Why is there Something instead of Nothing?

[steve_bank]

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?

There is no scientific way to prove origins of the universe. The BB Theory does not define how the initil conditions came to be.

From the Laws Of Thermodynamics conservation, matter can not be created or destroyed. Only the form chnages. I applied that principle as an engineer. There have never benn any exceptions observed and the principle itself can not be proven.

To me something form noting makes no sense a infinite universe does.

Arguing something form nothing sells books but to me it is nonsense. Something occurring without causation wooed not result in the stable universe that gives rise to life on Earth.

You can find support for any philosophical position on the net from people with academic credentials.

The problem with philosophy and logic is that a logically valid syllogism can be constucted that does not bear out in reality. Given that the premises are true, the conclusion follows as long as there are no logical fallacies.

Yiou can define nothing anything you like and construct a valid logical argument that says something comes from nothing.

That us the difference between sceince and religion/philosophy. Science is tied to unambiguous physical definitions not subject to interpretation. Systems International.

Dispense with causality and y0u can prove and believ in anything. Casting spells, magic crtystals.

 

[Elixir]

Well, Krauss is a fairly preeminent figure in physics, not some random equal-and-opposite "expert". And he is not arguing semantics or casting spells.
Even though an engineering perspective prohibits "something from nothing"*, it seems that the physical laws do permit it as far as we know.

*I am not convinced that engineering so much prohibits "something from nothing", as much as simply having no use for it.

 

[Gospel]

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.

I'm laughing as well. I wish I had the ability to articulate what I mean. I'll try again (because this is fun) and I'm serious.

Let's say the condition of nothingness is achieved. It wouldn't be a perfect condition of nothingness because it would be in a nothingness condition. The perfect state of nothingness is nothingness itself not being achieved as that would bring it to a condition. This is why we have something because having nothing is not possible with it being a condition.

Nothingness is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing by not existing. See?

 

[abaddon]

I'm laughing as well. I wish I had the ability to articulate what I mean. I'll try again (because this is fun) and I'm serious.

Let's say the condition of nothingness is achieved. It wouldn't be a perfect condition of nothingness because it would be in a nothingness condition. The perfect state of nothingness is nothingness itself not being achieved as that would bring it to a condition. This is why we have something because having nothing is not possible with it being a condition.

Nothingness is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing by not existing. See?

Yes it is fun.

And yes, I agree that nothingness is an incoherent concept. By it's very definition it cannot "be".

Which is why the question "Why something instead of nothing?" is a silly question.

The askers aren't looking for the mechanical explanation of "How" particles poof out of a vacuum, because even empty space is a something.

They're expressing surprise at existence. Similarly to how someone would express surprise if he found a 100 foot tall statue in his yard. He was expecting "nothing" but grass to be there. But now there's a huge something there so he wonders "how did that come to be there?!"

But here the question's being asked of a universe. The universe is like something that just showed up in the yard, except there's no yard. So they try to articulate how there's no yard by inventing the notion of Absolute Nothingness.

It's not advocacy for the nothingness. Probably the persons for whom this question feels meaningful don't accept not-being (or "absolute nothingness") as a real possibility any more than you or I do. It's rather a leading question, a set-up for God to be the alternative to that absolute nothingness.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

So, let's just play a little language game...

Everything that is, exists.

That which does not exist is not a thing.

That which is not a thing is no thing, "nothing"

Nothing is that which does not exist.

Nothing does not exist.

That which does not exist is nothing, and there are many things that do not exist. If the universe did not exist, it would be part of "nothing".

Therefore if there was only "nothing", that which does not exist, and of which includes a nonexistent universe, the universe would be right there inside all that nothing!

It all comes down to the fact that nothing is, in fact, a lot bigger than we expect it to be.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, Krauss is a fairly preeminent figure in physics, not some random equal-and-opposite "expert". And he is not arguing semantics or casting spells.
Even though an engineering perspective prohibits "something from nothing"*, it seems that the physical laws do permit it as far as we know.

*I am not convinced that engineering so much prohibits "something from nothing", as much as simply having no use for it.

Newton was a theist as was Galileo.

A scientist speculating on something does not make it science or valid. Argument from authority or credentials is assuming truth simply because one has say a PHD.

I worked with very competent engineers who were Christian creationists.

To be true science something to be science it has to be testable. Something from nothing is not testable.

You buy apples at a store. At home you open the bag and find 3 thinking you had 4. Do you assumne an aple went to nothing or that maybe you miscounted or dropped one.

You find 5 apples, do yiu assume one came from nothng or you miscounted.

Trying to prove something from nothing is analogus to cretinism and proof of god.

It is not an engineering perspective. The Laws Of Thermodynamnics arose out of resaerch and development of steam engines in the 19th century. People tried to build perpetual motion machines.

Conservation of mass and energy is based on experiment. It is fundamental physics. Any exception would be the most significant event ever in science. It would overturn everything.

Get rid of causality and yiu can justify anything.


Yet another internet video quoter.

 

[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.

I'm laughing as well. I wish I had the ability to articulate what I mean. I'll try again (because this is fun) and I'm serious.

Let's say the condition of nothingness is achieved. It wouldn't be a perfect condition of nothingness because it would be in a nothingness condition. The perfect state of nothingness is nothingness itself not being achieved as that would bring it to a condition. This is why we have something because having nothing is not possible with it being a condition.

Nothingness is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing by not existing. See?

Fun??? My dear fellow this is serious business. I don't know what fun is!!!!

 

[Gospel]

Did I do any better at explaing though?

 

[Gospel]

I'm laughing as well. I wish I had the ability to articulate what I mean. I'll try again (because this is fun) and I'm serious.

Let's say the condition of nothingness is achieved. It wouldn't be a perfect condition of nothingness because it would be in a nothingness condition. The perfect state of nothingness is nothingness itself not being achieved as that would bring it to a condition. This is why we have something because having nothing is not possible with it being a condition.

Nothingness is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing by not existing. See?

Yes it is fun.

And yes, I agree that nothingness is an incoherent concept. By it's very definition it cannot "be".

Which is why the question "Why something instead of nothing?" is a silly question.

The askers aren't looking for the mechanical explanation of "How" particles poof out of a vacuum, because even empty space is a something.

They're expressing surprise at existence. Similarly to how someone would express surprise if he found a 100 foot tall statue in his yard. He was expecting "nothing" but grass to be there. But now there's a huge something there so he wonders "how did that come to be there?!"

But here the question's being asked of a universe. The universe is like something that just showed up in the yard, except there's no yard. So they try to articulate how there's no yard by inventing the notion of Absolute Nothingness.

It's not advocacy for the nothingness. Probably the persons for whom this question feels meaningful don't accept not-being (or "absolute nothingness") as a real possibility any more than you or I do. It's rather a leading question, a set-up for God to be the alternative to that absolute nothingness.

Well. I did try to answer the question. I'm essentially saying that something is a direct result of nothing by stating the condition of perfect nothingness requires that the condition of nothingness itself not be reached. This denotes that something has always existed and always will. Which if I recall correctly, describes a God.



Are there any Theist belief systems that consider all of existence the single body of God? Maybe they should look into those. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[bilby]

I'm laughing as well. I wish I had the ability to articulate what I mean. I'll try again (because this is fun) and I'm serious.

Let's say the condition of nothingness is achieved. It wouldn't be a perfect condition of nothingness because it would be in a nothingness condition. The perfect state of nothingness is nothingness itself not being achieved as that would bring it to a condition. This is why we have something because having nothing is not possible with it being a condition.

Nothingness is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing by not existing. See?

Yes it is fun.

And yes, I agree that nothingness is an incoherent concept. By it's very definition it cannot "be".

Which is why the question "Why something instead of nothing?" is a silly question.

The askers aren't looking for the mechanical explanation of "How" particles poof out of a vacuum, because even empty space is a something.

They're expressing surprise at existence. Similarly to how someone would express surprise if he found a 100 foot tall statue in his yard. He was expecting "nothing" but grass to be there. But now there's a huge something there so he wonders "how did that come to be there?!"

But here the question's being asked of a universe. The universe is like something that just showed up in the yard, except there's no yard. So they try to articulate how there's no yard by inventing the notion of Absolute Nothingness.

It's not advocacy for the nothingness. Probably the persons for whom this question feels meaningful don't accept not-being (or "absolute nothingness") as a real possibility any more than you or I do. It's rather a leading question, a set-up for God to be the alternative to that absolute nothingness.

Well. I did try to answer the question. I'm essentially saying that something is a direct result of nothing by stating the condition of perfect nothingness requires that the condition of nothingness itself not be reached. This denotes that something has always existed and always will. Which if I recall correctly, describes a God.



Are there any Theist belief systems that consider all of existence the single body of God? Maybe they should look into those. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A god might be described as having always existed, but that doesn't mean that something that's always existed is necessarily a god.

In the same way that fire trucks are red, but that doesn't mean that anything red is a fire truck.

 

[Gospel]

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.

OMG is that me?

 

[bilby]

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.

OMG is that me?

Only if you are the official accredited representative of Philosophy^TM

 

[Elixir]

Conservation of mass and energy is based on experiment.

So are virtual particles.
One of my favorite quotes has to do with the likelihood of an elderly, respected scientist’s proclamations of what is and is not possible …

 

[steve_bank]

Conservation of mass and energy is based on experiment.

So are virtual particles.
One of my favorite quotes has to do with the likelihood of an elderly, respected scientist’s proclamations of what is and is not possible …

The key word is 'virtual'....

As I rectal it is more a computational method. There is a mathematical method called Method Of Images applied to emanate design. Codifier a vetrcal pole antenna. The metod imagines a mioor image of the antenna in the ground, it makes analysis easyier

In digital control systems there can be virtual states of the system. A virtual state does not exist physically, it is a mathematical state that makes a transition between two physical states possible.


Any physicly realizable theory will not violate the Laws Of Thermodynamics.

If you understand differential equations and 2nd order systens I can create an electrical circuit that oscillates forever,i it violates 2nd Law and can not be built. I posted an example on science.

Osscilators, Energy, and Conservation

Doodling to ward off brain fog. An example of energy and conservation, a parallel electrical circuit, a resonator. The electrical equivalent to a swinging pendulum. It numericaly solves a second order differntial equation. In physical systems 2nd order infers two forms of energy storage. In...

iidb.org

So, for a model or theory having logical and mathematical consistency is not sufficient proof of anything.

There is scince directly demostatble by experiment. Newton's Laws Of Motion and gravity. Time dilation.

There is s[speculative mathemetical science like the BB theory.

There is pop science more for entertainment like 'something from nothing'. Mako did a numer of pop scince shows that I call phatasmagorical. Theory carried to extrems like time travel through a black hole. Intersting but enetrtainment.

In the 90s Hawking wrote he could prove that the universe could 'create itself', causing a minor theological response. He also said black holes were god's way of keeping us from some knowledge or something like that, so lets see more of those internet revelations.

The curious metaphysics of Dr. Stephen Hawking

Why would a preeminent physicist make the claim that the universe can come from nothing? Dr. Stephen Hawking This is precisely what Dr. Stephen Hawkin...

www.catholiceducation.org

his statement betrays Hawking's fundamental assumption about the universe, namely that it came from nothing. But why would a preeminent physicist assume that the universe came from nothing? Presumably, because he believes that there are reasons for thinking that the universe had a beginning.

If Hawking said the unverse had a beginning it must be true, argument from credentials. We have to be skeptical of both what we consider mainstream science and purveyors of pseudo science.

The philosophizing of a prominent scientist is not necessarily science, unless you are a 'science believer' in the sense of a biblical literalist Christian.

BTW I am working on an electric car that actually chages the battery as it drives. It never needs recharging. I am looking for investors, interested?

 

[bilby]

The key word is 'virtual'...

No, it really isn't.

The Casimir Effect demonstrates what QFT theorises about virtual particles - that they are 100% real. The distinction between 'virtual' and 'real' particles is an historical hangover with no validity; 'Virtual' now simply means 'short lived' in this context.

 

[fromderinside]

The key word is 'virtual'...

No, it really isn't.

The Casimir Effect demonstrates what QFT theorises about virtual particles - that they are 100% real. The distinction between 'virtual' and 'real' particles is an historical hangover with no validity; 'Virtual' now simply means 'short lived' in this context.

Isn't Casimir Effect a demonstration that there are waves everywhere all the time? If that is so what do you mean by virtual? What does one mean by short-lived if waves are everywhere all the time? What is the limit? Is it a maximum frequency or minimum energy? Or are we depending on there being some wave aspect there all the time that there is no minimum quantum.

 

[atrib]

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.

Yes, something exists. At a minimum, there is a quantum-mechanical wave function that permeates all of spacetime, and evolves over time. When portions of this wave function are observed, it collapses into the particles and forms we experience with our senses. We don't know why this happens, just that it does.

 

[Elixir]

The philosophizing of a prominent scientist is not necessarily science, unless you are a 'science believer' in the sense of a biblical literalist Christian.

That red herring seems designed to distract from your flat assertion that “something from nothing” is impossible.
Again, I am reminded:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

Also, see the correction you were offered regarding the reality of “virtual” particles.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Yes, something exists. At a minimum, there is a quantum-mechanical wave function that permeates all of spacetime, and evolves over time. When portions of this wave function are observed, it collapses into the particles and forms we experience with our senses. We don't know why this happens, just that it does.

No, at a bare minimum "there is a phenomena which exists, to which some thing is happening" is true. Everything else is just a really well supported assumption.

 

[atrib]

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?

The highlighted part is important. I have heard scientists like Sean Carroll say the same thing. Either condition - a universe from empty space, or from nonexistence of spacetime - is permitted under the known laws of physics. Krauss and Hawking both advocate(d) for the latter condition (creation from nonexistent spacetime), while Penrose and Carroll appear to favor the former.