Why there is something, rather than nothing.

[Wiccan_Child]

Nothingness.

Because there was nothing, there were no restrictions.
Because there were no restrictions, everything that could be, became.
Because there was no time, everything became at the same 'moment'.
Because there was no space, everything became at the same 'point'.

Thus, there was nothing, and so came everything which could possibly be at the same point in spacetime (such that it was).

But existence follows laws. Thus, in accordance with those laws, nothing else came to be, and that which now exists interacted with its surroundings and its kin.

== 9 billion years later ==

A star is reborn for the umpteenth time, and the remnants of her birth become the planets.

== 1 billion years later ==

On one of those planets, abiogenesis occurs.

== 3.5 billion years later - Present day ==

These are just some thoughts I had last night. Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because there was nothing, there were no restrictions.

This makes it sound like natural laws ("restrictions") are something imposed on entities, rather than a description (e.g. of properties or aspects) of the entities themselves (which would be my view).

So, I don't see how nothingness could produce something. Nothingness might not have "restrictions", but neither does it have the power to do anything, because there is nothing there to have any powers at all.

In my view, the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is unanswerable and invalid, not because we lack the knowledge, but because it makes no sense for nothing to produce something.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Because there was nothing, there were no restrictions.
Because there were no restrictions, everything that could be, became.
Because there was no time, everything became at the same 'moment'.
Because there was no space, everything became at the same 'point'.

I don't think that you can have a ground for some sort of progression that finds expression here in your use of the word "became" without already having a something.

Just forget about nothing/nothingness and something coming from nothing, 'kay?

In my view, the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is unanswerable and invalid, not because we lack the knowledge, but because it makes no sense for nothing to produce something.

I'd quite agree. But I think it is even yet easier. Any "why" question would to be answered by a "because of something." Having a something betrays the whole notion of nothing though.

(OTOH, maybe that is just the same ...)

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd quite agree. But I think it is even yet easier. Any "why" question would to be answered by a "because of something." Having a something betrays the whole notion of nothing though.

(OTOH, maybe that is just the same ...)

Yes, it's the same thing, but yours is better explained.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This makes it sound like natural laws ("restrictions") are something imposed on entities, rather than a description (e.g. of properties or aspects) of the entities themselves (which would be my view).

I consider the natural laws to arise from how entities interact. There is no giant "F = dp/dt" written in the stars.

So, I don't see how nothingness could produce something. Nothingness might not have "restrictions", but neither does it have the power to do anything, because there is nothing there to have any powers at all.

But nothingness itself isn't what generates the somethingness. Rather, it just spontaneously pops into being. The problem with saying "something from nothing" is that it implies that 'nothing' directly caused 'something', rather than "once there was nothing, now there is something".

In my view, the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is unanswerable and invalid, not because we lack the knowledge, but because it makes no sense for nothing to produce something.

"Why is there something rather than nothing" doesn't necessarily require "something from nothing". It could be that 'somethingness' is the status quo, it's how the universe must be.

That said, I don't see why something can't come from nothing: there's nothing to stop it, after all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think that you can have a ground for some sort of progression that finds expression here in your use of the word "became" without already having a something.

Why?

Just forget about nothing/nothingness and something coming from nothing, 'kay?

I'm a scientist, I follow the evidence, and the evidence supports spontaneity and "something from nothing" ideas .

 

[Washington]

On page 52 of the current (December, 2008) issue of Discover magazine there's an article titled, "A Universe Built for Us" that addresses the question of why the laws of physics seem to be fine-tuned to favor life, and why a radical theory of multiple universes may explain why.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

...the laws of physics seem to be fine-tuned to favor life...

They do?

 

[Washington]

They do?

That is the opinion of the editors of Discover Magazine.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm a scientist, I follow the evidence, and the evidence supports spontaneity and "something from nothing" ideas .

I'm not a scientist, but from what I've read this does not strike me as a true statement.

It seems that particles come from the fabric of spacetime, or that spacetime is at least the physical context for such events. They don't literally come from "nothing", or are at least not known to come from nothing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I consider the natural laws to arise from how entities interact. There is no giant "F = dp/dt" written in the stars.

That's reassuring to hear.

But nothingness itself isn't what generates the somethingness. Rather, it just spontaneously pops into being. The problem with saying "something from nothing" is that it implies that 'nothing' directly caused 'something', rather than "once there was nothing, now there is something".

I'm not quite sure how to make sense of something spontaneously popping into being unless it is a property of something else, e.g. the universe as a whole, or some volume of spacetime. But at least we agree that nothingness is not a casual agent.

"Why is there something rather than nothing" doesn't necessarily require "something from nothing". It could be that 'somethingness' is the status quo, it's how the universe must be.

I agree with you here, and that is my view.

That said, I don't see why something can't come from nothing: there's nothing to stop it, after all.

And nothing to cause it. That's the problem. Saying that there is nothing to stop it is only half the battle.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not a scientist, but from what I've read this does not strike me as a true statement.

It seems that particles come from the fabric of spacetime, or that spacetime is at least the physical context for such events. They don't literally come from "nothing", or are at least not known to come from nothing.

As far as I know, though the particles interact with and across spacetime, they are not generated 'from' it, but rather 'in' it. In all of the research I've looked at regarding this, they truly do pop into and out of existence spontaneously and without cause.

I'm not quite sure how to make sense of something spontaneously popping into being unless it is a property of something else, e.g. the universe as a whole, or some volume of spacetime.

Unfortunately, reality is under no obligation to makes sense. Our fleshy senses, and the brain that coordinates them, evolved to comprehend a small fraction of reality: we're not too big to experience general relativity, not too small for quantum mechanics, not too fast for special relativity, etc. That we're able to comprehend the latter three is a testament to our ingenuity and the power of analogy .
But I fear that there is a limit, that as we learn more about the 'true' reality, the more incomprehensible it becomes.

And nothing to cause it. That's the problem. Saying that there is nothing to stop it is only half the battle.

On the contrary, genuine spontaneity is not unheard of: radioactivity and quantum tunnelling are two well-known examples. While some events do have a cause, it is not strictly necessary. And in the limit of a large time interval, the improbable becomes the inevitable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is the opinion of the editors of Discover Magazine.

An opinion with which I humbly disagree .

 

[Washington]

An opinion with which I humbly disagree .

It's the "seem" part that is the crux of their opinion. Reading the article one is struck by the almost incomprehensible narrow sets of physical parameters that need to be met in order for our universe to exist. It would be a huge step to then suggest life was the result of some kind of sentient goal, and the editors do not do this. What they suggest is that the laws of physics need to be as fine tuned as they are in order for life to arise. I don't believe that "fine-tuned in favor of" is any more meant to suggest a purposeful goal to establish life than the fine-tuning of the physics of sight reflects a purposeful goal. I believe each arose out of happenstance, and nothing more. And I believe this is what the editors have in mind as well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's the "seem" part that is the crux of their opinion. Reading the article one is struck by the almost incomprehensible narrow sets of physical parameters that need to be met in order for our universe to exist. It would be a huge step to then suggest life was the result of some kind of sentient goal, and the editors do not do this. What they suggest is that the laws of physics need to be as fine tuned as they are in order for life to arise. I don't believe that "fine-tuned in favor of" is any more meant to suggest a purposeful goal to establish life than the fine-tuning of the physics of sight reflects a purposeful goal. I believe each arose out of happenstance, and nothing more. And I believe this is what the editors have in mind as well.

Nevertheless, I don't consider the laws of physics to be tuned to life, whether by coincidence or providence. After all, the universe is almost entirely empty space, with the smallest spattering of matter.
The improbable becomes inevitable as scales tend to infinity, and, given the size of the universe and the lengths of time involved, it's not surprising that a universe as inhospitable to life has indeed given rise to life.

That said... what were some of the things cited as being finely-tuned for life?

 

[Eudaimonist]

On the contrary, genuine spontaneity is not unheard of: radioactivity and quantum tunnelling are two well-known examples.

In the case of radioactivity, it can still be said that the atom is the cause of the radioactivity that it emits, even if we can't know why the atom did this at the time that it did.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In the case of radioactivity, it can still be said that the atom is the cause of the radioactivity that it emits, even if we can't know why the atom did this at the time that it did.

We know why it did it. In the case of alpha-decay, two protons and two neutrons were bound together more tightly than they were with the surrounding nucleons. This nucleus-in-a-nucleus then quantum tunnels out of the main nucleus. Once outside, the strong nuclear force is pathetically weak, and so Coulomb repulsion sends it flying off. To an outside observer, it looks like a large nucleus just spat out the smaller nucleus.

Now, this alpha-decay only occurs when the 'internal' nucleus tunnels its way out of the main nucleus. Because of the quantum mechanics involved, there is no physical cause that determines when it tunnels; instead, it has a finite probability of spontaneously finding itself outside the main nucleus.

More generally, it is known that particles do not have a fixed location, much to the surprise of classical mechanics. A particle can exist anywhere in space, with its expected position (the maximum probability) being what classical mechanics calls its actual position. An electron doesn't have a discrete location, but rather it can exist anywhere with a given probability. Exactly where it is at any particular moment is unpredictable, but we can assume that it doesn't deviate beyond at most a micron of its mean position.

Hope that makes sense. Basically, it really is truly random, truly spontaneous.

 

[Washington]

That said... what were some of the things cited as being finely-tuned for life?

From the article:

"If [the strong force] were slightly more powerful, all the protons in the universe would have paired off and there would be no hydrogen. Water would not exist."

"had matter in the universe been more evenly distributed, it would not have clumped together. It would have condensed into black holes."

"had the universe contained much more matter additional gravity would have made it implode. If it had contained less the universe would have expanded to quickly for galaxies to form"

"If protons were just 0.2 percent more massive . . . they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles." Atoms wouldn't exist either."

If gravity were only slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are so many such examples of the universe's life-friendly properties---so many, in fact, that physicists can't dismiss them all as mere accidents."

Now this last remark by the author of the article, Tim Folger, "can't dismiss them all as mere accidents" does imply a sentient cause, yet I wouldn't claim the editor of the magazine agrees with it, although he certainly might.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From the article:.

"If [the strong force] were slightly more powerful, all the protons in the universe would have paired off and there would be no hydrogen. Water would not exist."

How 'slight' are we talking?

"had matter in the universe been more evenly distributed, it would not have clumped together. It would have condensed into black holes."

That doesn't appear to make sense. Why would matter condense into black holes if it's more uniformly distributed? Surely that requires it to be more inhomogeneous?

"had the universe contained much more matter additional gravity would have made it implode. If it had contained less the universe would have expanded to quickly for galaxies to form"

By what amount are we talking? The universe is quite massive, so a fraction of a percent is quite a lot of mass indeed.

"If protons were just 0.2 percent more massive . . . they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles." Atoms wouldn't exist either."

Which presumes that the mass of protons is so easily changed. Is it a law of physics, a physical constant, or a phenomenon dependant on several variables?

If gravity were only slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn out long before life had a chance to evolve.

Assuming, of course, that a different gravitational force doesn't affect more than stellar evolution. Indeed, biological systems behave pretty much the same in a gravity-less, weak-less universe.

There are so many such examples of the universe's life-friendly properties---so many, in fact, that physicists can't dismiss them all as mere accidents."


Now this last remark by the author of the article, Tim Folger, "can't dismiss them all as mere accidents" does imply a sentient cause, yet I wouldn't claim the editor of the magazine agrees with it, although he certainly might.

Agreed. 'Accident' is a word with all sorts of undertone; "Was it on accident or on purpose?" I think what they're trying to say is that there is some common cause behind the various physical systems that seem to be fine-tuned for life. There is an excellent book entitled "Just Six Numbers", which rests on the premise that only six numbers are needed to uniquely identify our universe.

 

[Washington]

How 'slight' are we talking?


That doesn't appear to make sense. Why would matter condense into black holes if it's more uniformly distributed? Surely that requires it to be more inhomogeneous?


By what amount are we talking? The universe is quite massive, so a fraction of a percent is quite a lot of mass indeed.


Which presumes that the mass of protons is so easily changed. Is it a law of physics, a physical constant, or a phenomenon dependant on several variables?


Assuming, of course, that a different gravitational force doesn't affect more than stellar evolution. Indeed, biological systems behave pretty much the same in a gravity-less, weak-less universe.


Agreed. 'Accident' is a word with all sorts of undertone; "Was it on accident or on purpose?" I think what they're trying to say is that there is some common cause behind the various physical systems that seem to be fine-tuned for life. There is an excellent book entitled "Just Six Numbers", which rests on the premise that only six numbers are needed to uniquely identify our universe.

Sorry, but the article doesn't give the particulars you seek.