Why something rather than nothing?

[debra]

Just suppose for one moment that the universe is made from mathematics implemented in information. Pls forget atoms, energy, space for one moment.

Well, information could be thought of as 1s and 0s or simply numbers.

So suppose we are right and the universe is made entirely from numbers.
JN? Sure, because numbers need no place or space to exist. They exist
in nothing. Its beautifully self-consistent, can't you see?

its the numbers existing in nothingness that make what we think of as something.
So simple.

 

[apeiron]

Causality? That is again simple, its cause before effect, and is a very simple mathematical
law that shapes time - why? Because it logically must shape time. Back to intelligence you see.

Any references?

 

[Galteeth]

How does it regress things? The argument is about dissolving what we know to exist back into some kind of pre-existence. And that would include BOTH laws and initial conditions, both the local substances and the global forms.

So in this view, both laws and the stuff constrained by law are just a vague potential, a forment of possibility. Then they both emerge together, synergistically.

There is no need for an external realm of meta-law that then makes the emerging laws "lawful" because this is an internalist logic (as regards the development of both the initial conditions and the laws). There is no "outside".

It is a self-making or bootstrapping, background independent, approach to causality...in complete contrast to the usual anglo-saxon background dependent models, where there is assumed to be a fixed background of a creating god, or eternal physical law, or Platonic mathematical form, or some other external cause.

Infinite regress is a problem for background dependent stories, not internalist ones which are creating their own backgrounds out of much less than nothing (ie: vagueness).

Well, that would be the claim which you might want to examine.

Ok, I re-read your post a bit more carefully, and I agree. As I said, this was very similar to what I had thought of (another image was a computer generating completely random sequences until one of the sequences contained a coherent story or program.) I still find some hints of a pre-existing structure (some laws contradict other laws, destroying them). If that process was totally random, even the relationship amongst laws, you could end up with totally absurd possibilities! I supposse it makes as much sense as any other explanation.

 

[debra]

A computer generating random sequences would not be necessary because intelligences exist and could work out what to generate. An intelligence? An advanced form of ours or computer evolved intelligence. It seems required to evolve over time since only one-step intelligence exists initially.

 

[Galteeth]

A computer generating random sequences would not be necessary because intelligences exist and could work out what to generate. An intelligence? An advanced form of ours or computer evolved intelligence. It seems required to evolve over time since only one-step intelligence exists initially.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that at all. Could you clarify?

 

[jocaxx]

I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge, and when something emerges that is internally consistent, by chance, it will appear as a rationally governed universe because consciousness is dependent on consistent laws (anthropic principle type reasoning). I think Boltzmann had a similar idea too.

There are 2 thinks that make it the Jocaxian-Nothingness a new Idea:

1-The logic cause of 'why' the nothingness can generate something: 'The lack of laws'

2-The answer of the question 'why our laws follow the logic'?
because the 'mutations' (random generation) and 'natural selection' of this mutation.

I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge,

Yes, it is an idea as old as civilisation. But surprisingly little considered in Western mainstream thinking.

.
The news is the *CAUSE* of why the nothing can generate something.

How does it regress things? The argument is about dissolving what we know to exist back into some kind of pre-existence. And that would include BOTH laws and initial conditions, both the local substances and the global forms.

I don't know if I understand but, if we have the minimal state possible,
the universe in its simpliest (minimal) conditions,
then we don't need something to cause this, because anything else is more complex
than the nothingness.

 

[apeiron]

Ok, I re-read your post a bit more carefully, and I agree. As I said, this was very similar to what I had thought of (another image was a computer generating completely random sequences until one of the sequences contained a coherent story or program.)

Another mental image could be Per Bak's sandhills.

Because I model vagueness as being about symmetry and symmetry breaking, we can imagine it as a realm of fluctuating possibility at criticality. Most of the fluctuations would damp out - be swamped by neighbouring fluctuations. But then this sea of fluctuations would eventually find some direction in which to symmetry-break and would undergo a phase transition to some cooler, more ordered, regime.

So as with the avalanches on sandhills, most would be small slips. But occasionally very large events can occur, taking the energy of many potential smaller ones with them.

Kind of like Linde's fractal spawning multiverse story of inflation too. And the hypothesised scalar inflaton field is indeed the kind of vague fluctuating state which could spontaneously breaking into an expanding and cooling more ordered solution - a big bang that becomes a heat death void like our universe for example.

(Though an inflaton field itself is too concrete a state, not actually vague enough, IMHO. So I'm not a huge fan of inflation mechanisms as such. Inflation immediately brings up infinite regress again as you would point out.)

 

[apeiron]

There are 2 thinks that make it the Jocaxian-Nothingness a new Idea:

1-The logic cause of 'why' the nothingness can generate something: 'The lack of laws'

2-The answer of the question 'why our laws follow the logic'?
because the 'mutations' (random generation) and 'natural selection' of this mutation.

So if this is all that is new about it, then nothing is new about it.

Circa 560 BC...

For Anaximander, the principle of things, the constituent of all substances, is nothing determined and not an element such as water in Thales' view. Neither is it something halfway between air and water, or between air and fire, thicker than air and fire, or more subtle than water and earth.[15] Anaximander argues that water cannot embrace all of the opposites found in nature — for example, water can only be wet, never dry — and therefore cannot be the one primary substance; nor could any of the other candidates. He postulated the apeiron as a substance that, although not directly perceptible to us, could explain the opposites he saw around him.

Anaximander explains how the four elements of ancient physics (air, earth, water and fire) are formed, and how Earth and terrestrial beings are formed through their interactions. Unlike other Pre-Socratics, he never defines this principle precisely, and it has generally been understood (e.g., by Aristotle and by Saint Augustine) as a sort of primal chaos. According to him, the Universe originates in the separation of opposites in the primordial matter. It embraces the opposites of hot and cold, wet and dry, and directs the movement of things; an entire host of shapes and differences then grow that are found in "all the worlds" (for he believed there were many).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander#Apeiron

 

[baywax]

Anaximander argues that water cannot embrace all of the opposites found in nature — for example, water can only be wet, never dry

Anaximander must have never been to Inuit country (Arctic Circle). The (water in the form of ice) is a dry as salt there!

 

[apeiron]

Anaximander must have never been to Inuit country (Arctic Circle). The (water in the form of ice) is a dry as salt there!

The Inuits must be a thirsty bunch if they can only find "dry" water up there. But I guess the ocean of salt surrounding me is not really a suitable "wetness" either. What exactly was your odd point here?

Anaximander was apparently a considerable explorer, founding a colony in Thrace, it is said. He also drew the first known world map it is claimed. But yes, the artic circle was probably not familiar to him.

 

[Phrak]

My take on 'Nothing'.

Nothing is better than a Cold Beer.
A Warm Beer is better than Nothing.
Therefore a Warm Beer is better than a Cold One.

 

[baywax]

The Inuits must be a thirsty bunch if they can only find "dry" water up there. But I guess the ocean of salt surrounding me is not really a suitable "wetness" either. What exactly was your odd point here?

Anaximander was apparently a considerable explorer, founding a colony in Thrace, it is said. He also drew the first known world map it is claimed. But yes, the artic circle was probably not familiar to him.

You never know. My point was that opposites can be provided by the same subject matter, in a different state form. For instance, a living thing can only be dead if it was living so the living thing provides its own opposite. Water, while wet in one state, can actually burn you in another state (ice).

This would make the idea of "something coming out of nothing" an easy concept to accept. The fact that different states change the behaviour of an element to the extreme of being an opposite form and function suggests that the same could be true of "nothing" when it changes states. Obviously, in this case, the state of nothing changes to "something" and is manifest the way water can change to ice... under proper conditions.

I'd like to know more about Anaximander and his map making and I'll give that an ogle. Thanks!

 

[jocaxx]

Originally Posted by jocaxx
There are 2 thinks that make it the Jocaxian-Nothingness a new Idea:

1-The logic cause of 'why' the nothingness can generate something: 'The lack of laws'

2-The answer of the question 'why our laws follow the logic'?
because the 'mutations' (random generation) and 'natural selection' of this mutation.
So if this is all that is new about it, then nothing is new about it.

Circa 560 BC...

He did not say that the LACK OF LAWS is the REASON to things pop into existence.
Beyoind this he assume some substance how pre-conditions:

"... He postulated the apeiron as a substance that, although not directly perceptible to us, could explain the opposites he saw around him..."

He did not say 'apeiron' is the nothingness, also could be God.
And he did not say anything about laws or rules. Its is essential to Nj theory.
.

 

[century1800]

Existence

What if existence does not exist as such (what science studies now)? Why existence exists? Why there is what is called life? Why do we have to be here in the first place? Why do we have to exist? Why there is what is called existence? Why existence exists as such?

I think some of the questions have been questions from time immemorial. I can’t help but ask and keep asking. Something in life is great beyond comprehension.

 

[Richard87]

You can't have a top without a bottom.
You can’t have up without down.
You can’t have left without right.
You can’t have in without out.
You can't have nothing without something. Therefore something must exist.

 

[century1800]

Yes, something must exist because that is how existence is patterned or existed as such and our understanding is limited to such pattern/framework; therefore it still does not answer the question ‘why existence existed as such (pattern/framework)’. This reality is beyond comprehension and makes human dumbfounded.

 

[jocaxx]

Why existence exists? ...Why there is what is called existence?

because the nothingness is not stable.

(There is no law to force, to keep, it be a nothing for ever.)

What if existence does not exist as such (what science studies now)? ...
Why there is what is called life? Why do we have to be here in the first place?... Why existence exists as such?

Look for "The Destropic Principle"
or : http://www.genismo.com/englishtext_03.htm

Why do we have to exist?

We do not !
We are here by chance.

 

[Richard87]

You can't have nothing without something, much as you can't have in without out, left without right etc.

 

[Newai]

You can't have a top without a bottom.
You can’t have up without down.
You can’t have left without right.
You can’t have in without out.
You can't have nothing without something. Therefore something must exist.

I don't see why. A bleuarghimort does not exist beyond the word I made up for it. Because it does not exist, there has to be something that does exist in its place?

 

[jocaxx]

You can't have nothing without something, much as you can't have in without out, left without right etc.

I do not think so.
In the universe, for example, we can have NO unicorn.
Or , in some time , we can have life or not have it !
I do not think it is a general and absolute law of the universe, at most
some rule of the our language in order to define some concepts !

I don't see why. A bleuarghimort does not exist beyond the word I made up for it. Because it does not exist, there has to be something that does exist in its place?

Yes, I agree.

 

[robheus]

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Some claim that the question is unanswerable, because for any say X that would exist and determine/explain there would be something rather then nothing, the question then repeats itself and asks: why does X exist? etc.

But really, the question is bogus. It is meaningless.

Firstly because the question assumes there is something instead of nothing. The problem with this point of view is that nothing in and of itself does not mean anything, it is only meaningfull if there indeed are somethings which do or do not exist.
It is the same issue with darkness. There is darkness because there is light. Without light, neither there would be darkness. So either there is light and there is darkness, or neither light nor darkness exist.

 

[debra]

Some claim that the question is unanswerable, because for any say X that would exist and determine/explain there would be something rather then nothing, the question then repeats itself and asks: why does X exist? etc.

But really, the question is bogus. It is meaningless.

Firstly because the question assumes there is something instead of nothing. The problem with this point of view is that nothing in and of itself does not mean anything, it is only meaningfull if there indeed are somethings which do or do not exist.
It is the same issue with darkness. There is darkness because there is light. Without light, neither there would be darkness. So either there is light and there is darkness, or neither light nor darkness exist.

I give talks on how the universe can be made from mathematics and implemented in information, to which some top me (as people usually want to do) by saying, well... who invented mathematics then? I think they want to imply God invented mathematics.

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

 

[apeiron]

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

Maths is the science of patterns - so it is about the laws of form. So the metaphysical question is in fact the classical dichotomy...why form? and why substance?

They are both mutually exclusive as concepts and yet each entails the existence of the other.

If you can ask why X, there is always also going to be why not-X? So why nothing similarly entails the matching query of why not everything?

Of course, we know that nothing is an impossible state (there is already something) and so what does this say about the not-X state of everything?

Information is form atomised - reality broken into bits and treated wrongly as a new kind of universal substance. But that's another story.

 

[qsa]

I give talks on how the universe can be made from mathematics and implemented in information, to which some top me (as people usually want to do) by saying, well... who invented mathematics then? I think they want to imply God invented mathematics.

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

That is the beauty of math nobody has to create it. A circle describes a relationship between numbers (Pi) is true no matter what. They are more real and to the point than anything else we know. And because they look so REAL so for sure REALITY is made of it. Notice the words REAL and REALITY, It is not about rhyming

If you put an apple in front of a large group of sane people and ask them to describe it. First, some will say it is an apple some might doubt and say it is a fake decoration, and upon closer examination they will agree on that it is an apple but they will differ as to some other aspect of it, say its smell or taste and so on. And if eventually they manage to test all of its aspect with some sophisticated machinery then they will differ about what it is really made of, On and oN. Until the so called TOE. what is TOE? Math (including logic) is not like that, although some will argue that they are similar, I agree to that statement as to regard of discovery. Physical theories have been refined by correcting errors, But Math more offen it has added more truths than "correcting errors".

No wonder why we use Math when we are confused, it is the only thing we are certain of more than anything else. The reason that math descibes reality is clear now, reality is made out of a mathematical structure.Howelse would you describe a mathematical structure!

check my website in my profile for more info.

 

[robheus]

I give talks on how the universe can be made from mathematics and implemented in information, to which some top me (as people usually want to do) by saying, well... who invented mathematics then? I think they want to imply God invented mathematics.

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

If you implement mathematics in information, on what physical media is that information carried?

So how could that be possible?

 

[disregardthat]

There is no logical contradiction in the possibility of nothing existing at all. The analogy between light and darkness does not work in this way, it is a mystery that the world exists at all.

 

[qsa]

There is no logical contradiction in the possibility of nothing existing at all. The analogy between light and darkness does not work in this way, it is a mystery that the world exists at all.

True only if not for the fact that mathematical facts exist.

If you implement mathematics in information, on what physical media is that information carried?

So how could that be possible?

information theory is about statistical rules in mathematics.i.e. relations between random variables.it is similart to 2+3=5. 2 is the source 3 is channel effect(media) 5 is what is received (of course mathematically more complicated which is based on probabilty theory). the media is the hypothetical channel which can represent physical media in classical physics(origionaly info theory arose from the EE field). For example, it can represents attenuation of info going from source to sink,where the source could be the probability of finding a particle at a point that will affect some other point atenuated by say the distance between them. That is a rough example. In another word, the source, the reciever and the channel can be purely mathematical entities which can not only model classical physical situations, but it is claimed that it models reality at the fundamental level which itself is believed to be mathematical by some people , like myself.

 

[disregardthat]

True only if not for the fact that mathematical facts exist.

Mathematical platonism does not skip my point.

 

[qsa]

Mathematical platonism does not skip my point.

While the Idea of Platonism have been known and understood in one fashion or another for a long time, its philosophy has never suggest that existence is math. It was mostly about the nature of math. Coming to realize that existence is nothing but mathematics have come from strong implications due to research coming very close to finding TOE, and it happened gradually over 80 years period. Starting with GR where geometry played an astonishing role. Then Charles Misner tried to devise a TOE theory of geometry and also of pure logic(pre calculus). These days the level of abstraction in describing physics, like non-commutative geometry, TQFT, Quantum computer theory (Fontini Markopoulo) and many other theories makes one wonder really hard. Of course, at this juncture some people are more convinced than others. The similarity with Platonism is only coincidental. My own research has convinced me even more, http://www.qsa.netne.net

 

[robheus]

There is no logical contradiction in the possibility of nothing existing at all. The analogy between light and darkness does not work in this way, it is a mystery that the world exists at all.

It's not a mystery, there is nothing to ponder. It is just a brute fact. There is no reason for the existence of the world, no magical entity behind it, nothing of the sort. The world just exists.

 

[debra]

If you implement mathematics in information, on what physical media is that information carried?

So how could that be possible?

That is the whole point - 'physical media' is what information itself makes.
There is no such thing as physical anything.


TASK - build a universe from nothing:
Lets say we think of nothing as a point. That is nothing eh?
Can we put objects into nothing? No - there is no room for them.

Can we put numbers into nothing? Yes - numbers do not need a space.
Then the numbers create all that we believe is physical reality - including an allusion to physical space. The space is made from numbered co-ordinates - its not a real space.

There you go - that is logically consistent even for us humans.

 

[disregardthat]

It's not a mystery, there is nothing to ponder. It is just a brute fact. There is no reason for the existence of the world, no magical entity behind it, nothing of the sort. The world just exists.

There is no reason not to ponder "brute facts", and nothing magical is required to wonder why the world exists at all. It seems to me that you are trying to sweep your lack of explanations of the worlds existence under the carpet by dogmatically stating that it "cannot be pondered".

 

[disregardthat]

While the Idea of Platonism have been known and understood in one fashion or another for a long time, its philosophy has never suggest that existence is math. It was mostly about the nature of math. Coming to realize that existence is nothing but mathematics have come from strong implications due to research coming very close to finding TOE, and it happened gradually over 80 years period. Starting with GR where geometry played an astonishing role. Then Charles Misner tried to devise a TOE theory of geometry and also of pure logic(pre calculus). These days the level of abstraction in describing physics, like non-commutative geometry, TQFT, Quantum computer theory (Fontini Markopoulo) and many other theories makes one wonder really hard. Of course, at this juncture some people are more convinced than others. The similarity with Platonism is only coincidental. My own research has convinced me even more, http://www.qsa.netne.net

Prostrating your knowledge of this does not touch the point however. It takes a spiritual leap of faith to think that mathematical existence and the nature of existence itself is interchangable.

 

[debra]

There is no reason not to ponder "brute facts", and nothing magical is required to wonder why the world exists at all. It seems to me that you are trying to sweep your lack of explanations of the worlds existence under the carpet by dogmatically stating that it "cannot be pondered".

I agree that saying it is a brute fact that the universe exists is a resignation of intelligence. I take the opposite view and believe that it is explainable and probably simple to understand using good old rationality and no spirituality needed.

 

[robheus]

There is no reason not to ponder "brute facts", and nothing magical is required to wonder why the world exists at all. It seems to me that you are trying to sweep your lack of explanations of the worlds existence under the carpet by dogmatically stating that it "cannot be pondered".

That is not dogmatic, but based on reasoning. Suppose you (or someone else) comes up with a real explanation of why the world exists, and let's name that reason X. So the world exists then because X exists. But then you're hit again by the same type of question: why does X exist rather then not? Either you state that X must be assumed to exist by definition, or you once again hit the same type of question, which can be repeated indefinately.

So, in summary, it can not be stated that the existence of the world is based on, or caused by, the existence of some other entity, because for that entity we are perfectly entitled to re-ask the same question, and we can re-reaise the question indefinately for any real existing entity we put forward as our explenation.

This leads to the conclusion that the existence of the world can not be based on the existence of some other entity.