Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

[Royce]

Some time ago in a thread by Canute I made the statement that we have only two alternatives to the beginning of this universe. Either something, the Big Bang, etc, came from nothing or something is eternal. Of course it is indeterminant or undecidable; but, we all have beliefs and/or opinions.

When I say nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not a quantum vacuum, a singularity or anything else. I mean nothing.

When I say something is eternal, I mean that it could be the universe or some other universe ad infinitum that could be eternal not just a creator, God spirit or some other metaphysical entity. Something is eternal meaning it has no beginning, no end; is, was and always will be.

I am just curious what we all think, or maybe I should say believe, about this.

Did something come from nothing or is something eternal?

Of course I want not just your votes but your thoughts, beliefs and opinions and why's on this subject also.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In quantum theory there cannot be literally nothing because of uncertainty. This is a behavior, not an essence, so it falls between your two stools.

 

[loseyourname]

When faced with a question that cannot possibly be answered, no matter how well we can model each possibility, why hold a belief? Why the heck would anyone even care?

 

[PerennialII]

Even though I agree that the question itself should be subjected to some further scrutiny, I'm with the existence of "something" ad infinitum on this. Presenting arguments for and against however seems somewhat pointless, I suppose I just can't swallow the concept of nothingness what comes to physical basis.

 

[Royce]

In quantum theory there cannot be literally nothing because of uncertainty. This is a behavior, not an essence, so it falls between your two stools.

No, SA, Quantum Theory did not and could not come into play or being until there was something such as matter, space, time, after the Big Bang. I'm asking about before the Big Bang. Where did it come from if it happened at all.
We can be pretty sure that the universe is not steady state but is it eternal going from Big Bang to Big Crunch eternally or does it pulsate without a Big Bang or Big Crunch forever? Or was it created or spawned from another Universe? Or was it created by some eternal entity, force, energy etc.

If nothing is eternal then we are forced to accept that this universe came from nothing. Unless you or anyone else can come up with another viable alternative.

 

[Royce]

When faced with a question that cannot possibly be answered, no matter how well we can model each possibility, why hold a belief? Why the heck would anyone even care?

Why not? Most questions in philosophy and especially metaphysics cannot be answered absolutely. In fact very few questions in science can be answered absolutely. I think thinking about this is fun and exercises the brain.

I am also curious about what others think about it.

And, finally, I care and I'm sure many others do too. Even you cared enough to vote and post a reply.

 

[Royce]

Even though I agree that the question itself should be subjected to some further scrutiny, I'm with the existence of "something" ad infinitum on this. Presenting arguments for and against however seems somewhat pointless, I suppose I just can't swallow the concept of nothingness what comes to physical basis.

I have a lot of trouble with it too. But, then, I also have a lot of trouble getting my mind around something eternal also, even God or a creator.

I am really anxious to see if someone can come up with an alternative.

 

[StatusX]

The way you say eternal implies time can exist without a universe. This just isn't true. Time is part of the universe.

 

[Royce]

The way you say eternal implies time can exist without a universe. This just isn't true. Time is part of the universe.

Eternal in this case means simply without beginning and without end.

I agree that time cannot exist without a/the universe. However, if something is eternal such as the universe or universes then time would also be eternal, wouldn't it?

On the other hand if the eternal is spirit such as God we are told that there is no time but the one eternal moment; that time, as we know it, is a property of the physical universe, just as you said, not of the spiritual realm of reality.

Again, it is your choice. Take your pick and tell me why. Of course choosing not to choose is also your option, maybe then vote for #3.

 

[RAD4921]

Nothing from nothing

Some time ago in a thread by Canute I made the statement that we have only two alternatives to the beginning of this universe. Either something, the Big Bang, etc, came from nothing or something is eternal. Of course it is indeterminant or undecidable; but, we all have beliefs and/or opinions.

When I say nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not a quantum vacuum, a singularity or anything else. I mean nothing.

When I say something is eternal, I mean that it could be the universe or some other universe ad infinitum that could be eternal not just a creator, God spirit or some other metaphysical entity. Something is eternal meaning it has no beginning, no end; is, was and always will be.

I am just curious what we all think, or maybe I should say believe, about this.

Did something come from nothing or is something eternal?

Of course I want not just your votes but your thoughts, beliefs and opinions and why's on this subject also.

Someone in this forum wrote me this clever tidbit that I must agree with philosophically.

In the beginning there was nothing and then God said "Let there be light" and there was still nothing but you could see it.

To believe in a world of dualism, body and soul, something and nothing, mind and matter and so on smells foul to me. I don't believe the universe is composed of "substance". Of course this is coming from an ardent idealist.

 

[StatusX]

Eternal in this case means simply without beginning and without end.

Explain what beginning and end mean here without referring to time.

I agree that time cannot exist without a/the universe. However, if something is eternal such as the universe or universes then time would also be eternal, wouldn't it?

Trivially, since, again, eternal only makes sense when talking about time.

On the other hand if the eternal is spirit such as God we are told that there is no time but the one eternal moment; that time, as we know it, is a property of the physical universe, just as you said, not of the spiritual realm of reality.

Of course, believing time is a property of the physical universe has absolutely nothing to do with believing there is an eternal spirit called God.

 

[Tournesol]

http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm

 

[saltydog]

Some time ago in a thread by Canute I made the statement that we have only two alternatives to the beginning of this universe. Either something, the Big Bang, etc, came from nothing or something is eternal. Of course it is indeterminant or undecidable; but, we all have beliefs and/or opinions.

I think there's a third possibility: The universe emerged from a singularity. The concept of "something" and "nothing" , like mass and energy, may not apply across the singularity: different laws of physics apply. The analogy I give is being a water creature and wondering how swimming would be affected when the temperature drops below freezing.

 

[Royce]

To believe in a world of dualism, body and soul, something and nothing, mind and matter and so on smells foul to me. I don't believe the universe is composed of "substance". Of course this is coming from an ardent idealist.

I guess I'm a romantic idealist though those might not be the correct Philosophy terms. I too have a problem with dualism as the word has connotations of separation, here is the body, over there is the mind,soul. I believe it is all part of the one me, indivisible, interactive and interdependent.

Explain what beginning and end mean here without referring to time.

I said that I was using the the word eternal as meaning without beginning and without end, implying without time. If you have a problem with this word and this usage give me a better word to use. Why are you hung up on this and not giving us your opinion or belief?

Trivially, since, again, eternal only makes sense when talking about time.

I don't see the connection, in fact I think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Eternal means for all time, without beginning and without end
making the term time meaningless and nonapplicable

Of course, believing time is a property of the physical universe has absolutely nothing to do with believing there is an eternal spirit called God.

No, it doesn't, I never said that it did; but, then, it doesn't have anything to do with an eternal universe either. What's your point?

http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/...there_was__.htm

Thanks for the link, Tournesol. Its an interesting article.

I think there's a third possibility: The universe emerged from a singularity. The concept of "something" and "nothing" , like mass and energy, may not apply across the singularity: different laws of physics apply. The analogy I give is being a water creature and wondering how swimming would be affected when the temperature drops below freezing.

From what or where then did the singularity originate? As a singularity has no (0) dimensions and infinite mass/energy density it is something, isn't it.

 

[RAD4921]

I guess I'm a romantic idealist though those might not be the correct Philosophy terms. I too have a problem with dualism as the word has connotations of separation, here is the body, over there is the mind,soul. I believe it is all part of the one me, indivisible, interactive and interdependent.


I can see we think a lot alike.

 

[saltydog]

From what or where then did the singularity originate? As a singularity has no (0) dimensions and infinite mass/energy density it is something, isn't it.

From the pre-existence of course. However I feel it ill-poised to ask "from where did the pre-existence come from" since that statement is an attempt to apply concepts, such as cause and effect, applicable on one side of a singularity to the other side: it's a different physics there (my humble opinion anyway).

 

[Philocrat]

Some time ago in a thread by Canute I made the statement that we have only two alternatives to the beginning of this universe. Either something, the Big Bang, etc, came from nothing or something is eternal. Of course it is indeterminant or undecidable; but, we all have beliefs and/or opinions.

When I say nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not a quantum vacuum, a singularity or anything else. I mean nothing.

When I say something is eternal, I mean that it could be the universe or some other universe ad infinitum that could be eternal not just a creator, God spirit or some other metaphysical entity. Something is eternal meaning it has no beginning, no end; is, was and always will be.

I am just curious what we all think, or maybe I should say believe, about this.

Did something come from nothing or is something eternal?

Of course I want not just your votes but your thoughts, beliefs and opinions and why's on this subject also.

As I have repeatedly said in so many of my postings and responses to people's threads on this PF, there has never been any CAUSAL RELATIONS between Something and Nothingness and there will never be one. Since there has never been such a relation, one is irreducible to the other. The only outstanding question is:

HOW TO RECONCILE THE NOTION OF CHANGE WITH SOMETHING THAT HAS ETERNALLY BEEN THERE IN RELATION TO THE NOTION OF STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL PERFECTION OF THINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN FORMS AND CONTINUE TO CHANGE FROM ONE FORM TO THE NEXT?

Yes, Something is eternally there but why things take forms and change from one thing or form to the next is the fundamental issue at stake here. The question that I have repeatedly asked is this:

CAN THINGS STOP CHANGING AND TAKE THEIR FINAL FORMS?

This a priceless question that demands an immediate answer.

 

[RoboSapien]

I am sorry but Even though I am not a theist This question is bloging me.

"If Something can exist without a reason then anything can and so can god ?"

I personally don't like the above line but is the question valid ? , it was asked to me when I was bragging gods validity, and I was left speechless and hence beaten ?

 

[RoboSapien]

Is it possible that there is no time ?

I mean if time is justa illusion of mind then there is no question of start or end its only now ?

But the above line is more mind bogling. But it leaves another question and that is about the size of the universe. Now if time can be illusion the can size too be. I sorry I am confused even though the use of word I has been too mant times by me.

 

[bola]

I believe everything in the universe can be philosophized to an answer by humans.
Therefore, the answer to this question lies in our heads, only we have not yet grasped it.
It seems to me for something to exist for eternity, it would also need to have no time.
If we separate between what is outside the universe, and the universe itself, then the universe(the particles basically) can have a time dimension, but outside the universe there is no time.
Now the question is, have these particles existed all the time, or did they erupt out of nothing?

It seems to me that, the reason humans are unable to conceive the concept of nothing, is because we only see 'nothing' as 'something', a state of something.
But the fact is the meaning of nothing is nothing, which is nothing.
The real question to this puzzle is "why does ANYTHING exist?(the particles in the universe, the dimension outside it should it exist, anything that ever existed on any plane, dimension or level, why does it exist?)

It seems to me that, the universe has never been eternal, it had a big bang, however we don't know if the big bang is a cycle.
But, regardless, let's say we one day answer the question of where all these particles in the universe came from, and why, do we still have the answer?
If it erupted from nothing, or if it has been eternal, then both are without of our reach, both scientifically and philosophically.

In other words, we can never find out why and how the universe started. Maybe our universe, but not why something exists.

 

[saltydog]

Yes, Something is eternally there but why things take forms and change from one thing or form to the next is the fundamental issue at stake here.

I quote Rene' Thom again: "all creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial form, and their replacement by capture by the attractors representing the final form"

The question that I have repeatedly asked is this:
CAN THINGS STOP CHANGING AND TAKE THEIR FINAL FORMS?
This a priceless question that demands an immediate answer.

Things will take their final form when the final attractor is reached: Think of a vase pushed off a table and its "trajectory" to the floor representing the whole of cosmic history: the vase on the edge of the table being the initial attractor, and the broken vase on the floor being the final attractor. Same dif with the universe: the pre-existence being the initial attractor, and whatever the end state of the universe being the final attractor.

Works for me,
Salty

 

[Philocrat]

I quote Rene' Thom again: "all creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial form, and their replacement by capture by the attractors representing the final form"



Things will take their final form when the final attractor is reached: Think of a vase pushed off a table and its "trajectory" to the floor representing the whole of cosmic history: the vase on the edge of the table being the initial attractor, and the broken vase on the floor being the final attractor. Same dif with the universe: the pre-existence being the initial attractor, and whatever the end state of the universe being the final attractor.

Works for me,
Salty

I am glad you think and speak that way. At least you are in your own way beginning to see the BIG Picture. I just get very intellectually frustrated when I see and hear people fruitlessly dwell on the Specs of the BIG Picture!

--------
THINK NATURE...STAY GREEN! ABOVE ALL, NEVER HARM OR DESTROY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CREATE! MAY THE 'BOOK OF NATURE' SERVE YOU WELL AND BRING YOU ALL THAT IS GOOD.

 

[Royce]

From the pre-existence of course. However I feel it ill-poised to ask "from where did the pre-existence come from" since that statement is an attempt to apply concepts, such as cause and effect, applicable on one side of a singularity to the other side: it's a different physics there (my humble opinion anyway).

Again, if there was a pre-existence ad infinitum then something is eternal.
You have not offered an alternative only set new conditions and used new terms.

The only two alternatives available, so far as I can see, are, as stated, either something came from nothing or something is eternal. What that something is or if and how it changes is of no consequence to this question.

 

[Royce]

As I have repeatedly said in so many of my postings and responses to people's threads on this PF, there has never been any CAUSAL RELATIONS between Something and Nothingness and there will never be one. Since there has never been such a relation, one is irreducible to the other. The only outstanding question is:

HOW TO RECONCILE THE NOTION OF CHANGE WITH SOMETHING THAT HAS ETERNALLY BEEN THERE IN RELATION TO THE NOTION OF STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL PERFECTION OF THINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN FORMS AND CONTINUE TO CHANGE FROM ONE FORM TO THE NEXT?

Yes, Something is eternally there but why things take forms and change from one thing or form to the next is the fundamental issue at stake here. The question that I have repeatedly asked is this:

CAN THINGS STOP CHANGING AND TAKE THEIR FINAL FORMS?

This a priceless question that demands an immediate answer.

See my post above in response to Saltydog. And there is no reason to shout. We get it but just don't agree with you or in my case your question has already been answered. Change and chance is designed into the system by the creator and monitored by the One consciousness of which we are all part. This answered include the answer to your next question. No, things cannot and will not ever stop changing and take there final form as there is no final form. A final form would include that time stops in the physical universe and as there is no time as we know it in the spiritual realm then there can be no final anything. What is, always was and always will be, eternally. Though this statement make no sense in a reality of one eternal moment. It is a way for us physical time beings to try to get a grasp of this concept.

 

[saltydog]

Again, if there was a pre-existence ad infinitum then something is eternal.
You have not offered an alternative only set new conditions and used new terms.

The only two alternatives available, so far as I can see, are, as stated, either something came from nothing or something is eternal. What that something is or if and how it changes is of no consequence to this question.

I believe I have: a singularity changes the rules. Your concepts of "something" and "nothing" originate in a universe filled with matter. It's like the water creature. Did I already mention that? You know, once the water freezes, the concept of "swimming" looses meaning. And this is only a simple example. What happens if concepts such as "physical law" loose meaning (which I think it does) across the singularity we call the Big Bang?

Nothing and something may not be the only alternatives in my view and I base that solely from the perspective of how states qualitatively change when singularities are involved. This is my extrapolation of "simple singularities" I see all around me in the world to the Big Bang which I suspect represents a "really qualitative" change involving new physics entirely.

 

[TheDonk]

I don't think you can ever say there is nothing before something because using the word "before" in this way doesn't make sense. This is because the word "before" is time dependant and time can't exist at the same time as nothing because time is something. So what makes up the universe would be eternal.
- - -
What seems weird to me is that I always assume that something that is eternal exists for an infinite amount of time. But i guess this isn't necessary. The universe could exist for 1 trillion years and there isn't anything else.
- - -
Also this was a said a while ago, reply #2:

In quantum theory there cannot be literally nothing because of uncertainty. This is a behavior, not an essence, so it falls between your two stools.

Wouldn't you say that this behaviour or rule is eternal?
Could you say that behaviours are things?
- - -
Or an idea I came up with 3-4 years ago, which I never took seriously, just thought it was a nifty idea:
1/0=infinity
2/0=infinity
anything/0=infinity
anything=infinity*0
In the beginning there was infinite nothingness. The product of that was anything, or in our case, this Universe.

 

[Billy T]

I again agree with bola, but much more below about time below.

...It seems to me that, the reason humans are unable to conceive the concept of nothing, is because we only see 'nothing' as 'something', a state of something.
But the fact is the meaning of nothing is nothing, which is nothing.
The real question to this puzzle is "why does ANYTHING exist?(the particles in the universe, the dimension outside it should it exist, anything that ever existed on any plane, dimension or level, why does it exist?)

It seems to me that, the universe has never been eternal, it had a big bang, however we don't know if the big bang is a cycle.
But, regardless, let's say we one day answer the question of where all these particles in the universe came from, and why, do we still have the answer?
If it erupted from nothing, or if it has been eternal, then both are without of our reach, both scientifically and philosophically.

In other words, we can never find out why and how the universe started. Maybe our universe, but not why something exists.

Many, myself included, tend to think of time as if it were flowing from the past into the future and in some mysterious way changing things as it passes, but I think this is demonstrable wrong. Really we never observe time. "Time" need not, and probably does not, exist and this can be demonstrated with mathematical rigor. Now for that demonstration:
What we actually observe is something changing, not time. I'll take a changing observable related to time, the continuously moving hands of a clock, but any changing observable would do. (The mathematical formulation I give is general.) These hands advance in relation to some other change, specifically in the case of a grandfather clock, they correlate with the swings of the pendulum.
Let me now state it more generally: Event "A" is an observable changing function of time, "t" or A(t) = a(t) where the functional form of a(t) could be 15sin(7t) if the observable event A were the oscillatory positions of a pendulum, swinging with amplitude 15 in some system of units. (I use this example, despite its having repetive occurances of "A" because the inverse function has a well know name and that helps in my specific illustration/example.) Likewise some other changing observable event, say B(t), which if you still need specifics you could consider to be the position of Mars in its journey around the sun, but let's be general.
We have two equations:
A(t)=a(t) and B(t)= b(t). Inverting (Solving each separately for "t") we get: t=a'(A) and t=b'(B). As I fear some are already confused, i.e. not with me any longer, I will briefly return to the specific example: This inversion of the equations with the prior specific example: A(t) = 15 sin(7t) leads to 7t = arcsin(A/15) or t= {arcsin(A/15)}/7 which for convenience and generality, I have called a'(A). (The function form of a' ,which was an "arcsin" in this specific example, is only expressible in the general case symbolically and I have chosen a'(A) to represent it.)
Becomeing more general still by considering some othe observable, C, I get:
t = c'(C) etc. for every observable in the universe. Now eliminating time from all equations of the universe (and this is the proof that it is not needed to describe all observables in the universe) we have:
a'(A) = b'(B) = c'(C) = ...
That is every observable in the universe can in principle be related directly to any other observable without any reference to time.

Elimainating time from all physics would be an extremely useless thing to do. It is much easier to describe all event as if they were function of this wonderful, but unobservable construct of man, we call time. But the "passing of time" is not the cause of anything. (Events cause events.) Time is a very convenient invention of man, a parameter in our equations, as I have just demonstrated with mathematical rigor. Becoming specific again to make sure all can follow:

I am not growing older because of the passing of time. I am growing older because of causal events in my body. For example, in my joints small crystals are forming, when my cells divide, their telomares are growing shorter, etc. "Time passing" has nothing to do with my aging. Time causes nothing. Man invented time, but not by any conscious process. It is just the way we tend to think, like we once did that the world was the center of the universe, sun going arround, etc. ("natural assumptions", formed prior to knowledge) Without education, science and math we would still have more of these naturally assumed truths and hold them strongly. Slowly, one by one, man is gaining a more correct view.
Unfortunately, few yet realize (and few will even accept despite the aforegoing mathematical proof) that time is one of these "natural assumptions" of man and not any real thing that flows from the past to the future, making changes as it passes.

Because of this view, which most will find very strange, I can not vote on questions about the nature of something that does not exist or cause anything, anymore than I could vote on a question about the color of elephant eggs (red or blue -you try to vote on their color and you will at least understand why I can not vote on the question of this thread.)

 

[Chronos]

It is impossible to formulate an internally consistent description of philosophical nothing. The philosophical definition is therefore meaningless as it is impossible to falsify.

On the other hand, a meaningful physical definition is possible - specifically somethings are particles or quantas of of energy. Since it is logical to define nothing as the absence of something, 'nothing' is anyplace devoid of a particle or quanta of energy. On very tiny scales, there are regions of space that are totally devoid of any form of energy. Due to quantum fluctuations, tiny bursts of energy randomly appear and disappear in these empty regions. Not only can something emerge from nothing, nothing can emerge from something.

 

[RoboSapien]

... Due to quantum fluctuations, tiny bursts of energy randomly appear and disappear in these empty regions. Not only can something emerge from nothing, nothing can emerge from something.

Was this practically demonstrated anywhere or is it even a theory proven atleast

 

[Royce]

I thought this thread was quietly going away due to lack of interest, which was okay with me.
None of you seem to be able to grasp that I was speaking in absolutes. That and you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of absolutely nothing. No energy, no matter, no time, no space, no location, direction, dimension - nothing. No quantum field, no Higgs field - nothing - nothing what so ever. There is no room to squirm or try to beat or change the rules because there are no rules, there is nothing.

The alternative to absolutely nothing is absolutely something. What something is or could be is not important or relevant, just that something exist. So the statement remains and is still, I think, valid with only two alternatives, something is eternal or something came from nothing.
I am not saying that before something was nothing as time does not enter into the picture either. Very simply something exists without beginning and without end forever of some thing came from nothing. Something, whatever it may be, originated without reason or cause from nothing.

 

[sd01g]

E-nothing

Hello Royce: I have enjoyed your posts in thread. This is a difficult subject with many

opinions. Perhaps a different slant to the discussion? Consider NOTHING to be a concept with

two different components: Empirical 'nothing' and Rational 'nothing' which have different

meanings. Empirical nothing is what is left when sensory input can detect nothing smaller.
There could be something there which is too small to detect so it is concluded that there is

nothing there. Rational nothing is the 'nothing' which is the opposite to 'something.' This

'nothing' is the absolute of NO THING. There is no thing in this nothing from which anything

can originate. To say that that something comes from 'rational nothing' negates the meaning

of rational nothing. We would do well to consider two different words for these two different

concepts.

Conclusion: Something can originate from E-nothing but no thing can originate from R-nothing.

What do you think? Does it make sense or is it trivial or at worst, nonsensical?

 

[Royce]

Yes it makes sense; and, it may help some see the difference and get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

Absolutely NO-THING What-so-ever! NO-THING material, NO-THING subjective, even NO-THING spiritual. No Cause, No reason, NO-THING.

In other threads a while back I referred it to null-space or a void. Another way to look at it is, if the Universe is everything that exists then nothing is that which is outside of the universe.

The Universal set is the set of everything, the universe. Nothing is the empty set that is not of the Universal set of everything. Something is of the Universal set of everything and not of the set of Nothing.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I've never seen something that can not be divided in my mind in some way or antoher. If nothing is the originator and everything keeps on dividing, how is it that everything is not an eternal entity?

I always like to put things into simple math, which is almost perfect logic.:
When one says that something came from nothing they are saying that 1 came from 0. When we are talking about the material world, I'm sorry, but that just can't happen...

 

[force5]

I voted that there has always been something going on. And, there will always be something going on. Of course, we will not be going along for the ride. In any case, I had to draw on my physics knowledge to come to this conclusion many years ago.

 

[eNathan]

If something came from "nothing" than that "nothing" was really "something" in first place. something has to have ALWAYS been in which there was no begining.