A thread about "Nothing"

[Astrid]

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?

Im not " saying " im asking.
You are not answering, but asking.
So never mind

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

The 'how' of understanding an extraordinary human term is the problem here. There is no empirical or reasonable reference for it and we have no absolute direction as to the best way to articulate notions about "absolute nothing." When we attempt to refer to "nothing" at a cosmic level, we're essentially attempting to refer to a notion that is not a part of our actual lived experience and we sink all too easily into the fallacy of amphiboly in trying to bring some kind of tangible essence to it when describing it.

It's probably best we not waste a whole lot of time on this question. Not wasting time on this question gives me more time to read something like Lee Smolin's "The Problem with Physics," or Frank Close's "The Void." Such reading is about as close to the essence of nothing that I expect to ever come.

Or to even care about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in this universe, no.

That is correct: NOTHING does not exist in this universe.

Virtual particles need energy to give birth to them.

In the beginning, there was no energy to give birth to them.

It had to be spoken into existence first.

The total amount of mass/energy before Genesis 1:1 was zero.

Then God spoke, and raised it from zero to [5.972 x 10²⁴ kg] by speaking the earth into existence.

Then, over the next five days, the total amount of mass/energy was raised up and up and up, until it is what it is today.

When God rested on the seventh day, He locked in that total amount, and it has never changed since.

I believe scientists recognize that as the First Law of Thermdynamics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing doesn't exist.

The alternative is that it does.

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

Correct.

You would have to be spoken from nothing to something by an omnipotent speaker.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

What?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The alternative is that it does.Correct.

You would have to be spoken from nothing to something by an omnipotent speaker.

If there is a speaker there is not nothing. As you like to say: even a five year old can understand that.

 

[Bradskii]

What?

Try. Harder.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is a speaker there is not nothing.

Then who or what was the speaker talking to?

 

[J_B_]

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.

You're dissecting the sentence in a way that changes its intended meaning. As such, you're arguing a straw man. I don't believe that you failed to grasp the intended meaning.

You may honestly hold the position there was no beginning, though often it seems people argue just because they like to argue ... or because they want to make themselves look smart ... or because they want to belittle Christians - a host of ulterior motives. Anyway, there is a legit way to construct an argument for no beginning, and depending on your assumptions I might agree with you. But in a different context there is also a legit argument that there was a beginning.

Regardless of your position, this approach is self-defeating. You started off by saying language is sometimes inadequate, and then criticized his language for those self-same inadequacies.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then who or what was the speaker talking to?

Himself? His imaginary friend? Does it matter? The point (which you seem unable to grasp) is that if the speaker exists then, by definition, there is something. And here's the kicker: something =/= nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Himself? His imaginary friend?

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what went on on 23 October 4004 BC.

Does it matter?

Yes it matters.

If you can have SOMETHING, then science will jump on the bandwagon and say that that SOMETHING can be a primordial atom.

Then, science can take that a step further and claim that God needn't even exist.

The point (which you seem unable to grasp) is that if the speaker exists then, by definition, there is something.

That's pantheism.

And here's the kicker: something =/= nothing.

I agree.

God was SOMETHING; and apart from Him there was NOTHING.

Then God spoke to that NOTHING, and here we are today arguing about it.

 

[partinobodycular]

God was SOMETHING; and apart from Him there was NOTHING.

Except that according to metaphysists, including Aquinas, that can't possibly be true. Because for God to speak something into existence it must first have had the potential to exist. So there could never have been just God, there had to be God (Pure Actuality) and Prime Matter (Pure Potentiality).

For God to create anything it must first have had the potential to be created. Therefore not even God could create something from nothing.

 

[Halbhh]

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?

Let me state what might already be clear, but just to make sure we are talking of the same thing.

There's been a lot of interesting speculative theories over decades (since about as long as I can remember) about how the Universe could arise from quantum fluctuation.

But in those theories we don't have the 'Nothing' we seemed above (me and you) to have been talking about -- above we discussed a total Nothing-in-every-way meaning without even an existing physics to cause/control the fluctuation. In other words, we seemed to be talking previous (you and me) about a true Nothing, where there of course is no quantum fluctuation, which can only come from a preexisting very real something, a particular physics.


"Nothing" in article titles: a Universe that comes from "nothing" in various article titles like you linked here -- that wording is only to signify nothing of ordinary matter like most people think of as something. It's a 'nothing' except physics you could say.

And it's fun to use that in a title.

It sounds fun to say 'nothing' even when they don't really mean it in a total way.

A Universe from a quantum fluctuation is a Something coming from Something. One starts with a a something in these theories: a powerful thing, 'physics' -- it causes stuff to happen.

 

[partinobodycular]

It sounds fun to say 'nothing' even when they don't really mean it in a total way.

But as I pointed out above, even the venerated Aquinas believed that something existed other than God Himself. As to what that "something" was is open to speculation. It might have been "Prime Matter" or it might have been a "Quantum Field". But whatever it was it didn't need God to create it.

 

[Halbhh]

Except that according to metaphysists, including Aquinas, that can't possibly be true. Because for God to speak something into existence it must first have had the potential to exist. So there could never have been just God, there had to be God (Pure Actuality) and Prime Matter (Pure Potentiality).

For God to create anything it must first have had the potential to be created. Therefore not even God could create something from nothing.

Where is a good summary or short exposition on Aquinas's theory, involving 'prime matter'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that according to metaphysists, including Aquinas, that can't possibly be true.

I'd like to know what metaphysicists think of Jesus Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

But as I pointed out above, even the venerated Aquinas believed that something existed other than God Himself. As to what that "something" was is open to speculation. It might have been "Prime Matter" or it might have been a "Quantum Field". But whatever it was it didn't need God to create it.

Thank you for demonstrating what I said in Post 111:

"Yes it matters.

If you can have SOMETHING, then science will jump on the bandwagon and say that that SOMETHING can be a primordial atom.

Then, science can take that a step further and claim that God needn't even exist."

 

[partinobodycular]

Where is a good summary or short exposition on Aquinas's theory, involving 'prime matter'?

You can find Aquinas' understanding of prime matter here:

Thomas Aquinas: De Principiis Naturae: English

But Aquinas can be a tough description to wade through, so there's a more concise summary of Aristotle's description of prime matter here:

Form vs. Matter (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The traditional interpretation of Aristotle, which goes back as far as Augustine (De Genesi contra Manichaeos i 5–7) and Simplicius (On Aristotle’s Physics i 7), and is accepted by Aquinas (De Principiis Naturae §13), holds that Aristotle believes in something called “prime matter”, which is the matter of the elements, where each element is, then, a compound of this matter and a form. This prime matter is usually described as pure potentiality, just as, on the form side, the unmoved movers are said by Aristotle to be pure actuality, form without any matter (Metaphysics xii 6). What it means to call prime matter “pure potentiality” is that it is capable of taking on any form whatsoever, and thus is completely without any essential properties of its own. It exists eternally, since, if it were capable of being created or destroyed, there would have to be some even lower matter to underlie those changes. Because it is the matter of the elements, which are themselves present in all more complex bodies, it is omnipresent, and underlies not only elemental generation and destruction, but all physical changes. As a completely indeterminate substratum, prime matter bears some similarities to what modern philosophy has called a “bare particular” (see Sider 2006), although, not being a particular, it may have more in common with so-called “gunk” (see Sider 1993).

 

[partinobodycular]

Thank you for demonstrating what I said in Post 111:

"Yes it matters.

If you can have SOMETHING, then science will jump on the bandwagon and say that that SOMETHING can be a primordial atom.

Then, science can take that a step further and claim that God needn't even exist."

Absolutely, and why shouldn't that be a rational argument to make? If something must by necessity exist, why must that something be God?

That seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

 

[AV1611VET]

If something must by necessity exist, why must that something be God?

Then whose image and likeness are we made in?

And if that something isn't God, then what has the power to call this universe into existence from nothing?

And if that something was the universe in the first place, what is "breaking in" and performing miracles by ordering this universe to jump when it (He, actually) tells it to jump?

By way of a simple example:

If that something was the universe, what parted the Red Sea?