• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The concept of NOTHING

"Nothin' from nothin' means nothin'. Ya gotta have somethin' if ya wanna be with me". Name the artist and title of that song and we will send you the answer to creation, just pay shipping and handling.
 
calamity said:
So is everything else when you look up at that level.
Click to expand...
`
True enough and I haven’t said otherwise. Big bang is a theory and like all scientific theories has to be tested and retested to wit:

“A scientific theory is not as clear cut as a scientific fact or law, in that facts and laws must be repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation and also be widely accepted to be true by the scientific community While some theories are widely accepted to be true, this is not true of all theories. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. “​

Big Bang is a theory that presupposes a point of origin (singularity) but that’s as far as we human can go because we are not hardwired to accept anything beyond our 3D world....NOTHINGNESS for example. Carl Sagan put out this 7 minute vignette about the 4th dimension and how us limited humans just don’t have the capacity to conceptualize it:
`
`
`
​
 
Paxaeon said:
`
It is difficult enough to imagine a time, 13.7 billion years ago, (+/-) when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

Once you think about that, an even more difficult question arises: What existed just before the big bang occurred?

In a certain sense, many (but definitely not all) scientists and theologians agree; In the beginning there was NOTHING.

When most people think of “nothing” they imagine the vastness of empty space but time/space did not exist before the singularity so that’s out. No gravity, no electromagnetic/weak/strong force, no quarks, leptons and strings….nothing….the complete absence of anything.

Semantics aside, the concept of Nothing is so incomprehensible, we cannot even imagine it and yet theoretically such a state may have existed which itself is paradox as there was no time/space. Words such as "before" or "after" refer to a temporal scale. This temporal scale came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang,

Discuss.
​
Click to expand...


You're correct in assuming that before the singularity scientists believe there was "nothing". They don't know how long the singularity actually existed prior to the Big Bang, because there was no conceivable time or space, but it's assumed to be only an instant.

There is a new concept in physics that a formless force, with no edges or center (dimensionless), preexisted the singularity and is behind the scenes as the primary force of the universe, holding it together and responsible for space expansion. Other words the other four fundamental forces gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear are fluid and connected thru a theory of everything. Understanding this theory could possibly lead to an explanation of this invisible primary force and how it's connected to the creation and sustaining of the current universe.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
It is difficult enough to imagine a time, 13.7 billion years ago, (+/-) when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

Once you think about that, an even more difficult question arises: What existed just before the big bang occurred?

In a certain sense, many (but definitely not all) scientists and theologians agree; In the beginning there was NOTHING.

When most people think of “nothing” they imagine the vastness of empty space but time/space did not exist before the singularity so that’s out. No gravity, no electromagnetic/weak/strong force, no quarks, leptons and strings….nothing….the complete absence of anything.

Semantics aside, the concept of Nothing is so incomprehensible, we cannot even imagine it and yet theoretically such a state may have existed which itself is paradox as there was no time/space. Words such as "before" or "after" refer to a temporal scale. This temporal scale came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang,

Discuss.
​
Click to expand...

The latest theory suggests that there was never a point in time when there was nothing on our dimension:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/153227-origins-life-7.html
 
Luftwaffe said:
There are terrible cycles that occur should you also believe in the end of the universe theory "The big crunch"

The big bang explodes and expands the universe, and as stars die out and black holes emerge, the universe collapses in on itself again and becomes the tiny ball. Then it explodes for another big bang.

This cycle can repeat forever and ever, like the idea of God the universe can have no beginning nor end.

Now of course that all depends on if you believe in any of the other theories besides the big bang theory (big crunch for this example especially, big freeze and ever-expanding universe would nullify this point in ones mind if one were to believe them).

SIDENOTE

Can we use normal font?
Click to expand...

By that you mean sans serif? A sans serif font is easier to read than serif fonts.
 
grip said:
You're correct in assuming that before the singularity scientists believe there was "nothing". They don't know how long the singularity actually existed prior to the Big Bang, because there was no conceivable time or space, but it's assumed to be only an instant. There is a new concept in physics that a formless force, with no edges or center (dimensionless), preexisted the singularity and is behind the scenes as the primary force of the universe, holding it together and responsible for space expansion. Other words the other four fundamental forces gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear are fluid and connected thru a theory of everything. Understanding this theory could possibly lead to an explanation of this invisible primary force and how it's connected to the creation and sustaining of the current universe.
Click to expand...
`
There is method behind my apparent madness. According to what I've learned, Ultimately, we exist, the universe exists, because there is an apparent violation of the laws of relativity as we understand it...one erg or particle of positive matter or energy exists more then negative matter or energy. We live on a binary existence. 1's and 0's. Even the most complex of components can be broken down to yes/no or 1/0, even in the many worlds interpretation. While the numbers of possible outcomes, of all possible forms of physics, even in molecular movement. represent a number so vast (we call it infinity) we cannot comprehend it, you will eventually reach 0.

A beginning and and end....as we understand it. This is not to say humanity will not evolve into a specie than can transcend out 3D existence and find new frontiers to explore but for now, we are too rooted right here.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
There is method behind my apparent madness. According to what I've learned, Ultimately, we exist, the universe exists, because there is an apparent violation of the laws of relativity as we understand it...one erg or particle of positive matter or energy exists more then negative matter or energy. We live on a binary existence. 1's and 0's. Even the most complex of components can be broken down to yes/no or 1/0, even in the many worlds interpretation. While the numbers of possible outcomes, of all possible forms of physics, even in molecular movement. represent a number so vast (we call it infinity) we cannot comprehend it, you will eventually reach 0.

A beginning and and end....as we understand it. This is not to say humanity will not evolve into a specie than can transcend out 3D existence and find new frontiers to explore but for now, we are too rooted right here.
Click to expand...

I agree that we simply can't wrap our thinking of limitations around an infinite source of potentiality. A dimensionless entity that is unchanging without beginning or end, but has the ability to alter physical reality is unfathomable.

Pure energy is like a Higgs field that's able to give mass and force to all other particles, but literally does not exist in physical form itself.

Photons are virtually massless, have no electric charge are stable, having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. They are basically eternal and unaffected by spacetime but not gravity.

Nonlocality and quantum entanglement are connected particles over long distances that appear to transfer information instantly or faster than light, which is impossible. Quantum entanglement can be explained using special relativity. According to this theory, faster-than-light communication between entangled systems can be achieved because the time dilation of special relativity allows time to stand still in light's point of view.

String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory aims to explain all types of observed elementary particles using quantum states of these strings. Because it incorporates gravity, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter.

It's all these theories in physics that point to an invisible energy source. But theoretically, anything that is unlimited would appear to not exist or as nothing, because we can't observe the infinite having limited capacity. We can only *think* about it or maybe someday experience (merge with) it once we've shed our limitations (bodies).
 
Paxaeon said:
`
It is difficult enough to imagine a time, 13.7 billion years ago, (+/-) when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

Once you think about that, an even more difficult question arises: What existed just before the big bang occurred?

In a certain sense, many (but definitely not all) scientists and theologians agree; In the beginning there was NOTHING.

When most people think of “nothing” they imagine the vastness of empty space but time/space did not exist before the singularity so that’s out. No gravity, no electromagnetic/weak/strong force, no quarks, leptons and strings….nothing….the complete absence of anything.

Semantics aside, the concept of Nothing is so incomprehensible, we cannot even imagine it and yet theoretically such a state may have existed which itself is paradox as there was no time/space. Words such as "before" or "after" refer to a temporal scale. This temporal scale came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang,

Discuss.
​
Click to expand...

"Nothing" is a bit vague. For theists to them god always existed. If something exists then there was never nothing.


Assuming that there was nothing (complete absence of anything including time and physics, on any level including everything that we dont know about) is a giant assumption. And it ignores that nothingness itself is something, its a concept. We know that something does actually exist. And there isnt any workable hypothesis that there was a nonexistent state. When one claims the the was nothingness before something, they are claiming a finite reality, meaning that infinity is nonexistent. Infinity cannot be bounded and cannot be measured. No limit exists as well as no point of origin. Infinity has always been infinite. Nothingness would be a boundary intercepting everything and putting a end to the concept of infinity. Nothingness is a point of origin for something to exist after nothing. Nothingness then in my opinion is fantasy forced into the conversation only to pad the theists claims.

So first if one is going to pursue the claim of nothingness, please prove that nothingness is possible?
 
grip said:
I agree that we simply can't wrap our thinking of limitations around an infinite source of potentiality. A dimensionless entity that is unchanging without beginning or end, but has the ability to alter physical reality is unfathomable.

Pure energy is like a Higgs field that's able to give mass and force to all other particles, but literally does not exist in physical form itself.

Photons are virtually massless, have no electric charge are stable, having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. They are basically eternal and unaffected by spacetime but not gravity.

Nonlocality and quantum entanglement are connected particles over long distances that appear to transfer information instantly or faster than light, which is impossible. Quantum entanglement can be explained using special relativity. According to this theory, faster-than-light communication between entangled systems can be achieved because the time dilation of special relativity allows time to stand still in light's point of view.

String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory aims to explain all types of observed elementary particles using quantum states of these strings. Because it incorporates gravity, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter.

It's all these theories in physics that point to an invisible energy source. But theoretically, anything that is unlimited would appear to not exist or as nothing, because we can't observe the infinite having limited capacity. We can only *think* about it or maybe someday experience (merge with) it once we've shed our limitations (bodies).
Click to expand...
`

`
Like others here, I'm no quantum physicist. The concept of Nothing has been argued by philosophers, theologians and scientists for centuries and still to this day, remains an imponderable. I've seen a lot of people argue around it but only in vague terminology which I don't think they even understand. As it stands "NOTHING" will continue to be a brick wall until we evolve beyond out 3D stage.
 
Our universe could have been sourced by another universe that we can't dimensionally see. In fact, our universe may be the result of some alien teenagers doing science experiments in their garage.
 
Paxaeon said:
`

`
Like others here, I'm no quantum physicist. The concept of Nothing has been argued by philosophers, theologians and scientists for centuries and still to this day, remains an imponderable. I've seen a lot of people argue around it but only in vague terminology which I don't think they even understand. As it stands "NOTHING" will continue to be a brick wall until we evolve beyond out 3D stage.
Click to expand...

It's really not an imponderable, because 'nothing', by it's very definition, cannot exist. 'Nothing' is the absence of anything, therefore is not a tangible substance. Even the vacuum of space is full of dark matter and energy. You will never be aware of 'nothing', because it will always be beyond the senses and only a concept of the mind.
 
grip said:
It's really not an imponderable, because 'nothing', by it's very definition, cannot exist. 'Nothing' is the absence of anything, therefore is not a tangible substance. Even the vacuum of space is full of dark matter and energy. You will never be aware of 'nothing', because it will always be beyond the senses and only a concept of the mind.
Click to expand...
`
The Fact that NOTHING remains an imponderable to many philosophers, scientists and theologians is testament enough for me despite the opinions of others, which includes your opinion. In this case I err on the side of the many learned individuals and institution who see the NOTHING concept as an authentic abstraction as part of our universe. To be honest, I've little here to convenience me otherwise.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
The Fact that NOTHING remains an imponderable to many philosophers, scientists and theologians is testament enough for me despite the opinions of others, which includes your opinion. In this case I err on the side of the many learned individuals and institution who see the NOTHING concept as an authentic abstraction as part of our universe. To be honest, I've little here to convenience me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Then explain exactly what 'nothing' is? Is it a dimension, invisible energy, etc?
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Your answers are contained within the thread.
Click to expand...

I was looking for your answer. You say it's something, and all I said is that it's not an imponderable, rather an immeasurable. It can only exist as a concept within the mind, not an actuality.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
It is difficult enough to imagine a time, 13.7 billion years ago, (+/-) when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

Once you think about that, an even more difficult question arises: What existed just before the big bang occurred?

In a certain sense, many (but definitely not all) scientists and theologians agree; In the beginning there was NOTHING.

When most people think of “nothing” they imagine the vastness of empty space but time/space did not exist before the singularity so that’s out. No gravity, no electromagnetic/weak/strong force, no quarks, leptons and strings….nothing….the complete absence of anything.

Semantics aside, the concept of Nothing is so incomprehensible, we cannot even imagine it and yet theoretically such a state may have existed which itself is paradox as there was no time/space. Words such as "before" or "after" refer to a temporal scale. This temporal scale came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang,

Discuss.
​
Click to expand...

It's actually pretty simple.

"Nothing" is the fabric that supports "something". It's like the silence between musical notes. Without that silence there would only be infinite sound and without physical "nothing" there would only be infinite "stuff". The "Big Bang" was simply the point at which "everything" began to attach itself to "nothing".
 
grip said:
I was looking for your answer. You say it's something, and all I said is that it's not an imponderable, rather an immeasurable. It can only exist as a concept within the mind, not an actuality.
Click to expand...
`
`
You are playing with words. NOTHING is an abstract conceptualization which is a logical analysis of ideas and acting on intellectual understanding of a situation. Whether it is an actuality is being debated. You say it doesn't exist, I say it does....and have already explained why. Some people totally reject the concept of NOTHING and that's perfectly legitimate. No one has proved it does or does not exist. To me it's existence is logical as I explained. You disagree. Fine by me.
 
 
Lutherf said:
It's actually pretty simple."Nothing" is the fabric that supports "something". It's like the silence between musical notes. Without that silence there would only be infinite sound and without physical "nothing" there would only be infinite "stuff". The "Big Bang" was simply the point at which "everything" began to attach itself to "nothing".
Click to expand...
`
Fabric and "something" implies existence and before the singularity and according to quantum theory and general relativity there was no existence. There is no logic that the universe was created from nothing, that does not make sense Nonetheless, there are a plethora of theories that hypothesize an explanation that works around NOTHING (which has been the prevailing thought)...most are so mathematically intricate they are way beyond my understanding. Mind you, I don't reject them, understanding it however is another thing. The singularity which was the universe, including all of its matter and radiation, compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across is in itself, is a nearly incomprehensible state which again, scientists still argue about.

Thank you for your input though.
 
The fact is we really have no idea what came before the Big Bang. Or in what sense the question is even coherent (if at all). Various scientists have proposed various theories, but they're pure speculation at this point. And they all presume something prior to the Big Bang, not nothing.

One misconception I hear all the time is the insistence that "something can't come from nothing". That there has to be a cause to the universe. Quite simply, that's false. There doesn't have to necessarily be any first cause. There's nothing logically inconsistent about something not having a cause. In fact, most of the people who insist the claim actually know very well that it's false; ask them what caused God and they will deadpan "Nothing. God has no cause.". :lol: They're not wrong. They know very well it's logically conceivable for something to not have a cause. Their mistake is insisting the opposite - that the universe cannot logically have no cause and that, therefore, God must have caused it. They've only shifted the matter back one level and just don't recognize they're committing cognitive dissonance.

Saying "the universe was caused by nothing" or "the universe was preceeded by nothing" is simply pointing out that there was no cause. There is no explanation to be had. Reality simply is. Now, it may turn out that's not the case, there may turn out to be a cause. But it's not true to say that there has to be a cause, that it's impossible for something to be caused by nothing. Like it or not, that is a valid possibility. Maybe a disappointing one, but a valid one nonetheless.

Part of this misunderstanding that there has to be a cause arises from a misunderstanding of causality. This was (one of) Hume's great realizations- causality is nothing more than a form of correlation - one state accompanying another state. Granted, it's a very specific form of correlation - namely the form of correlation in which one state of reality must accompany (or follow) another state of reality. For example, if we're playing pool and you hit the 8 ball, I could ask "what caused the 8 ball to move?". You say "because the cue ball hit it". I ask "why does the cue ball hitting the 8 ball cause the 8 ball to move". You say "Well, because when the surface of the cue ball contacts the surface of the 8 ball it imparts a force on the 8 ball". I ask "why does imparting a force on the 8 ball cause it to move". You say "Because unbalanced force causes a body to accelerate". I ask "why does a force cause a body to accelerate". You say "Because Newton said so Goddamnit!"

The point is that there is no underlying necessary reason that one event must cause another event to occur. I can just regressively keep asking "but, why? why does X need to lead to Y?". At some point you just have to stop and admit that there is no reason it has to be this way. It simply turns out that in our universe certain states (effects) just happen to always follow certain other states (causes) - there is no deeper reason. Saying that X caused Y is just observing that state X is always accompanied by state Y in our universe. For example, the state of imparting a force on the 8-ball is followed by the state in which the 8-ball accelerates. When you understand causality in this way it becomes even more clear why "everything must have a cause" is a fallacy.

It gets even stranger when you recognize that causality, in the way i just explained, does not only have to happen in the forward direction of time. Common sense tells us that a cause must come before an effect, but there's no underlying reason this must be so. And, in fact, there are some bizarre experiments in quantum mechanics that may imply retrocausality can happen in unusual circumstances - like the delayed choice experiment and the quantum eraser. In which case, theoretically the cause of the big bang could have occurred after the big bang.

tl;dr: We haven't the foggiest.
 
LISA Laser Interferometer Space Antenna will be launched sometime between 2018 and 2020. It may be able to reveal what happened before the big bang by measuring gravity waves from the moment of the big bang It consists of three satellites that will form a gigantic triangle three million miles across connected by three laser beams. If successful scientists should be able to get within a trillionth of one second after the bang. It may even be able to see what was before the big bang.

"Nothingness" = a closed spherical spacetime of zero radius.

"It is no harder to imagine not existing after one's death than it is to imagine not existing prior to one's birth".
 
Lutherf said:
It's actually pretty simple.

"Nothing" is the fabric that supports "something". It's like the silence between musical notes. Without that silence there would only be infinite sound and without physical "nothing" there would only be infinite "stuff". The "Big Bang" was simply the point at which "everything" began to attach itself to "nothing".
Click to expand...

If "nothing" is a fabric, then that's a connotation of it as something, but of what is undefinable. Just as the universe is expanding into an infinite nothing but that's not necessarily true. Whatever is beyond the boundaries of space's edge, may be simply impenetrable by our comprehension as yet.

I would say your definition of "nothing" is still the most accurate, in the sense, that it's a portrayal of non existence as "potential", which generally refers to a currently unrealized ability or even reality.




the_recruit said:
The fact is we really have no idea what came before the Big Bang. Or in what sense the question is even coherent (if at all). Various scientists have proposed various theories, but they're pure speculation at this point. And they all presume something prior to the Big Bang, not nothing.

One misconception I hear all the time is the insistence that "something can't come from nothing". That there has to be a cause to the universe. Quite simply, that's false. There doesn't have to necessarily be any first cause. There's nothing logically inconsistent about something not having a cause. In fact, most of the people who insist the claim actually know very well that it's false; ask them what caused God and they will deadpan "Nothing. God has no cause.". :lol: They're not wrong. They know very well it's logically conceivable for something to not have a cause. Their mistake is insisting the opposite - that the universe cannot logically have no cause and that, therefore, God must have caused it. They've only shifted the matter back one level and just don't recognize they're committing cognitive dissonance.

Saying "the universe was caused by nothing" or "the universe was preceeded by nothing" is simply pointing out that there was no cause. There is no explanation to be had. Reality simply is. Now, it may turn out that's not the case, there may turn out to be a cause. But it's not true to say that there has to be a cause, that it's impossible for something to be caused by nothing. Like it or not, that is a valid possibility. Maybe a disappointing one, but a valid one nonetheless.

Part of this misunderstanding that there has to be a cause arises from a misunderstanding of causality. This was (one of) Hume's great realizations- causality is nothing more than a form of correlation - one state accompanying another state. Granted, it's a very specific form of correlation - namely the form of correlation in which one state of reality must accompany (or follow) another state of reality. For example, if we're playing pool and you hit the 8 ball, I could ask "what caused the 8 ball to move?". You say "because the cue ball hit it". I ask "why does the cue ball hitting the 8 ball cause the 8 ball to move". You say "Well, because when the surface of the cue ball contacts the surface of the 8 ball it imparts a force on the 8 ball". I ask "why does imparting a force on the 8 ball cause it to move". You say "Because unbalanced force causes a body to accelerate". I ask "why does a force cause a body to accelerate". You say "Because Newton said so Goddamnit!"

The point is that there is no underlying necessary reason that one event must cause another event to occur. I can just regressively keep asking "but, why? why does X need to lead to Y?". At some point you just have to stop and admit that there is no reason it has to be this way. It simply turns out that in our universe certain states (effects) just happen to always follow certain other states (causes) - there is no deeper reason. Saying that X caused Y is just observing that state X is always accompanied by state Y in our universe. For example, the state of imparting a force on the 8-ball is followed by the state in which the 8-ball accelerates. When you understand causality in this way it becomes even more clear why "everything must have a cause" is a fallacy.

It gets even stranger when you recognize that causality, in the way i just explained, does not only have to happen in the forward direction of time. Common sense tells us that a cause must come before an effect, but there's no underlying reason this must be so. And, in fact, there are some bizarre experiments in quantum mechanics that may imply retrocausality can happen in unusual circumstances - like the delayed choice experiment and the quantum eraser. In which case, theoretically the cause of the big bang could have occurred after the big bang.

tl;dr: We haven't the foggiest.
Click to expand...


Astute observation that the first cause or prime mover is theoretically always unavailable for analyses, description or observation, since the laws of current physics breaks down at the first moments of the Big Bang. The one caveat to a constant is that no thing is at complete rest inside the universe. Everything from energy to matter is constantly changing and moving from one state to the other because of expansion.

What one could theorize is that the universe was at complete rest before the initial expansion phase? I'm going to say there's an undiscovered and invisible element (force) affecting the whole but is incalculable in nature. I'd call it the "nothing" or infinite potential that can be both at rest and active. It's the force that can effect change but not be affected or changed.

According to Planck "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are... part of the mystery that we are trying to solve". In Quantum Theory there is a notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'. If this is true, it means that before anything can manifest in the physical universe it must first be observed. The observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness or awareness to do the observing. This implies that the physical Universe is the direct result of our consciousness or awareness.

So the universe is made up of energies that cannot come into the reality of finalization, until these energies interact with the observers consciousness. Consciousness could be this universal and invisible field of energy at rest that is called 'nothing' or infinite potential that when it interacts with physical energy creates reality?

The human brain is a conductor for this field of energy that only achieves awareness when it's operating at it's waking energetic level, but even when sleeping is active, only the field of observation is cut off from the senses.
 
The notion that the universe arose from nothing is a fairly recent one. It has come about through a curious interface between cosmologists and physicists who study quantum mechanics on the one hand, and theologians and the general public on the other.

To put the matter simply: materialists and atheists (not necessarily identical groups, though one tends to go hand-in-hand with the other) need for the universe to have arisen on its own from (quite literally) nothing. Evidence for the big bang throws a wet towel over that need; it looks like, at some point in the past, we got a universe where none existed before. Various pre-universe states of fundamental physical stuff have been posited, but these do nothing to really resolve the issue: where did those come from?

So far, no one has ever shown that the universe can arise from literally nothing. At the very least, the laws of quantum mechanics plus certain energy states have to have been present. Such explanations depend on the fact that pairs of virtual particles can arise from a quantum vacuum; the problem is that the particles which we observe in the universe aren't virtual in the requisite sense. No one has ever shown that, say, a proton can arise from a quantum vacuum, and even if someone had, that would be different from showing that a proton can arise from nothing at all.

Here's a good discussion by David Z. Albert, in the form of a book review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=5&

Albert got two PhDs from Columbia university, one in Physics and one in Philosophy, so he seems qualified to write intelligently about the subject.

Now for a little housekeeping: why can't the universe simply have existed eternally?

The problem with this seems to be that the universe would be entirely paradoxical. There are 24 hour-long intervals between now and this moment one day ago. 24 such intervals have to have elapsed to have gotten from this moment one day ago to here. How many finite intervals of any length have to have elapsed between now and infinitely long ago? An infinite number, no matter how long those intervals are. We would never get to this point, because no matter how many intervals elapse, there would always be more to go in order to get here.

Why can't the universe have created itself? Because the universe is a congeries of material stuff, and we know the properties of a congeries of material stuff, and none of those properties provide us with the causal power necessary for self-creation. Again, protons, neutrons, and other massive particles don't emerge out of nothing. None of the theories about Dark Matter or Dark Energy hint at such a possibility. To put the matter simply, unless there's something huge we've missed, the causal power isn't there. And among all the possible things that could supply the missing causal power, there are none that we shouldn't already have discovered.
 
the_recruit said:
One misconception I hear all the time is the insistence that "something can't come from nothing". That there has to be a cause to the universe. Quite simply, that's false. There doesn't have to necessarily be any first cause. There's nothing logically inconsistent about something not having a cause. In fact, most of the people who insist the claim actually know very well that it's false; ask them what caused God and they will deadpan "Nothing. God has no cause.". They're not wrong. They know very well it's logically conceivable for something to not have a cause. Their mistake is insisting the opposite - that the universe cannot logically have no cause and that, therefore, God must have caused it. They've only shifted the matter back one level and just don't recognize they're committing cognitive dissonance.

Saying "the universe was caused by nothing" or "the universe was preceeded by nothing" is simply pointing out that there was no cause. There is no explanation to be had. Reality simply is. Now, it may turn out that's not the case, there may turn out to be a cause. But it's not true to say that there has to be a cause, that it's impossible for something to be caused by nothing. Like it or not, that is a valid possibility. Maybe a disappointing one, but a valid one nonetheless.

Part of this misunderstanding that there has to be a cause arises from a misunderstanding of causality. This was (one of) Hume's great realizations- causality is nothing more than a form of correlation - one state accompanying another state. Granted, it's a very specific form of correlation - namely the form of correlation in which one state of reality must accompany (or follow) another state of reality. For example, if we're playing pool and you hit the 8 ball, I could ask "what caused the 8 ball to move?". You say "because the cue ball hit it". I ask "why does the cue ball hitting the 8 ball cause the 8 ball to move". You say "Well, because when the surface of the cue ball contacts the surface of the 8 ball it imparts a force on the 8 ball". I ask "why does imparting a force on the 8 ball cause it to move". You say "Because unbalanced force causes a body to accelerate". I ask "why does a force cause a body to accelerate". You say "Because Newton said so Goddamnit!"

The point is that there is no underlying necessary reason that one event must cause another event to occur. I can just regressively keep asking "but, why? why does X need to lead to Y?". At some point you just have to stop and admit that there is no reason it has to be this way. It simply turns out that in our universe certain states (effects) just happen to always follow certain other states (causes) - there is no deeper reason. Saying that X caused Y is just observing that state X is always accompanied by state Y in our universe. For example, the state of imparting a force on the 8-ball is followed by the state in which the 8-ball accelerates. When you understand causality in this way it becomes even more clear why "everything must have a cause" is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

These are some interesting points...for which there are some pretty compelling counterpoints, IMO.

The problem with this line is that, if it's true, we may as well hang up our hats and go home. Science is essentially meaningless, since theories are partially constituted by ontological posits. One could never say something like "the brain produces consciousness" or "the brain does not produce consciousness" since no causal ontological posits would allow us to do so. We could at best say there are correlations, but the relational gulf between correlated events A and B is as large as two non-correlated events under Hume's schema.

There were attempts in the first half of the 20th century to extirpate ontological posits from scientific theories. This very complicated bit of the history of ideas can be summed up with two words: EPIC FAIL. Doing so leads to all sorts of internal contradictions, two of which turn out to be fatal to the group of accounts known under the label logical positivism. Basically, it's almost certainly impossible to have a coherent account of scientific theories without ontological posits which include causal forces. So when ball A hits ball B and ball B moves, A's striking B causes B to move not merely because the events are correlated, but because there is something which (for lack of a better term) does the causing.

So, appeals to Hume as a reason to doubt the priniple of Ex nihilo, nihil fit are hamstrung by the fact that the most common movtive for doubt is undercut. The motive for doubt is that we'd like to account for the universe without a God since the universe seems to operate on mechanical principles--nothing supernatural is needed, or so the reasoning goes. But if the only thing epistemically available to us is correlation, then there may just as easily be supernatural stuff going on. Who could know? More to the point, why not believe in the supernatural just as well as the natural? Both require ontological posits.

I take it that part of the concept of matter is that it is subject to the laws of physics. Those laws are, in turn, the subjects of theories, and those theories require ontological posits which include causal forces. Ergo, matter is subject to causal forces as part of its concept--what we mean when we describe something as material is, in part, that it is subject to causal forces. Perhaps more perspicuously, that certain properties of any specific chunk of matter require causal forces to exist. If, for example, there's a rock sailing through the air, something caused it to sail through the air. If nothing did, it's not a rock, but something else, because it's not strictly a material object.

Cosmological arguments have been misunderstood in relation to these points. As you note, there is no logical contradiction invoked in the claim that some event lacks a cause. There is such a contradiction invoked in saying that an event involving purely material stuff lacks a cause, since (per the discussion above) part of the concept of matter is that causal forces are necessary. Those who invoke God as an explanation via a cosmological argument are saying that God has properties such that it is not so bound--it's not part of the concept of God to require causation in the way that material events do. Or at least, this is what cosmological arguments seem to support (note that this is rather different from saying that the traditional Abrahamic God exists; "God" is, on this view, defined as a thing having a certain property by a cosmological argument).
 
Paxaeon said:
`
It is difficult enough to imagine a time, 13.7 billion years ago, (+/-) when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

Once you think about that, an even more difficult question arises: What existed just before the big bang occurred?

In a certain sense, many (but definitely not all) scientists and theologians agree; In the beginning there was NOTHING.

When most people think of “nothing” they imagine the vastness of empty space but time/space did not exist before the singularity so that’s out. No gravity, no electromagnetic/weak/strong force, no quarks, leptons and strings….nothing….the complete absence of anything.

Semantics aside, the concept of Nothing is so incomprehensible, we cannot even imagine it and yet theoretically such a state may have existed which itself is paradox as there was no time/space. Words such as "before" or "after" refer to a temporal scale. This temporal scale came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang,

Discuss.
​
Click to expand...

Since we don't know if there is the possibility that our universe came from other universes (in part or whole)....it's hard to say whether or not there was nothing. Who knows what happened seconds before the big bang?

All of the possibilities are beyond our understanding....for now. "For now."

I think the best thing to focus on is preponderance of evidence relevant to laws of physics in our immediate galactic environment. We don't have a clue if the laws of physics that we experience are remotely the same in other galaxies or distance places in the universe...for now. "For now."

We obviously live in a complicated universe. But I don't at all believe that it's complexity means that it had to be created by a supreme being. I'll never subscribe to that belief. We can't really move forward until we shed ourselves of the superstitions that keep us from seeking the right questions, much less finding the right answers.

A lot of people don't realize how big (or small) our galaxy is, comparability speaking. To put this into perspective. We are 25,000 light years away from the center of our own galaxy. In other words, that's traveling one year at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) - which is about 5,878,000,000,000 miles over the course of 1 earth year. Now multiply that by 25,000.

Something else to consider...

The nearest solar system is 4.7 light years away.

Or....

The nearest galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away...or 5,878,000,000,000 miles times 2.5 million. That's a bunch!

It's just fricking complicated, but if humanity doesn't wipe itself out, it will eventually have to leave our solar system. That might take hundreds of years...??? But, I believe eventually humans will figure it all out.

When we think about the distances of things. It also makes us rethink about what it would take for alien intelligent beings to get here. Hope they got bunches of peanut butter sandwiches packed away.

I don't think we're quite ready to think about "NOTHING". Not now...but someday, yeah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom