Something from Nothing CoIin: Just as at some juncture in any evolution vs anti-evolution debate in these forums some likely lad inevitably chirps "Why are there no transitional fossils?" (thereby revealing a profound misunderstanding - but that's for another day), you can bet your bottom WireCredit that in any discussion into the origin of the universe, our young provocateur will aver " So, you believe something can come from nothing - that's ridiculous". Well, what are we to do with a question like that? Let it never be said that the Wireclub Philosophy Forum shirks tough questions. Here are a few thoughts. Your input/correction is welcome. 1. Meaning It's not clear to me that this question as it stands is meaningful at all. Adherence to proper grammatical form does not automatically confer meaning. Eg. "Is purple hungrier than flatulence?" Any thoughts? Would we need to clarify our terms first? "Nothing" and "something" are rather nebulous concepts after all. 2. Big Bang theory I'm not a physicist so correct me if I go wrong, but I haven't read anything in the literature ovbiously suggesting that something did come from nothing. Don't they say the universe began as an infinitely dense singularity? That doesn't sound like "nothing" to me. Help please! 3. Physics I might claim that an idea came to me from nowhere. Does that count as something from nothing? I doubt our antagonist would be satisfied. Then I'd have to ask "Well, what exactly counts as "something" ?" How about we define "something" as that which is material/physical and "nothing" as that which is not? But physics tells us that matter CAN come from non-physical energy, doesn't it? Isn't that something from nothing? CoIin: 4. Christianity A quick Wiki search for "ex nihilo" reveals:- "Biblical scholars and theologians within the Judaeo-Christian tradition such as Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE),[9][10] Augustine (354-430),[11] John Calvin (1509–1564),[12] John Wesley (1703–1791)[13] and Matthew Henry (1662–1714)[14] cite Genesis 1:1 in support of the idea of Divine creation out of nothing" So if something from nothing is ridiculous, why would these thinkers make such a claim? And if God didn't create the universe ex nihilo, this leaves the troublesome question of where all that other stuff came from - and of course, where God came from. As always, invoking a deity explains nothing; it merely explains AWAY the problem. 5. Argument from analogy I've often seen the claim around these parts that we don't observe apples and oranges popping into existence from nowhere, so how could a universe do so? This seems like a pretty lousy analogy to me. We're not talking about an apple spiriting itself into existence within a pre-existing spacetime: we're talking about the origin of spacetime itself. We expect chessmen to follow the rules of chess, but surely it would be bizarre to claim that the process through which the game of chess came into existence obeyed the rules of chess. 6. Argument by Induction Typhoon season is once again getting underway in the Pacific. There is quite a lot we can say about what to expect - how many typhoons will form, under what conditions they will form, etc etc. If we had only ever observed one other typhoon, we probably wouldn't feel very confident in our predictions. As the size of our database grows, however, our confidence is likely to grow commensurately. Induction is often applied to "retrodiction" as well as prediction, but when it comes to universes, an inductive argument just isn't going to be possible. How much experience do we have of universe origins from which to make inductive inferences? - none, of course. "Well, ok, but it's just common sense that a universe can't come from nothing" To which I might reply - expecting the explanation for such an uncommon event to be "common-sensical" or intuitive ( perhaps involving apples and oranges again ) seems to me.... well, counter-intuitive. 7. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) I'm quite happy to admit ignorance vis-a-vis the origins of everything. The religious apologist will often seize this as further evidence for his god's existence. This is painfully fallacious. 8. Conclusion I haven't the foggiest. I wouldn't expect a lizard to be able to understand or explain it either. Science can offer insight into what the early state of the universe may have been like, but I don't think scientists claim to know HOW it all began. Or do they? On the other hand, it seems to me that the "enlightened" out there with their weird and wonderful creation accounts, of which they are implacably certain, are conjuring up knowledge where there is no knowledge to be had - you might say they've created something from nothing. (Edited by CoIin) Yan26: Shouldnt big bang and physics be part of the same point? Also there are many Physics theories regarding the origin of space time. None have credible hard evidence. But what most of them seem to accept is the state of singularity just before the bang. Singularity would be a state where all laws of physics as we know it fail. So Einstein's equation E=MC^2 may not hold true. Matter and energy may not be inter-convertible at that point. I believe science accepts that they yet cant prove( although individual scientists may believe they have the right answer) what happened that triggered the big bang.  Crystal_Blu: Hmmmmm...#1-I've never equated the color purple with a fart, usually the color brown comes to mind #2- I don't believe in it because no matter my Faith, it makes no sense.The world with its people , animals and biology are too intricately engineered for it come from nothing #3-You do have a point however back to #2(I could mean shit you know ) #4-The book of Genesis explains creation well #5-#7  ..hehe CoIin: ^^^ @ #4 - Yes, Genesis explains it well - twice LOL (Gen 1 & 2) Which version do you prefer? I prefer the version with man and woman being created together - no talk of ribs  harlett: the laws of attraction caused the big bang nature house's the universes womb... existence is the magnet that was attracted.. can existence exist without nature and can nature exist without existence yes but only to each other sow....it took the laws of opposites attracting.. To create us and all else..... there's our Bible's perfected marriage...the two became as one..... harlett: i know my simple way of saying.. drives some folks bonkers.. i like things simply put... anyway... go google.....our oceans deepest sea creatures ...those sea creatures are fking amazing to see... some shine with the most brilliant neon colors imaginable.. while some look like alien sperm....eh.!!!!!! isn't there the notion that there is frozen water on asteroids etc... that carry life giving organisms... had to be some serious magic.. to bring all this together as it has...wonderful magic....and then some....... "HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY TO NATURE" CoIin: @ Harlett and Allen Um, I'm losing the thread here. Keep it simple, savants Or in layman's terms - :KISS  Corwin: Well, I for one believe that purple is definitely hungrier than flatulence.... my farts eat very little. smoke4ever: It's good that God created the universe otherwise we would not exist. The universe wasn't created out of nothing, it was created from God. It's called a miracle. He is holding this universe together. CoIin: @ Smoke Well, there's never been any doubt as to where your sympathies lie LOL. The problem with philosophy is that they don't like you to BEGIN with a conclusion - it's against the rules  Corwin: Cosmology has often referred to the Universe as the ultimate example of a free lunch. But the fact is that even though we can predict what happened from a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, we can't go any further back... before "Planck Time" (which is a span measured at 10 to the negative 43 of a second) the fundamental forces of the Universe came to be, divided from a speculated "singular" force... meaning that before this time, Space-Time and dimension itself was meaningless. If the spiritual among us wish to call this force "God", or an "act of God", they are free to do so... Science itself cannot go there. It may be the one true miracle that can be quantified through mathematical equation. But this is also speculation... the Big Bang is not proof of God, neither is the Universe. Merely something beyond our present comprehension. To call something God or "magic" just because we don't understand it is infantile. Think of how simple and infantile Science would be if every time we came across something we didn't understand we just said "God did it."... without actually trying to search for the truth and hypothesize and experiment and calculate. We would have.... well...... religion. Nathaniel Nirvana: now that you mention it, purple is a hungry colour....youd have to go a long way to find something hungrier....like to the singularity. the singularity could be God, else from where did the singularity appear? to have nothing instead of a singular makes more sense to me. besides 0 = a - & a +, chaoes & cosmos Corwin: Oh sure... I'm an Atheist, but not so stupid that I would discount the possibility of a God. The Universe is something SO vastly beyond our comprehension of how it could come to be that we cannot disclaim the possibility. But my scientific mind demands proof, not speculation. When God presents himself in a proper manner, with proper introductions, I will take his existence seriously. Corwin: To expound further.... what I need to see is a miracle... but a miracle, to the educated mind, is merely something beyond our comprehension. So if God were to appear to me, I would find a more logical explanation to what I had seen than just taking His word for Him being "God". I would probably perceive Him as a more evolved form than ours... probably taking advantage of his superior juxtaposition to ourselves... probably with personal gain involved... because that is how humans think. I find it a cruel joke that this "God" would create beings so intelligent that they could never even perceive "proof" of his divine existence... and possibly this "doubt" itself is a divine quality... the beginning of knowledge.... an affront to "faith"..... does not God have knowledge?... are there things we should "not" know?... is this God so afraid of the truth, that he would hide it from us?... or does he leave this truth... like so many bread crumbs... for us - the Scientists - to find? Maybe the Scientist have only truly seen "God".... or as much as we are allowed to see. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. LOL CoIin: ^^^ If God (Yahweh, for the purposes of this argument - no offence to the other gods out there) would like his laws to be followed and enjoy the pleasures of human worship, and the Bible tells us that He does, then it does seem mighty weird that he would leave His existence so uncertain. His inefficiency is appaling  * The Apprentice - Season 8 episode 4 * Trump: How did that task I set you go? Yahweh: : Um, what task again? Sorry Trump: To make your existence known to all mankind Yahweh: Um, well, I told a few nomads in the Middle East and told them to spread the word. Trump:  So what are your faith stats?Yahweh: Er, well it depends on the region. I'm doing pretty well in some places, but the competition is tough. Trump: Competition? Yahweh: Um, I mean alleged competition. I'm The Man  Trump:  Not any more. Yahweh, you're fired!!!! (Edited by CoIin) CoIin: @ Corvin - "are there things we should "not" know" Apparently so. Despite talk of apples, Genesis makes no mention of an apple tree. Which fruit were we not supposed to eat again? - the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEDGE (of good and evil) A li'l learning is a dangerous thing - if you're a deity Corwin: I've also found that amusing that it was knowledge itself that was considered the original sin. Something we were punished for. lol I came up with an interesting analogy on the discovery of knowledge: Imagine that the Universe is a jigsaw puzzle... but there's no picture on the box to tell you what it is. The religious say "God spoke to me and told me that it's a cow grazing in a field of clover"... they put the picture on the box and glue it shut. The scientists say "how can we be sure?" They ignore the picture, rip open the box and start to work piecing it together. Now at this point the puzzle is only partway done, but a picture is forming.... and most of the puzzle left is that pesky sky portion that always pisses you off.... but one this is sure - it looks like a windmill in a field of wheat. The religious cry "Blasphemy!! It's a cow!! Now put that back in the box and glue it shut again, or face the wrath of our Deity!!" LOL CoIin: Here's one man's answer. Make of it what you will. Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time, then where did that empty space-time come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguments fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it “philosophy’s central, and most perplexing, question.” His simple (but book-length) answer: “There has to be something.” Clearly many conceptual problems are associated with this question. How do we define “nothing”? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn’t that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there God rather than nothing? Assuming we can define “nothing,” why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that something is more natural than nothing! In Chapter 2 we saw how nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vapor in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water that exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake. In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water vapor would readily crystallize into complex, asymmetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain intact until cosmic rays tore them apart. This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since “nothing” is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.” In the nonboundary scenario for the natural origin of the universe I mentioned earlier, the probability for there being something rather than nothing actually can be calculated; it is over 60 percent. In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention—not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God. from Victor Stenger (God: The Failed Hypothesis) CoIin: There is no absolute length, dude. Wireclub members who are moving at high speed relative to my post (to get away from it perhaps) will find it pleasantly short. Or unpleasantly short. There is no absolute pleasure, dude. Wireclub members who are moving at high speed relative to my post will find it pleasantly unpleasurable and short.. Corwin: Hmmmm..... I believe they will also find the light spectrum of the thread shifted slightly into the red. | Philosophy Chat Room 14 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
