something from nothing?

[traversinginfinity]

The topic has been brought up in another thread: Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

I don't think it's possible, because it just seems like an absurd idea and science has never observed or found any evidence of something coming from nothing.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. Also, is there a name for the theory that something can come from nothing? I keep thinking of phrases like abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, but those deal with life from non-living matter and that's a completely different subject.

Thanks,
Steven

 

[Vigilante]

I think the counterargument to the one you're presenting, if I'm not being a buffoon about it, is advocacy of infinite causal regression. If you're cool with that idea you don't need something to come from nothing. There would always have been something.

Also, Rosie O'Donnell has been known to spontaneously create large amounts of [stuff] out of thin air, so a God might not be necessary for this.

 

[quatona]

The topic has been brought up in another thread: Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

I don´t think this idea is as frequent as it might appear. I usually see it brought up as a discrediting misrepresentation of a view the speaker disagrees with. A strawman, if you will.

[/quote]I don't think it's possible, because it just seems like an absurd idea and science has never observed or found any evidence of something coming from nothing.[/quote]
I think we have to carefully distinguish between laws derived from observations within our universe and conclusions about the universe itself and an assumed realm within which this universe exists.
As long as we go by the physical laws observed within the universe we are justified in concluding that there is only transformation.
Interestingly, this is sort of counterintuitive, because the idea that something has always existed is hard to fathom. This seems to the cause for the existential question: Where does everything come from, the question for an "uncaused cause". People start assuming the universe to exist in a meta.-frame of reference in which that which we observe as law within our universe is not a law, or in which they have no problems dismissing their own intuitve response (something can not have existed forever).

It seems like pretty much everyone agrees that something must have existed forever. For some, though, the fact that for a general "something" or "everything" our observations about what we identify as "things, objects" (and which we observe as being the result of a transformation = "coming from something else") are not applicable is hard to grasp.

 

[Lifesaver]

It depends on what you mean.

Something coming from absolutely nothing (no agent cause at all) is absurd.
First of all: did the potentiality of this "something" (its possibility) pre-exist it or not?
If it did, then we didn't have nothing, for something was there (the potentiality of what came to be afterwards).
If it didn't, then we have a self-contradiction: because if it is not possible for something to be (it does not exist even as a potentiality), that means that it cannot possibly be. And yet, it is.

But even if we admit the existence of the potentiality of something, we cannot account from its passing from potentiality to actuality (that is, from a mere possibility to an actual fact).

 

[traversinginfinity]

logically proven:

It is impossible for something to come from nothing. To have nothing means to have nothing to start out with. If something came from nothing then nothing would have to be something from the beginning; but nothing is nothing when something is something. Something cannot come from nothing because at some point nothing would have to become something if it produced something; but that defeats the definition of nothing which is without any defineable boundary/ vaccuum!

Therefore nothing cannot exist because something exists. Nothing never existed because we know that something exists. Since nothing cannot create something then something has always existed. And that something which births the entire span of creation, we call God/ whatever God is.

This is my line of thought exactly. Except I don't believe it is a proof of God. I believe that that something that has always existed is the universe. I see no reason to add God to the equation.

 

[jeff992]

The topic has been brought up in another thread: Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

I don't think it's possible, because it just seems like an absurd idea and science has never observed or found any evidence of something coming from nothing.

Steven

It is against everything we find logical. How and just as importantly, why would something come out of nothing? It just doesn't make any sense. It is because of this that some sort of eternal being like "God" is a a valid hyopthesis for the existence of the universe.

 

[Vigilante]

This is my line of thought exactly. Except I don't believe it is a proof of God. I believe that that something that has always existed is the universe. I see no reason to add God to the equation.

Any agent with the power to conjure all of physical existence and all laws governing it out of nothing might well be rightfully termed a god. It does not necessarily imply, however, that this god is the one revealed in X or Y religion.

Would you prefer the term "deity"?

 

[quatona]

Any agent with the power to conjure all of physical existence and all laws governing it out of nothing might well be rightfully termed a god.

I think you have added quite a bit to what has so far been established as common ground.

Would you prefer the term "deity"?

Why would we have to use charged terms for that, at all?

 

[Vigilante]

Why would we have to use charged terms for that, at all?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[traversinginfinity]

Any agent with the power to conjure all of physical existence and all laws governing it out of nothing might well be rightfully termed a god. It does not necessarily imply, however, that this god is the one revealed in X or Y religion.

Would you prefer the term "deity"?

No no, I'm not even talking about gods here.

If absolutely nothing exists, that would also mean no gods. I'm talking about the possibility of something coming literally from nothing and nowhere. If a god creates something, that's not out of nowhere, because it came from a god. It was caused by something else.

Hypothetically speaking, if a god existed, then we would ask the same question that I am asking now about the universe... has the god simply always existed without a beginning, or did it spring forth out of nothing?

I don't believe in god, so I am just talking about the universe. I don't see any point in saying that a deity created the universe because that would just lead to the question of who/what created that deity. Eventually, you have to come to something that is uncreated.

I am saying that since it is illogical to believe that something can come from nothing, the universe must have always existed without a beginning.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

In Heideggers "What is metaphysics?" the deduction of nothing as a probable question in metaphysics takes full stage. He attempts to answer the question about nothing, and deduces its non-existence as nothing. Though i first read this in "Existentialism" by Walter Kaufmann there are a number of simpler translations on the internet. If you wish to look for it, he gives a purely philosophical ideal into the question and deliberations of nothing. Its interesting, and considered his finest work next to "Being and Time".



[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

 

[jeff992]

Hypothetically speaking, if a god existed, then we would ask the same question that I am asking now about the universe... has the god simply always existed without a beginning, or did it spring forth out of nothing?

Not necessarily. It's not that "everything" is finite or needs a cause, but everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Not everything necessarily begins to exist. It is obvious that our universe that we know began to exist because of what we know of the Big Bang, the non-existence of an actual infinite (which would make sense in a finite universe), and the age of the universe. But just because our universe began to exist does not necessarily mean that something else can't exist infinitely. Given the fact that our universe if finite and something can not come from nothing, there must be at least something that is timeless.

I don't believe in god, so I am just talking about the universe. I don't see any point in saying that a deity created the universe because that would just lead to the question of who/what created that deity. Eventually, you have to come to something that is uncreated.

Again, this is not the case. Just because our universe if finite, that doesn't mean that things hypthothetically not contingent or outside of our universe began to exist. Only thing that begin to exist need to be created and it is apparent from the Big Bang, etc that our universe began to exist.

I am saying that since it is illogical to believe that something can come from nothing, the universe must have always existed without a beginning.

But this is not the only option. Another is that our universe came from something else that is infinite yet not part of our universe.

 

[traversinginfinity]

Not necessarily. It's not that "everything" is finite or needs a cause, but everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Not everything necessarily begins to exist. It is obvious that our universe that we know began to exist because of what we know of the Big Bang, the non-existence of an actual infinite (which would make sense in a finite universe), and the age of the universe. But just because our universe began to exist does not necessarily mean that something else can't exist infinitely. Given the fact that our universe if finite and something can not come from nothing, there must be at least something that is timeless.

What is the evidence that the universe began with the big bang?

What are you meaning by finite, exactly? And how do you know the universe is finite?

Again, this is not the case. Just because our universe if finite, that doesn't mean that things hypthothetically not contingent or outside of our universe began to exist. Only thing that begin to exist need to be created and it is apparent from the Big Bang, etc that our universe began to exist.

I don't think it's apparent from the Big Bang that our universe began at that time. There could be another big bang in the future.

But this is not the only option. Another is that our universe came from something else that is infinite yet not part of our universe.

But there is no way to prove the existence of something outside of the universe. The whole concept of "outside of the universe" is a paradox because all points of space and time exist in the universe. Space and time do not exist outside the universe.

 

[jeff992]

What is the evidence that the universe began with the big bang?

1. The fact that the universe is expanding as Edward Hubble discovered in 1929.
2. Cosmic Backround Radiation. Scientists can actually predict what happened after the Big Bang and the intitial conditions would have been very hot and very dense so there would be some excess heat from the Big Bang, this is cosmic radiation.
3. The Relative abundance of light elements. Again, physicists can make calculations which describe the evolution of the unvierse from a second or two after the Big Bang and calculations by some scientists and cosmologist predicted that if the universe began with a Big Bang, then the matter should be over 70% hydrogen and about 25% Helium. The amount of light elements were predicted too. Measurments show this is right.

(Source: Dr. Micheal Strauss)

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics suggest that usable energy has been decreasing since the Big Bang.

In addition, scientists have found out that an initial singularity, which is the first physical state of reality and a part of the universe. The universe was compressed into this point. "And since that point is not governed by quantum laws of physics, there cannot be this infinite regress of simultaneous causes at the singular state." (Bill Craig) The singularity could not have come out of nothing.

(Sources : Craig, Hawking)

What are you meaning by finite, exactly? And how do you know the universe is finite?

Meaning it had a beggining and does not go back infinitely. Because all evidence suggests it had a cause and cannot be infinite. Many Atheists assert this and say it came out of nothing. Like Paul Davies, for example.

I don't think it's apparent from the Big Bang that our universe began at that time. There could be another big bang in the future.

Are you talking about a sort of Oscillating Universe Model, which says that the universe expands from a singularity, collapses, and repeats the cycle infinitly?

But there is no way to prove the existence of something outside of the universe.

Sure, point taken, you can't prove it. But you can deduce it from inferential evidence, etc.

The whole concept of "outside of the universe" is a paradox because all points of space and time exist in the universe. Space and time do not exist outside the universe.

Could explain this a little further? How do you know another space-time does not exist outside of our universe? There are lot's of possibilities. For example, we are only looking at things 3-dimensionally, so any 4th dimension would not make sense, but scientists can calculate some sort of 4th dimension.

 

[traversinginfinity]

1. The fact that the universe is expanding as Edward Hubble discovered in 1929.
2. Cosmic Backround Radiation. Scientists can actually predict what happened after the Big Bang and the intitial conditions would have been very hot and very dense so there would be some excess heat from the Big Bang, this is cosmic radiation.
3. The Relative abundance of light elements. Again, physicists can make calculations which describe the evolution of the unvierse from a second or two after the Big Bang and calculations by some scientists and cosmologist predicted that if the universe began with a Big Bang, then the matter should be over 70% hydrogen and about 25% Helium. The amount of light elements were predicted too. Measurments show this is right.

(Source: Dr. Micheal Strauss)

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics suggest that usable energy has been decreasing since the Big Bang.

In addition, scientists have found out that an initial singularity, which is the first physical state of reality and a part of the universe. The universe was compressed into this point. "And since that point is not governed by quantum laws of physics, there cannot be this infinite regress of simultaneous causes at the singular state." (Bill Craig) The singularity could not have come out of nothing.

(Sources : Craig, Hawking)

I think you missed my point...

I recognized that the Big Bang happened. What I'm saying is... how do you know that it was the beginning of EVERYTHING? How do you know that there is nothing before the big bang?

Meaning it had a beggining and does not go back infinitely. Because all evidence suggests it had a cause and cannot be infinite. Many Atheists assert this and say it came out of nothing. Like Paul Davies, for example.

I don't think it's possible for something to come from nothing, that's why I started this thread. I think something must have always existed.

But as of yet I haven't seen any evidence that there was nothing before the Big Bang. That's what I've been trying to get at. I think it's plausible that before the Big Bang happened the universe could have existed in a state similar to what we have now, and then perhaps all matter collapsed back into one central point, causing the big bang. Maybe it's a big cycle that never ends.

Are you talking about a sort of Oscillating Universe Model, which says that the universe expands from a singularity, collapses, and repeats the cycle infinitly?

yeah, that sounds about right. Although many modern scientists have abandoned the big crunch theory and believe the universe will continue expanding forever. I need to read more about these different theories.

Sure, point taken, you can't prove it. But you can deduce it from inferential evidence, etc.


Could explain this a little further? How do you know another space-time does not exist outside of our universe?

Because when we say "universe" we are talking about everything that exists everywhere. It doesn't make sense to talk about something that exists outside of existence. It doesn't make sense to talk about space outside of space and it doesn't make sense to talk about time outside of time.

However, I believe it's possible that our own universe is multi-dimensional, and parallel universes could exist. But when you talk about "other" universes all you can really do is speculate because it's impossible to test such a hypothesis because we cannot observe anything outside of the universe.

There are lot's of possibilities. For example, we are only looking at things 3-dimensionally, so any 4th dimension would not make sense, but scientists can calculate some sort of 4th dimension.

I'm open to the prospect of a multi-dimensional universe or a multi-verse. But I don't think it makes sense to speak of things "outside" of the universe, because "outside" is a term that signifies location, and what can be located outside of space? It seems like a meaningless statement. You can't have space outside of space.

 

[John54]

To understand how the universe may have come from nothing (a zero energy state), read the following.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/uncaused_universe.pdf

John

 

[David Gould]

If a universe at time t was the cause of the universe at time 0 then there would be no problem. The universe would have, in a sense, 'come from nothing', but the best way of looking at it would be that it had caused itself. This is one of the options, and causes operating backwards in time do not contradict relativity or quantum mechanics (apparantly).

It does not seem common sense to us, but why would the start of the universe have anything to do with common sense?

Another option is simply different time dimensions ala Hawking.

If at one point on an x axis of time our universe was created, but it ran on a y axis of time at 90 degrees to the x axis, then it would depend on your frame of reference as to whether something had come from nothing. From the y axis of time (ours) the entire x axis of time would be encompassed in a single instant; and the same would be the case from the x axis of time.

 

[FishFace]

It is impossible for something to come from nothing.

Starting with your conclusion is never a good idea!

P1:

To have nothing means to have nothing to start out with.

P2:

If something came from nothing then nothing would have to be something from the beginning

You've begged the question already - you can't rely on your conclusion before you've proved it.

The rest of the post relies upon the conclusion of an invalid argument.

 

[FishFace]

First of all: did the potentiality of this "something" (its possibility) pre-exist it or not?

Potentiality does not have independent existence, rather, it is a property of existing things. So in a way you are right that, if there was the potential for the universe to exist, something else had to exist which had the property of potentially becoming the universe.

However all these arguments are ignoring an obvious possibility - that the universe has always existed. There's a brilliant animated gif knocking around, let me find it...

What you have with the Cosmological Argument is an argument which says "nothing can 'just exist' except God" but it has utterly no reason to believe that, especially given the exception.
If it's possible for one thing to just exist, one must justify the claim that nothing else can. If this is not accomplished, the argument fails, since the universe can just exist.

 

[FishFace]

Not necessarily. It's not that "everything" is finite or needs a cause, but everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Not everything necessarily begins to exist. It is obvious that our universe that we know began to exist because of what we know of the Big Bang

This is incorrect - at the time of the Big Bang, everything was just very very small, but it still existed. No one knows what was happening before that. All the matter in the universe has, as far as we know, been in existence forever. We certainly have no good reason to believe it poofed into existence before the Big Bang.

, the non-existence of an actual infinite (which would make sense in a finite universe)

You might want to support that. Talk with Chalnoth, too, I hear that the implication of General Relativity is an infinite universe.

The rest of your post continues with the assumption that the universe began to exist, but this is not supported, so I'll stop here.