Something can come from Nothing!

[Imperial Glory]

Nothing is an absence of everything, space, time, matter, laws, causality. As such, with nothing, the law of causality does not apply. An effect can occur before or even without a cause, essentially generating spontaneous uncaused existence. The universe could be a product of this, it does not need a creator or eternal existence in some form or another.

Any thought and insight is welcome



Imperial Glory

[Himster]

There are two main possibilities, one the universe is caused by something self caused, or the Universe caused itself. Via something like a virtual particle. This makes sense because everything seems to be finite so far and may therefore be ultimately finite, it also makes sense because it's based on observable phenomenon that happens all of the time anyway.
Two: The Universe is caused by something infinite: This can be either an infinite number of parallel universes, or an infinite cycle of Universe in a deterministic cycle of Big-Bang, Big-Crunch, Big-Bang, Big-Crunch and so on and on and on. This is more dramatic and therefore like the idea better, that the Universe comes from something infinite. I find it fine for poetic licence (like the Bible, or the DC multiverse or the Silmarilion), but as a scientific notion or a philosophical axiom it's almost completely baseless.

[High Fist]

I don't really understand the first possibility there Himster, could you explain it further? It sounds to me like it means "The universe exists because it exists". I hate those kinds of answers.

[Humanoid293]

The Problem with the terms "nothing" and "everything" is...noone really knows what they mean . Explanations for the existence of what is may work to a certain point, no doubt . But in truth, the honest answer to the question where it all comes from, and/or how it came about would be "I have no clue really."

[Cyrene]

the vacuum in the Universe isn't nothing, its something, in fact it has HUGE energy, Virtual particles don't come from nothing, they come from this Vacuum.

"Can Something come from Nothing?" is a philosophical question, we must first define "something" and "Nothing":

: a person or thing that is important or worth noticing

: not anything : not a thing

: someone or something that has no interest, value, or importance

so "Nothing" does not have the Power or Value to create something, ergo Something cannot come from nothing.

--------

most likely the Universe is caused by something infinite, be it God, Jesus, Henry or Adolf, or just an Infinite Cycle of Bangs and Crunches is not the subject here.

[Visna]

Without a useful definition of "nothing" any discussion about what "something" can come from it is meaningless. And it becomes even more funny once you consider that once you define "nothing" it becomes "something".

[War lord]

I've never really understood the Theological argument of "something can't come from nothing, ergo God exists." The existence of God wouldn't terminate the regression, it just passes to buck to where God came from.

[Cyrene]

Without a useful definition of "nothing" any discussion about what "something" can come from it is meaningless. And it becomes even more funny once you consider that once you define "nothing" it becomes "something".

Yes i kind of agree with that, "nothing" can't be described with a matter that is in contrast to it, but is there any alternative? we can't describe "nothing" with "nothing" because that's what is being defined. it becomes "something" when you try to describe it i believe, it's more than language can bear or probably my understanding of it.

I've never really understood the Theological argument of "something can't come from nothing, ergo God exists."

Actually the more accurate version of the argument is " something can't come from nothing, unless it's infinite " those who support this argue that the Universe did have a beginning ( the Big Bang ) and so it is not Infinite ( thus it needs a Creator or Cause )

The existence of God wouldn't terminate the regression, it just passes to buck to where God came from.

Hence, the more accurate statement.

[War lord]

Yes i kind of agree with that, "nothing" can't be described with a matter that is in contrast to it, but is there any alternative? we can't describe "nothing" with "nothing" because that's what is being defined. it becomes "something" when you try to describe it i believe, it's more than language can bear or probably my understanding of it.



Actually the more accurate version of the argument is " something can't come from nothing, unless it's infinite " those who support this argue that the Universe did have a beginning ( the Big Bang ) and so it is not Infinite ( thus it needs a Creator or Cause )



Hence, the more accurate statement.

You can't say "something can't come from nothing" and then in the same breath argue for infinity. You can have a cause, cause doesn't equal creator. Even if we find a cause we still need the cause of the cause.

Really the refutation of Aquinas is Aquinas himself. Once you stop assuming that God exists his proofs collapse on themselves.

[Phier]

Yes i kind of agree with that, "nothing" can't be described with a matter that is in contrast to it, but is there any alternative? we can't describe "nothing" with "nothing" because that's what is being defined. it becomes "something" when you try to describe it i believe, it's more than language can bear or probably my understanding of it.

The trick with understanding nothing is you would have to comprehend a state of no space/time. Even a void of nothing is "something".

[Cyrene]

You can't say "something can't come from nothing" and then in the same breath argue for infinity.

They do not exclude each other, anything that has a beginning can't come from nothing (Universe), the Adjective "Infinite" applies to things that have no beginning ( Infinite Cycles of Big bangs, God, etc )

You can have a cause, cause doesn't equal creator. Even if we find a cause we still need the cause of the cause.

Yes cause doesn't equal creator, that's why i mentioned them separately, and no, we won't be needing to find the cause of the cause, if that Cause is Infinite.

[Phier]

Yes cause doesn't equal creator, that's why i mentioned them separately, and no, we won't be needing to find the cause of the cause, if that Cause is Infinite.

Just label the Universe and "infinite" then and we can remove God.

[Sphere]

Some interesting or misunderstood things about current physics which may or may not be relevant.

- Still no real clue if the "big bang" was the start our universe, or even if our "universe" is everything there is. For now these are observational boundaries, which means there are plenty of theories which have things going on beyond our universe/big bang, but no observations supporting them.

- Time in how we experience it is strange and probably not fundamental. In the fundamental equations of physics, time really has no forwards or backwards. For us, the past is very different from the future only because we live in a universe which started out in an extremely low entropy state and entropy has been increasing ever since (i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics). There is no known reason why our universe is like this. Here is Feynman's description of the same idea;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So far as we know, all the fundamental laws of physics, such as Newton’s equations, are reversible. Then were does irreversibility come from? It comes from order going to disorder, but we do not understand this until we know the origin of the order. Why is it that the situations we find ourselves in every day are always out of equilibrium?

...

For some reason, the universe at one time had a very low entropy for its energy content, and since then the entropy has increased. So that is the way toward the future. That is the origin of all irreversibility, that is what makes the processes of growth and decay, that makes us remember the past and not the future, remember the things which are closer to that moment in history of the universe when the order was higher than now, and why we are not able to remember things where the disorder is higher than now, which we call the future.

...

This one-wayness is interrelated with the fact that the ratchet [a model irreversible system discussed earlier in the chapter] is part of the universe. It is part of the universe not only in the sense that it obeys the physical laws of the universe, but its one-way behavior is tied to the one-way behavior of the entire universe. It cannot be completely understood until the mystery of the beginnings of the history of the universe are reduced still further from speculation to scientific understanding.

- The "A universe from nothing" idea which Krauss has put out there has gotten a boost from the observations supporting "inflation cosmology", a theory which relies heavily on supposing quantum mechanical effects governed the early universe.

Inflation supposes a "scalar field" existed and due to a random fluctuation, dropped down to a lower energy state, providing the kick to rapidly expand the early universe. Kinda like an anvil falling off a shelf on to a pumpkin. The theory makes predicts on how the pumpkin should have splattered, and recent observations match these predictions.

Also, we now have discovered the Higg's field, which is first "scalar field" ever discovered. It is different from all other knowm fields in that if you drew a box, took everything out of it, the Higgs field would still have some value. This is in contrast to something like the gravitational field, where if you drew a box and took out everything which had a mass, the value of the field would be zero. It is possible that the scalar field in inflation is just the Higgs field.

But in any event, inflation provides an early universe theory which is deeply quantum mechanical, which allows you to get random things going which hints at a free-lunch universe.

[Cyrene]

Just label the Universe and "infinite" then and we can remove God.

that argument opens the door to many possibilities, God being one of them, it certainly doesn't prove that only God must've created the Universe but it proves the broad statement " The Universe is caused by something Infinite, directly or indirectly"

[War lord]

They do not exclude each other, anything that has a beginning can't come from nothing (Universe), the Adjective "Infinite" applies to things that have no beginning ( Infinite Cycles of Big bangs, God, etc )



Yes cause doesn't equal creator, that's why i mentioned them separately, and no, we won't be needing to find the cause of the cause, if that Cause is Infinite.

Special pleading. Even infinity need a start point. Even it it's a result of events too distant and complex but on a minute scale, so that we can only ever understand it as a hypothetical, it's still a better answer then the buck passing Infinite universe, and certainly a better answer then a sentient God.

[Cyrene]

Special pleading. Even infinity need a start point. Even it it's a result of events too distant and complex but on a minute scale, so that we can only ever understand it as a hypothetical, it's still a better answer then the buck passing Infinite universe, and certainly a better answer then a sentient God.

Your statement can be both correct and Incorrect, there are many definitions of "Infinite" , it can have a beginning but no end, and it can have no beginning nor End, it can also mean it has a beginning and end if it's used in describing a long time in day-to-day life ( "i waited for infinity" or "i waited forever" ) , the "Infinite" i used was the one with no Beginning and end, which means it is not Bound by the Matter of Time, therefore we can't ask for it's cause because this question is only valid for things bound by Time, and thus have a beginning.

[War lord]

Infinite can't be applied to the Physical world, which has a sense of linear time, everything is bound to time, you can warp time but you can't remove something from it. You're still Special pleading.

"Something can't come from nothing, but you have to make a special exception for my prime mover of the gaps"

[Humanoid293]

[...]there are many definitions of "Infinite" , it can have a beginning but no end, and it can have no beginning nor End, it can also mean it has a beginning and end if it's used in describing a long time in day-to-day life ( "i waited for infinity" or "i waited forever" ) , the "Infinite" i used was the one with no Beginning and end, which means it is not Bound by the Matter of Time[...]

This really makes me smile . The Thread has just gotten around accepting any discussion around "nothing" is kindof useless ( see exp. above ), and has instantly started the same game again the Ball being labelled "Infinite" this time around . As well as "nothing" , "Infinite" collapses into a sad clown the moment you define it . You see, the Problem here is in semantics as well as how minds use to create words or terms out of what they experience and/or observe.

To keep it short: it all becomes MUCH easier once you accept the Idea that there may be phenomena around which simply are not understandeable/comprehendible to certain faculties of mind . And/or are not expressable in words, however precise you define those and however carefull you use them. If you can go so far as to at least tinker with those 2 thoughts a bit, you may find a whole bunch of new but none the less interesting questions to be asked . Like, instead of asking "Where does it come from?", you could ask "Whats the best way to treat it?", or "What is this here for?" or "What can I use this for?" . Or any other question you can come up with which doesnt revolve around the Idea of being able to explain the eixistence of all there is .

I find pushing mind into a noncomputable process - asking it a question it can not find an answer to - helpfull and even refreshing at times, but I also recall times when too high a dosis of that used to drive me thoroughly insane in regular intervals. At the least, this can be used to program and/or reprogram minds . Which isnt necessarily a bad thing, just something that may be good to be aware of .

[War lord]

Intellectual cowardice, profoundly anti-science and an attitude that would lead us back into the middle ages.

[Cyrene]

Infinite can't be applied to the Physical world, which has a sense of linear time, everything is bound to time, you can warp time but you can't remove something from it. You're still Special pleading.


"Something can't come from nothing, but you have to make a special exception for my prime mover of the gaps"

i'm not Special Pleading for anyone or anything, the Realm of Time may encompass this universe and other universes if they exist, but everything outside this realm is naturally not bound by Time and therefore has no beginning nor End, Time itself has a Beginning, everything before it is infinite, be it God or anything out there that caused the Universe, that's my point. Regardless of who or what these things are, in contrast to what you claim i argue.

This really makes me smile . The Thread has just gotten around accepting any discussion around "nothing" is kindof useless ( see exp. above ), and has instantly started the same game again the Ball being labelled "Infinite" this time around . As well as "nothing" , "Infinite" collapses into a sad clown the moment you define it . You see, the Problem here is in semantics as well as how minds use to create words or terms out of what they experience and/or observe.


To keep it short: it all becomes MUCH easier once you accept the Idea that there may be phenomena around which simply are not understandeable/comprehendible to certain faculties of mind . And/or are not expressable in words, however precise you define those and however carefull you use them. If you can go so far as to at least tinker with those 2 thoughts a bit, you may find a whole bunch of new but none the less interesting questions to be asked . Like, instead of asking "Where does it come from?", you could ask "Whats the best way to treat it?", or "What is this here for?" or "What can I use this for?" . Or any other question you can come up with which doesnt revolve around the Idea of being able to explain the eixistence of all there is .


I find pushing mind into a noncomputable process - asking it a question it can not find an answer to - helpfull and even refreshing at times, but I also recall times when too high a dosis of that used to drive me thoroughly insane in regular intervals. At the least, this can be used to program and/or reprogram minds . Which isnt necessarily a bad thing, just something that may be good to be aware of .

err thanks i guess? i would very much appreciate it if you point out what's so wrong about it rather than going round advising me how to think instead, anything that is not bound by Time has no Beginning and End, i don't know what's so funny about that, perhaps you care to explain this joke i said?