Why is there Something instead of Nothing?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Can there be areas of nothing? Sure. There’s a chance that all the air molecules in a room will gather on the south half of the room. That state won’t last if it does occur. The known universe is saturated with photons in similar manner that the space in a room is saturated with air molecules.

There's only "nothing" if you are defining what is not there, like air molecules. There's a lot of other things still there. Define those things, remove them, quantify your observation, repeat it and we scientifically accept "nothing." Otherwise it's just a ghost that goes by the name of "nothing."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you do, or don't, casually make claims to people that no baryonic matter exists inside, say, empty boxes? I'm not the one who claimed this was the "everyday" definition of the concept.

Are you stating that everyday language trumps scientific observations? People ask the question in the OP as if it is a scientific question but it is not. That's the point. Do you not understand?

So we can and should turn it into a scientific question in the hope of expanding their understanding and perhaps relieving them of a little superstitious nonsense.

 

[Politesse]

So you do, or don't, casually make claims to people that no baryonic matter exists inside, say, empty boxes? I'm not the one who claimed this was the "everyday" definition of the concept.

Are you stating that everyday language trumps scientific observations? People ask the question in the OP as if it is a scientific question but it is not. That's the point. Do you not understand?

So we can and should turn it into a scientific question in the hope of expanding their understanding and perhaps relieving them of a little superstitious nonsense.

I'm not the one who proposed using an "everyday" definition in the first place. I agree that a more technical definition would be ideal for a philosophical discussion, especially if there were a technical definition about which there was a fair amount of consensus. Alas, I don't think there is in the case of "nothingness". But it would be very helpful if there were.

And if the claim is that distinguishing between baryonic and non-baryonic particles, with non-baryonic particles defined as "nothing" will make the discussion more scientific, I disagree. I don't think any informed person would define neutrinos as "nothing". Hell, the SNO catches one almost every hour.

 

[Elixir]

Can there be areas of nothing? Sure. There’s a chance that all the air molecules in a room will gather on the south half of the room. That state won’t last if it does occur. The known universe is saturated with photons in similar manner that the space in a room is saturated with air molecules.

There's only "nothing" if you are defining what is not there, like air molecules. There's a lot of other things still there. Define those things, remove them, quantify your observation, repeat it and we scientifically accept "nothing." Otherwise it's just a ghost that goes by the name of "nothing."

“Nothing”, if it exists, is an ephemeral state that, by definition, cannot persist for long enough to be measured. And if it did, there would be no way to measure it without changing its state to something.
So effectively, you’re right - it’s only a utilitarian word if used to describe specific absences.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you do, or don't, casually make claims to people that no baryonic matter exists inside, say, empty boxes? I'm not the one who claimed this was the "everyday" definition of the concept.

Are you stating that everyday language trumps scientific observations? People ask the question in the OP as if it is a scientific question but it is not. That's the point. Do you not understand?

So we can and should turn it into a scientific question in the hope of expanding their understanding and perhaps relieving them of a little superstitious nonsense.

I'm not the one who proposed using an "everyday" definition in the first place. I agree that a more technical definition would be ideal for a philosophical discussion, especially if there were a technical definition about which there was a fair amount of consensus. Alas, I don't think there is in the case of "nothingness". But it would be very helpful if there were.

And if the claim is that distinguishing between baryonic and non-baryonic particles, with non-baryonic particles defined as "nothing" will make the discussion more scientific, I disagree. I son't think any informed person would define neutrinos as "nothing". Hell, the SNO catches one slmost every hour.

What do you mean by a technical definition? Do you just mean a definition that's used for the sake of discussion? Go ahead and propose one. That's the point of the discussion, isn't it, that there is no acceptable definition that fits scientific consensus? That's because it isn't a scientific concept. If it's a philosophical concept or a technical concept go ahead and offer definitions for those two categories of discussion. We can look at those definitions and evaluate their worth.

When someone proposes the question as Colbert did in Thomas II's video I assume they are asking a scientific question in a "gotcha" sense. I'm assuming it's their attempted use of perceived, credible scientific reasoning to prove that their god is real. Perhaps you have a different perspective on the subject. It's not unusual for creationists to attempt to use science when it fits their purposes and to disparage science when it fits their purposes. I don't know why they do this except that they are defending something about their personal identity, core beliefs and values.

But go ahead and provide definitions if you like.

 

[Rhea]

Please supply a synopsis of the linked video and your thoughts on why it belongs in the discussion. Blind links are not helpful.

 

[Politesse]

So you do, or don't, casually make claims to people that no baryonic matter exists inside, say, empty boxes? I'm not the one who claimed this was the "everyday" definition of the concept.

Are you stating that everyday language trumps scientific observations? People ask the question in the OP as if it is a scientific question but it is not. That's the point. Do you not understand?

So we can and should turn it into a scientific question in the hope of expanding their understanding and perhaps relieving them of a little superstitious nonsense.

I'm not the one who proposed using an "everyday" definition in the first place. I agree that a more technical definition would be ideal for a philosophical discussion, especially if there were a technical definition about which there was a fair amount of consensus. Alas, I don't think there is in the case of "nothingness". But it would be very helpful if there were.

And if the claim is that distinguishing between baryonic and non-baryonic particles, with non-baryonic particles defined as "nothing" will make the discussion more scientific, I disagree. I son't think any informed person would define neutrinos as "nothing". Hell, the SNO catches one slmost every hour.

What do you mean by a technical definition? Do you just mean a definition that's used for the sake of discussion? Go ahead and propose one. That's the point of the discussion, isn't it, that there is no acceptable definition that fits scientific consensus? That's because it isn't a scientific concept. If it's a philosophical concept or a technical concept go ahead and offer definitions for those two categories of discussion. We can look at those definitions and evaluate their worth.

When someone proposes the question as Colbert did in Thomas II's video I assume they are asking a scientific question in a "gotcha" sense. I'm assuming it's their attempted use of credible scientific reasoning to prove that their god is real. Perhaps you have a different perspective on the subject. It's not unusual for creationists to attempt to use science when it fits their purposes and to disparage science when it fits their purposes. I don't know why they do this except that they are defending something about their personal identity, core beliefs and values.

But go ahead and provide definitions if you like.

I don't think there are any clear definitions of "something" amd "nothing". Nothingness has paradigmatic meaning, which is always contextual. "Nothing" connotes the absence of anything that you would normally have expected to find. When I say a box has "nothing" in it, what I mean is that doesn't contain any objects that one might find in a box. When someone asks what I'm doing and I say "nothing" I mean that I'm not engaging in any of the sorts of daily activities one might be doing. If I ask " why is there something rather than nothing in the universe", that's a bit more complicated. What would we expect, in the case of a universe? What would we find to be missing if there were nothing"? I think it's a perfectly valid question, but not a question with an obvious or even discoverable answer. I'm being called stupid and ignorant in this thread for disagreeing that nuclear particles are uniquely the basis for "somethingness", but I've been offered no convincing or even coherent argument as to why I would or should define things that way.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Please supply a synopsis of the linked video and your thoughts on why it belongs in the discussion. Blind links are not helpful.

Thomas can add to this description if he so wishes.

The presenter in the video asks us to consider "Why is there a Universe. Why is there something instead of nothing?" He asks the audience to treat the question solemnly and not laugh at him. He says it's the most sublime, deepest question that man can pose. Interestingly he uses Wheeler to buttress his delivery except that Wheeler never asked Why. Wheeler asked How. Big difference.

He brings in Leibniz and the fact that god made it all out of nothingness because god is super great and super powerful and super, super, super duper. He talks about god and that if god is really so godly he would ask himself "Whence cometh I?" but then says let's forget about god. He talks about Buddhism and the world as a great nothing. The audience is chuckling and entertained and he reminds them that he is about to get serious.

He then mentions science and more recent scientific insights such as quantum theory and Hawking and Krauss that the universe is a quantum fluctuation from nothing. He says this is not science but religion because physical laws and divine commands are the same thing. Mindless forces are divine command in disguise apparently.

He keeps asking why, why, why, gets into the multiverse and all possible realities. He says this is religious going back to Plato, juxtaposing "sheer nothingness" and "everythingness" and that there's just all these in-between realities that may contain imperfect deities. He says the resolution to his mystery of existence is that we're living in an in-between reality, random and generic and that it doesn't need a special explanation.

He asks why we should care. He says that morality and ethics wouldn't matter in those extreme special realities so living in a generic mediocre reality gives us purpose in an absurd universe. Mentions Russel that we should just observe that the universe is there, okay, no need for astonishment and mystery mongering.

So in the end he maintains that we're inhabiting one of those imperfect realities where gods aren't really gods and people have all kinds of problems but that it gives our lives purpose. He talks about the question and mentions many who have dabbled with the question and offers his resolution to the question.

 

[atrib]

But go ahead and provide definitions if you like.

So you do, or don't, casually make claims to people that no baryonic matter exists inside, say, empty boxes? I'm not the one who claimed this was the "everyday" definition of the concept.

Are you stating that everyday language trumps scientific observations? People ask the question in the OP as if it is a scientific question but it is not. That's the point. Do you not understand?

So we can and should turn it into a scientific question in the hope of expanding their understanding and perhaps relieving them of a little superstitious nonsense.

I'm not the one who proposed using an "everyday" definition in the first place. I agree that a more technical definition would be ideal for a philosophical discussion, especially if there were a technical definition about which there was a fair amount of consensus. Alas, I don't think there is in the case of "nothingness". But it would be very helpful if there were.

And if the claim is that distinguishing between baryonic and non-baryonic particles, with non-baryonic particles defined as "nothing" will make the discussion more scientific, I disagree. I son't think any informed person would define neutrinos as "nothing". Hell, the SNO catches one slmost every hour.

What do you mean by a technical definition? Do you just mean a definition that's used for the sake of discussion? Go ahead and propose one. That's the point of the discussion, isn't it, that there is no acceptable definition that fits scientific consensus? That's because it isn't a scientific concept. If it's a philosophical concept or a technical concept go ahead and offer definitions for those two categories of discussion. We can look at those definitions and evaluate their worth.

When someone proposes the question as Colbert did in Thomas II's video I assume they are asking a scientific question in a "gotcha" sense. I'm assuming it's their attempted use of credible scientific reasoning to prove that their god is real. Perhaps you have a different perspective on the subject. It's not unusual for creationists to attempt to use science when it fits their purposes and to disparage science when it fits their purposes. I don't know why they do this except that they are defending something about their personal identity, core beliefs and values.

But go ahead and provide definitions if you like.

I don't think there are any clear definitions of "something" amd "nothing". Nothingness has paradigmatic meaning, which is always contextual. "Nothing" connotes the absence of anything that you would normally have expected to find. When I say a box has "nothing" in it, what I mean is that doesn't contain any objects that one might find in a box. When someone asks what I'm doing and I say "nothing" I mean that I'm not engaging in any of the sorts of daily activities one might be doing. If I ask " why is there something rather than nothing in the universe", that's a bit more complicated. What would we expect, in the case of a universe? What would we find to be missing if there were nothing"? I think it's a perfectly valid question, but not a question with an obvious or even discoverable answer. I'm being called stupid and ignorant in this thread for disagreeing that nuclear particles are uniquely the basis for "somethingness", but I've been offered no convincing or even coherent argument as to why I would or should define things that way.

Can you quote the post(s) where you have been called stupid or ignorant? I did a search for the two words, and the only time they appear anywhere in this thread in when you accuse people of calling you those things. I have also read the entire thread from the beginning, and I can find no reference to anyone saying anything that could even remotely be construed as calling you stupid or ignorant. Your assertion that people are saying these things is complete fabrication.

Second, I don't see anyone in this thread saying that nuclear particles are uniquely the basis for "somethingness". In fact, both the OP and I have taken great pains to explain how the term nothing is used in both the everyday sense, and in the context of how creationists use the word (implying the non-existence of spacetime). Again, this appears to be a total fabrication stemming solely from your imagination.

When I say a box has "nothing" in it, what I mean is that doesn't contain any objects that one might find in a box.

Which is really no different from saying that the box contains no matter that could be detected by our senses, which is what I said when I used the very same example earlier. My description of this scenario was more complete because I also noted that there are objects in the universe that cannot be detected by our senses. Which apparently made your brain explode.

 

[steve_bank]

Please supply a synopsis of the linked video and your thoughts on why it belongs in the discussion. Blind links are not helpful.

Thomas can add to this description if he so wishes.

The presenter in the video asks us to consider "Why is there a Universe. Why is there something instead of nothing?" He asks the audience to treat the question solemnly and not laugh at him. He says it's the most sublime, deepest question that man can pose. Interestingly he uses Wheeler to buttress his delivery except that Wheeler never asked Why. Wheeler asked How. Big difference.

He brings in Leibniz and the fact that god made it all out of nothingness because god is super great and super powerful and super, super, super duper. He talks about god and that if god is really so godly he would ask himself "Whence cometh I?" but then says let's forget about god. He talks about Buddhism and the world as a great nothing. The audience is chuckling and entertained and he reminds them that he is about to get serious.

He then mentions science and more recent scientific insights such as quantum theory and Hawking and Krauss that the universe is a quantum fluctuation from nothing. He says this is not science but religion because physical laws and divine commands are the same thing. Mindless forces are divine command in disguise apparently.

He keeps asking why, why, why, gets into the multiverse and all possible realities. He says this is religious going back to Plato, juxtaposing "sheer nothingness" and "everythingness" and that there's just all these in-between realities that may contain imperfect deities. He says the resolution to his mystery of existence is that we're living in an in-between reality, random and generic and that it doesn't need a special explanation.

He asks why we should care. He says that morality and ethics wouldn't matter in those extreme special realities so living in a generic mediocre reality gives us purpose in an absurd universe. Mentions Russel that we should just observe that the universe is there, okay, no need for astonishment and mystery mongering.

So in the end he maintains that we're inhabiting one of those imperfect realities where gods aren't really gods and people have all kinds of problems but that it gives our lives purpose. He talks about the question and mentions many who have dabbled with the question and offers his resolution to the question.

He' is one of many secular theist-preachers. It is in the form of a theology without a god.

 

[steve_bank]

“Why” is an ask for a description of a prior state that gave rise to the one under question. Positing an eternal universe does not dispense with the question.

Can there be areas of nothing? Sure. There’s a chance that all the air molecules in a room will gather on the south half of the room. That state won’t last if it does occur. The known universe is saturated with photons in similar manner that the space in a room is saturated with air molecules.

I think you just contradicted yourself.

You agree that the question requires a causation for an answer, then you say it does not answer the question.

In an infinite inverse of there is no possible question of a first cause and a reason why the universe exists. The question itself is meaningless. Outside of theism there are two choices. The universe always existed and always will, or it wnked into existence from nothing.



Ask why rocks exist I can quote cosmology, star formation, and planet formation. A particular rock traces nack through an infinite sequence of causalities.

 

[Elixir]

“Why” is an ask for a description of a prior state that gave rise to the one under question. Positing an eternal universe does not dispense with the question.

Can there be areas of nothing? Sure. There’s a chance that all the air molecules in a room will gather on the south half of the room. That state won’t last if it does occur. The known universe is saturated with photons in similar manner that the space in a room is saturated with air molecules.

I think you just contradicted yourself.

I don't see it. Lacking the ability to observe the absence of all possible things within a space is not the same as claiming "nothing" cannot exist. What is displaced from the space where a virtual particle appears? And for how long? Does "nothing" require some minimum duration to qualify as "nothing", or is Planck time sufficient?

 

[Elixir]

First, is there anything?
We assume so as a basic premise when we ask why there is something instead of nothing. But even in science, and definitely in religion, the illusory nature of reality itself makes the question’s foundation suspect.

 

[bilby]

The Casimir Effect provides experimental evidence that any non-zero volume of spacetime contains mass-energy, and that the proportion of that mass-energy that exists as massive particles is as predicted by Quantum Field Theory.

QFT says that an absence of mass-energy isn't a possible condition for a non-zero volume of spacetime, and the confirmation of the existence of scalar fields with non-zero energy minima by CERN further supports this (so far) perfectly accurate description of reality at small scales and low energies.

It's not unreasonable to say that modern physics has shown that the absence of all matter and energy isn't a possible condition for spacetime. So if people are discussing 'nothing' as a precursor to 'something' when talking cosmology, they are discussing an impossibility - the discussion is no less absurd than if they were discussing perpetual motion machines.

That most people don't understand modern physics well enough to grasp that they're talking nonsensical drivel is not a problem with reality; It's just a problem with their lack of education in modern science. People who try to understand reality in Newtonian (or worse, pre-Newtonian) terms are simply wrong in the conclusions they will reach. And they are wrong because they didn't do their homework.

Arguing that a given philosophy is possible, when physics says unequivocally that it is not, is pathetic. It's indistinguishable from loudly proclaiming that you didn't bother to learn the basics, but have an important opinion nonetheless. You don't. You're just another midget who hasn't even bothered to accept the offer of a piggyback from the giants of cosmology and physics, and claims to be able to see just fine.

There's a MASSIVE gulf between the reasonable statement "I do not know...", and the completely unreasonable adherence to ignorance that states "We do not know...".

WE do know. Reality is NOT how you claim it to be unless it conforms with physics. YOU don't know because you dropped physics classes in favour of something else; You abdicated any right to philosophise on cosmology when you made that choice, and unless you ho back to school and learn enough Quantum Physics to challenge the current scientific consensus, you have no further useful contribution to make to the debate.

Why is there something rather than nothing? For the same reason there are machines but no perpetual motion machines - the latter is physically impossible and cannot ever exist or ever have existed.

A universe that contains nothing is a non-coherent description. The nonexistence of a universe is no better. When your arguments rest on physical impossibility as a starting point, they are shit arguments, and should be discarded.

 

[steve_bank]

“Why” is an ask for a description of a prior state that gave rise to the one under question. Positing an eternal universe does not dispense with the question.

Can there be areas of nothing? Sure. There’s a chance that all the air molecules in a room will gather on the south half of the room. That state won’t last if it does occur. The known universe is saturated with photons in similar manner that the space in a room is saturated with air molecules.

I think you just contradicted yourself.

I don't see it. Lacking the ability to observe the absence of all possible things within a space is not the same as claiming "nothing" cannot exist. What is displaced from the space where a virtual particle appears? And for how long? Does "nothing" require some minimum duration to qualify as "nothing", or is Planck time sufficient?

You are drifting into pre science metaphysics used to explain reality.

Enumerate the possibilities.

Creationism without explaining the creator. (Drew)
Eternal universe.
Universe from nothing.

Have I missed anything? Which is more likley?

Eternal unverse removes the why question. Are you arguing universe out of non existence is a possibility?

 

[bilby]

What is displaced from the space where a virtual particle appears? And for how long?

This is a Newtonian question regarding a Quantum reality.

A particle (whether or not you call it 'virtual') isn't a discreet entity, like a cannonball only much smaller; It's a local maximum in one or more fields.

Reality is a collection of fields, whose values vary over spacetime in ways predicted by Quantum Field Theory.

QFT says that there are no conditions where all fields have a zero value; This is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of fields whose energy minima occur at non-zero values. Such fields have been confirmed experimentally.

 

[Gospel]

Why is there something instead of nothing is an erroneous question. For there to be nothing it's essential for nothing itself to not be. As such, in order for nothing itself to be nonexistent something is required. We have both nothing & something as a result.

 

[Elixir]

Are you arguing universe out of non existence is a possibility?

It has been argued... by Lawrence Krauss. Here's a lay (Philadelphia Inquirer) interpretation:

Out of nothing, the whole universe

"There are lots of ways for nothing to produce something," said Krauss, who wrote The Physics of Star Trek and will speak Wednesday at Philadelphia's Ethical Humanist Society. Nothing can even give rise to a whole lot of something, as he described in A Universe From Nothing.

First, you have to clearly define nothing, since it isn't an official scientific term. Scientists talk about empty space as well as a state in which space and time themselves don't exist. Either type of nothing can spontaneously produce stuff.

Empty space, as it turns out, can't be perfectly empty. Every type of matter has an equal and opposite counterpart, and pairs of particles and their anti-particles can spontaneously emerge from empty space and then disappear again.

One consequence of quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle is that a vacuum cannot remain perfectly empty forever. Not only will particles pop in and out of existence without violating the laws of physics, they have to.

IANAP, Steve. I take it that you are, though your certitude argues against that...
If there is a counter-argument to Krauss, then
a) I probably won't understand it
b) Why aren't you out there making a name for yourself?

 

[steve_bank]

Much ado about nothing.

Why is there something instead of nothing is an erroneous question. For there to be nothing it's essential for nothing itself to not be. As such, in order for nothing itself to be nonexistent something is required. We have both nothing & something as a result.

I'm sorry but your post has me laughing and rolling on the floor uncontrollably. Traditional mystical mumbo jumbo.

Are yiu familiar with Depak Chopra? He is an expert at mystifying people with a blend of mysticism and science.

Regardless we still get up and have a bowel movement, urinate, eat, and go to work.

 

[Elixir]

Much ado about nothing.

That’s awesome!!