Why is there Something instead of Nothing?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's been a while since we took up this subject. I happened upon the question again in a video linked by Thomas II. In fact, the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered. The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?' And should be further refined to 'How is there something instead of something else?'

It's a scientific question that can be answered scientifically when asked properly. I've come to the conclusion that creationist types must have "nothing" to get started on their claims without ever thinking about what they mean when they use the word. And then they go to a god or creator to account for the fact that there isn't any "nothing." It's a very shortsighted mindset that I guess comes from religious indoctrination, an unfamiliarity with scientific inquiry and the use of common parlance.

I'm actually looking forward to my next discussion of the topic when it occurs, be it here or in person.

 

[Politesse]

Well, what's your answer then?

 

[bilby]

Nothing doesn't exist. The demonstration of the Higgs Boson by CERN confirms that the minimum energy of the Higgs Field occurs at a non-zero value, so any and every location in spacetime has at least one non-zero attribute.

Discussing the attributes of reality in the absence of spacetime is meaningless, in the same way that discussing what might be found north of the North Pole is meaningless.

There is something, and always was. 'Nothing' is a concept without a real referent, like 'unicorn', 'fairy', 'elf' or 'god'.

We all know what 'nothing' means, but few understand that it's demonstrably entirely fictional.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, what's your answer then?

I thought I did that. What about the OP do you not understand?

 

[Politesse]

Well, what's your answer then?

I thought I did that. What about the OP do you not understand?

So your answer is "the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered"?

 

[bilby]

Well, what's your answer then?

I thought I did that. What about the OP do you not understand?

So your answer is "the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered"?

I don't know if that's his answer, but it's certainly mine.

How else would you recommend people respond to nonsensical questions that are repeated ad nauseum?

 

[Politesse]

Well, what's your answer then?

I thought I did that. What about the OP do you not understand?

So your answer is "the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered"?

I don't know if that's his answer, but it's certainly mine.

How else would you recommend people respond to nonsensical questions that are repeated ad nauseum?

Perhaps an actual answer, rather than a dodge that wouldn't fool an 8 year old?

 

[bilby]

Well, what's your answer then?

I thought I did that. What about the OP do you not understand?

So your answer is "the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered"?

I don't know if that's his answer, but it's certainly mine.

How else would you recommend people respond to nonsensical questions that are repeated ad nauseum?

Perhaps an actual answer, rather than a dodge that wouldn't fool an 8 year old?

You mean like my answer above?

It's a good answer, but it gets tiring to have it ignored over and over and over and over...

...like you just did, for example.

 

[abaddon]

The word "nothing" can be useful as shorthand, like "the box has nothing in it", since that saves people having to describe the things that are in the box (like space and air).

I can't think of any non-absurd other way to use it. I'll be intrigued if anyone wants to explain how there can have been nothing instead of something. How's that conceived as an option?

The question seems to make sense to some folk at an intuitive level. There aren't just the creationist myths but also creationist-like metaphors implicit in language. In Metaphors We Live By, they offer the example of "you can make ice out of water by freezing it" (among a few other examples).

Notice the implication of manipulation ("make"). And the "out of", which implies it's not just a state-change but a new something that "came out of" or "came to exist".

So, add in people trying to surmise the ultimate source of all "out of's", and eventually the intuition gets applied to a "thing" called the universe. I think that's one reason, and maybe the reason, why the question can seem to make sense.

 

[atrib]

Well, what's your answer then?

I thought I did that. What about the OP do you not understand?

So your answer is "the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered"?

I don't know if that's his answer, but it's certainly mine.

How else would you recommend people respond to nonsensical questions that are repeated ad nauseum?

Perhaps an actual answer, rather than a dodge that wouldn't fool an 8 year old?

The word nothing means different things depending on the context. When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses. It is a convenient way to describe some aspects of the emergent reality we perceive with our senses. But in reality, spacetime is never empty - it is permeated by the quantum-mechanical wave function that underpins the universe at its most fundamental level, and which gives rise to vacuum energy, with the result that the temperature of otherwise "empty" spacetime can never to absolute zero.

When creationists like William Lane Craig use the word nothing, they are talking about the nonexistence of spacetime. Which is a meaningless concept that is impossible to reconcile with what we know about the universe. Craig's argument is also fallacious because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. Craig claims that the universe came to exist from a previous state where spacetime did not exist, which leaves no room or time for a creator god to exist. But then Craig goes on to assert that an alleged creator god has existed forever, which contradicts his earlier premise that spacetime did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe. These contradictions have been pointed out by physicists, but he continues to ignore the contradictions and keep repeating the argument anyway. Which makes sense when you consider the fact that Craig's target audience is largely Christian, and large uneducated in cosmology, and that he earns a living preaching this nonsense as a paid speaker to such audiences throughout the country.

 

[Politesse]

The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?

You are not demonstrating that you can clearly define "something" or "nothing" any better or worse than your imaginary interlocutors. You are redefining the question "they" ask in a way they obviously would not, then attacking your pretend version of their argument rather than defending or even defining your own perspective. This is meaningless.

 

[atrib]

The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?

You are not demonstrating that you can clearly define "something" or "nothing" any better or worse than your imaginary interlocutors.

Something - spacetime exists
Nothing - spacetime does not exist

 

[Politesse]

The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?

You are not demonstrating that you can clearly define "something" or "nothing" any better or worse than your imaginary interlocutors.

Something - spacetime exists
Nothing - spacetime does not exist

That doesn't really seem like T.G.G. Moogly's point, but if you would like to make the case for your own perspective, I'd be interested to hear it. What does it mean to say "spacetime exists" and why does it in fact exist, if it does? I'm much more interested in learning what you believe, than in what you think your enemies believe and why they are all wrong and stupid and so forth.

 

[atrib]

The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?

You are not demonstrating that you can clearly define "something" or "nothing" any better or worse than your imaginary interlocutors.

Something - spacetime exists
Nothing - spacetime does not exist

That doesn't really seem like T.G.G. Moogly's point, but if you would like to make the case for your own perspective, I'd be interested to hear it. What does it mean to say "spacetime exists" and why does it in fact exist, if it does? I'm much more interested in learning what you believe, than in what you think your enemies believe and why they are all wrong and stupid and so forth.

You may have missed Post 10, where I talk about this.

 

[Politesse]

When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses.

Who is "we"? That does not seem like a very common definition of nothingness, in fact.

 

[atrib]

When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses.

Who is "we"? That does not seem like a very common definition of nothingness, in fact.

Feel free to tell us what you think the common definition is. And then contrast it to what I said.

 

[Politesse]

When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses.

Who is "we"? That does not seem like a very common definition of nothingness, in fact.

Feel free to tell us what you think the common definition is. And then contrast it to what I said.

Perhaps you could explain the source of your definition? I would expect a common definition of nothingness to be more abstract.

 

[atrib]

When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses.

Who is "we"? That does not seem like a very common definition of nothingness, in fact.

Feel free to tell us what you think the common definition is. And then contrast it to what I said.

Perhaps you could explain the source of your definition? I would expect a common definition of nothingness to be more abstract.

Is this really a point of contention - how people use the word nothing in their everyday lives? Most people understand what we mean when we use the word nothing to describe some aspect of our everyday lives, as long as some context is provided. And you can always look it up in a dictionary if you are confused.

There is nothing in the box - meaning there are no material objects (baryonic matter/energy) in the box (within the region of spacetime defined by the sides of the box) that we can see or sense (detect with our five senses).

 

[Politesse]

When we use the word nothing in our everyday speech, what we mean is that a particular region of spacetime has no baryonic matter/energy within its boundaries that we can detect with our five senses.

Who is "we"? That does not seem like a very common definition of nothingness, in fact.

Feel free to tell us what you think the common definition is. And then contrast it to what I said.

Perhaps you could explain the source of your definition? I would expect a common definition of nothingness to be more abstract.

Is this really a point of contention - how people use the word nothing in their everyday lives? Most people understand what we mean when we use the word nothing to describe some aspect of our everyday lives, as long as some context is provided. And you can always look it up in a dictionary if you are confused.

There is nothing in the box - meaning there are no material objects (baryonic matter/energy) in the box (within the region of spacetime defined by the sides of the box) that we can see or sense (detect with our five senses).

I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to "nothing" in daily conversation in a way that sugeested they thought there was no baryonic energy within their sensory range, no.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perhaps you could explain the source of your definition? I would expect a common definition of nothingness to be more abstract.

To define that would be like trying to define grace or spirits. We can invent ghostbuster language to define it like in the movie but do you really think that will help with your request? "Nothing" or "Nothingness" are just sounds we make or scribbles on paper. Just because humans can invent words hardly means that those words actually represent some kind of objective reality. From a scientific perspective do you think just anyone would be able to discuss the particle theory in any depth or tell you what the Higgs is?

The word merely means a quantity of zero. That's what people mean when they use the word. And of course they base that on sound observation, as has been explained already in this thread. Someone observes me holding a tennis ball in my hand and later sees that the tennis ball is gone. They will say that there is nothing in my hand because they are thinking of the tennis ball. They are overlooking everything else that is still in my hand, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, organisms, radiation, the list is virtually endless depending on where the hand is located.

You asked the question so tell us what you saw when you have observed "nothing." I can't tell you what that is because there has always been something there and I have never observed "nothing." The fact is that no one ever has or likely ever will. You would even have to eliminate space itself. How does one do that? Magic? Religion?

If you can tell us how to observe nothing it would be helpful. Otherwise it's just a word we use in language to communicate. It has no scientific meaning or value beyond enhancing communication when someone has an object or objects in mind and then moves those objects somewhere else. It's pretty simple.

If when you use the word you mean a zero quantity of universe then I'm all ears. Problem is no one has ever made such an observation.