nihilo" part of "ex nihilo."

But that "nihilo" COULD NOT PREVENT this universe from coming into existence, when God told him (NOTHING) to "Let there be light, let there be a firmament, let there be [whatever]."

LET and PREVENT are opposites.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This means that NOTHING and SOMETHING coexist; and still do today.

Not in this universe, no. In the universe we inhabit there is always quantum vacuum energy everywhere. This vacuum energy makes virtual particles spontaneously. So no, there is no state of true nothing anywhere in this universe, not even in outer space.

But what about outside our universe? That has been enormously controversial on this thread. I say that we cannot know for sure. I think these same quantum effects may or may not appear elsewhere in a multi-verse. Other people disagree--very strongly--and insist that quantum mechanics absolutely has to be the same outside our universe.

 

[Astrid]

Huh? I asked you if you agreed with these postulates. The first postulate was, "That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen."

It goes without saying that postulate 1 is true. It is trivially true. Yet you appear to be so set on arguing, you won't even agree with me when I make an obvious statement--"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen."

You tell me you "make no assumptions one way or the other" on this postulate--"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen." Huh? Are you even reading what I write? Are you making a serious attempt to understand me?

Though you may disagree with most of what I say, if you see something you agree with, it would be OK for you to say, "I agree on that point."


I agree on that point.

Word salad.

Logically impossible or just plain impossible.

 

[SelfSim]

Proposition 1: That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen.

Yet beliefs exist, where:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

Both conditions must be met .. not just the non-compliance with the rules of logic.

'Nothing' would appear to be the relevant example .. Ie: its just another belief.
What's more, this is objectively demonstrable.

 

[Bradskii]

Right. If there is no thing, then there isn't anything. But how does that prevent something from coming from nothing?

Do you say something always existed? What? Quantum mechanics?

Nothing doesn't exist. You can't get from nothing to something in the same way you can't get from Mordor to New York.

A cyclical universe isn't eternal but it has no beginning.

 

[Bradskii]

On the first day of creation, God spoke the earth into existence ex nihilo.

If you've got a question, you can't use the answer to solve it. Try harder.

 

[SelfSim]

But what about outside our universe? That has been enormously controversial on this thread. I say that we cannot know for sure.

If what you mean by 'outside our universe' is beyond our causal, (or particle), horizon, then we know for sure that we won't know .. because that's what particle horizon means.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Logically impossible or just plain impossible.

The question before us is why there is something (e.g. our universe) instead of nothing. The question is a good question.

In the link, Carrier addresses that question. But first he must deal with what is meant by "nothing". If somebody asks us why there is not "nothing", then we need to understand what is meant by the word "nothing" in that question.

Carrier goes on to discuss the minimal state that could be described as nothing. At a minimum, he says that one cannot say the state called "nothing" includes logically impossible things. He begins that discussion with this first postulate--"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen."

Are you saying that a state called nothing also necessarily excludes other things you consider impossible? If so, can you give me an example of something impossible that could not be allowed in somebody's definition of nothing?