Register to reply

If the universe came from nothing

by Castlegate
Tags: universe
Share this thread:
Castlegate
#1
Apr28-07, 03:23 AM
P: 94
Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion.

If the universe came from nothing. Doesn't this mean that the universe cannot be a physical entity? Are we not forced to assume that the universe is conceptual in nature? That the fundamentals of existence are no more than discrete conceptual geometrics of nothing?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Pilot sites in energy from coffee waste show good results
Startups offer banking for smartphone users
Factor in naked mole rat's cells enhances protein integrity
nabuco
#2
Apr28-07, 11:15 AM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Castlegate View Post
If the universe came from nothing. Doesn't this mean that the universe cannot be a physical entity?
No. It just gives a different meaning to the concept of "physical entity".

If you stop to think about it, you don't really know what "physical" means anyway, so it's not much of a change.

Are we not forced to assume that the universe is conceptual in nature?
Many people are tempted to think so. I fell under the same illusion once, but as I examined it I realized it was really just an illusion.

The problem has to do with your knowledge of language. It's not too difficult to give a slightly different meaning to a certain concept, and then watch how it seems to radically change the meaning of several other concepts. But the problem is, eventually you have to find out how all concepts you currently know are affected by that change, and you end up realizing you haven't discovered anything new, you have simply invented a new language.

That the fundamentals of existence are no more than discrete conceptual geometrics of nothing?
Ah, but they must be different or the concept of "concept" becomes meaningless! Saying everything is a concept is equivalent to saying everything is a thing. You are just giving the word a meaning for which another word already exists.
affinefield
#3
Apr28-07, 12:47 PM
P: 15
If "nothings" can be MEASURED and compared with other "nothings",then we have structure of some sort.As Eddington says in his his masterpiece "The Mathematical Theory of Relativity",1923 and 1930,2nd Ed."If nothing in the world is comparable to anything else,there cannot even be the rudiments of structure,...".Eddington went on,latter in his career,to worry about just what it is that we are identifying with our measurements,is it the "external world",or is it just those "things" our brains expect to find???.

affinefield
#4
Apr28-07, 12:50 PM
P: 15
If the universe came from nothing

Also,Pascaul Jordan,in the 1940's,came up with the notion that the entire mass/energy content of the Universe may be due SOLEY to its own negative gravitational potential energy.Something on the road to the nothing-idea.
Castlegate
#5
Apr28-07, 03:11 PM
P: 94
I look at physical as being a billiard ball approach, and I can't see billiard balls emanating from nothing. Nothing is a conceptual beast that would require a non-physical approach to form reality, given that we assume the universe came from nothing. An important word here is form, (a geometric with no physical characteristics) i.e. a thought. These geometric forms of nothing are the base constituent of the universe. They operate like yes, no, if, then, statements of a computer. I see no problems creating a universe from nothing with this approach. In this respect all forms in our universe represent the geometric embodiment of nothing.
DaveC426913
#6
Apr28-07, 10:22 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Castlegate View Post
I look at physical as being a billiard ball approach, and I can't see billiard balls emanating from nothing.
This is just an analogy, simply to make a point:

That billiard ball is also something that we, in our day-to-day existence think of as a solid object. But that's only from the point of view of something that is about 10^33 times larger than it needs to be to observer that a billiard ball is actually 99.9999999% empty space. A billiard ball isn't really a billiard ball at all. The essence of physicality is simply not something we can observe or conceive of casually. We have to look extremely carefully to see what our reality really is - and throw away our caveman instincts about it. And that is true both at the atomic scale and at the cosmic scale.
Castlegate
#7
Apr29-07, 01:46 AM
P: 94
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
This is just an analogy, simply to make a point:

That billiard ball is also something that we, in our day-to-day existence think of as a solid object. But that's only from the point of view of something that is about 10^33 times larger than it needs to be to observer that a billiard ball is actually 99.9999999% empty space. A billiard ball isn't really a billiard ball at all. The essence of physicality is simply not something we can observe or conceive of casually. We have to look extremely carefully to see what our reality really is - and throw away our caveman instincts about it. And that is true both at the atomic scale and at the cosmic scale.
My point is that if the universe came from nothing, that even the .0000001% is empty. I.E. no billiard of any size is possible.
DaveC426913
#8
Apr29-07, 11:38 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Castlegate View Post
My point is that if the universe came from nothing, that even the .0000001% is empty. I.E. no billiard of any size is possible.
This is why I'm saying it's just an analogy. I'm not comparing an empty atom to an atom that came from nothing, I'm saying you aleady accept that certain things in your personal experience are not at all as straightforward as your senses would have you believe.

You have a 21st century knowledge of matter that a 19th century person would find ridiculously woo-woo-like. They would say "how can you have a block of wood made out of 99.9999% vacuum??" But you would say to them: "Your concept of 'matter' is hopelessly primitive. no wonder you can't even explain such simple things as radioactivity".

Just like you know that "matter" is more complicated than a block of wood, so you shouldn't have difficulty knowing that "nothingness" is more complicated than simply the absence of something. And that somethingness is more complicated than just a bunch of atoms floating about the univese.
out of whack
#9
Apr29-07, 01:23 PM
P: 465
Quote Quote by Castlegate View Post
Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion.
This assumption cannot be made, not even for the sake of discussion. To illustrate, consider this: "assume that true is false, for the sake of discussion". This phrase is meaningless because is it self-contradictory. If something can come from nothing then nothing must have the property of permitting it. But "nothing" cannot have any property. If you have properties then you have something instead of nothing. You can't reach any conclusion from a self-contradicting premise.
nabuco
#10
Apr29-07, 02:15 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by out of whack View Post
This assumption cannot be made, not even for the sake of discussion
I think by "nothing" most people understand the complete absence of matter. And I think it's not only possible to make that assumption, I don't even see any other alternative.

"nothing" cannot have any property
I don't think that is the correct definition of nothing. I believe it simply means the absence of anything we could call a thing. Which begs the question, what exactly is a "thing"? We talk about it all the time but do we really know what a "thing" is? And can we say for sure there is never a point in time in which "things" did not exist?

If you have properties then you have something instead of nothing
So in the beginning there was nothing, but that created a paradox and the universe exploded as a solution. I've heard several theories along those lines. Not sure they make much sense, but they seem inevitable if we start from your premises.
kant
#11
Apr29-07, 03:03 PM
P: 365
if people mean by "nothing" as the non-existence of objective things. If by objective things, we mean things that has a property of a quentifiable nature. If by quentifiable, we mean things that can be indirect understood by our theory, or that something `s existence is indicated by our experiment.


1) the laws of nature are statements that refer these objective things.


2) We understand our universe throught our sense, and physical models.

_______________________________________________________________
C:

Claim 1: science cannot tell us why there is something instead of nothing.

Claim 2: Since all we know is that there is always something, then we might as well suppose that always was something.

claim 3: we are justified in the belief that the universe came out of something.
Castlegate
#12
Apr29-07, 11:09 PM
P: 94
Quote Quote by out of whack View Post
This assumption cannot be made, not even for the sake of discussion. To illustrate, consider this: "assume that true is false, for the sake of discussion". This phrase is meaningless because is it self-contradictory. If something can come from nothing then nothing must have the property of permitting it. But "nothing" cannot have any property. If you have properties then you have something instead of nothing. You can't reach any conclusion from a self-contradicting premise.
So you're saying that the universe can't come from nothing? That the universe had no beginning?

If so - then the universe has always been. Not for x number of years, but for an infinity of years. Yet here we are as time passes, which implies an incomplete infinity, which brings us back to ...... the universe had a beginning and that it came from nothing.

I happen to think that contradiction is a requirement to existence. The universe is essentially at it's base foundation, ones and zeros .... a contradiction.
out of whack
#13
Apr30-07, 11:58 AM
P: 465
Quote Quote by nabuco View Post
I think by "nothing" most people understand the complete absence of matter.
Maybe. I haven't done a survey to see how most people interpret the word. But if different people have different interpretations then of course the statement remains undefined so we still cannot reach a conclusion. There is also a problem with the word "matter" since I've seen people disagree on its meaning and some also argue that material reality is only a perception. To me, "nothing" applies whenever whatever you are talking about doesn't exist.

Quote Quote by nabuco View Post
And I think it's not only possible to make that assumption, I don't even see any other alternative.
Keep looking! Not seeing one doesn't mean there's isn't one unless you can somehow demonstrate that there cannot be any.

Quote Quote by nabuco View Post
"nothing" cannot have any property
I don't think that is the correct definition of nothing. I believe it simply means the absence of anything we could call a thing. Which begs the question, what exactly is a "thing"? We talk about it all the time but do we really know what a "thing" is? And can we say for sure there is never a point in time in which "things" did not exist?
I see that you realize the difficulty in defining a "thing" which would in turn define what is material. Is energy something? Is a force something? I think they are, at least in the sense that we can talk about them. In the context of this discussion, if we said that the universe began with some energy or with a force then it would still not explain the origin of this energy or force, so we would be no further ahead.

Quote Quote by nabuco View Post
So in the beginning there was nothing, but that created a paradox and the universe exploded as a solution.
I think you will recognize that this scenario is gratuitous. It lacks a clear rationale.


Quote Quote by kant View Post
Claim 1: science cannot tell us why there is something instead of nothing.

Claim 2: Since all we know is that there is always something, then we might as well suppose that always was something.

claim 3: we are justified in the belief that the universe came out of something.
Claim 1 is right, science simply does not lend itself to answer the question of the origin. It is the wrong method to address what does not exist since it only deals with the natural world, which exists. Science is pragmatic, not philosophical.

Claim 2 is a scientifically pragmatic conclusion. From the point of view of science, the only workable answer is that the natural world has always existed.

Claim 3 says that the universe came out of something without stating the nature of the thing it came out of. But since the thing existed, as it scientifically must in order to produce its effect, then it was not an ultimate beginning but only a prior step. Finding the origin of the thing is the same question we were already asking.


Quote Quote by Castlegate View Post
So you're saying that the universe can't come from nothing? That the universe had no beginning?
Consider what it means to "come from". It indicates a source, or a cause, or an origin, or a principle, or a paradox, or a law, but at least something otherwise you would not have the concept of "coming from" in your mind. Now, if you say that it comes from nothing then you say that whatever the universe comes from wasn't there in the first place, so it cannot actually "come from". Yet it exists, and it cannot "come from" what wasn't there, so it exists without a beginning, which is the same thing as saying that it has existed for all time.

As an aside, I have never seen any other conclusion that did not simply push the question back by one step: where does the source of it come from?

Quote Quote by Castlegate View Post
If so - then the universe has always been. Not for x number of years, but for an infinity of years.
That's how I see it. We're like the number 5 on the line of real numbers. Infinity lies both before and after us in time.

Quote Quote by Castlegate View Post
Yet here we are as time passes, which implies an incomplete infinity
Oops, where does this come from? How does the passage of time imply that infinity is somehow incomplete?

I can't address the rest of your post right now since it extends this claim.
nabuco
#14
Apr30-07, 02:24 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by out of whack View Post
I think you will recognize that this scenario is gratuitous. It lacks a clear rationale.
I agree with you, but there is no alternative. Any explanation for why the universe exists will sound crazy, no matter which form it takes. The best we can do is come up with a story that leaves no room for further questions.

We're like the number 5 on the line of real numbers. Infinity lies both before and after us in time.
Infinities cannot exist in reality. The future is eternal because it is only a concept in your mind and doesn't exist in reality. Just like that line of real numbers.

Since the past is real, it cannot be infinite.
out of whack
#15
Apr30-07, 03:23 PM
P: 465
Quote Quote by nabuco View Post
Any explanation for why the universe exists will sound crazy, no matter which form it takes.
It will sound crazy simply because "why things exist" is ultimately an unanswerable question. Asking why things exist is a search for the cause of existence. But since the cause must itself exist then "why things exist" is a circular question, not an answerable one.

Quote Quote by nabuco View Post
The best we can do is come up with a story that leaves no room for further questions.
I think we can do better. We can simply realize that the question makes no sense, stop asking it and move on to questions that do make sense.

If this is not acceptable and you really need a more tangible solution then you can make one up of course. Here's one answer: because nothing cannot exist. There, now we're done.

Quote Quote by nabuco View Post
Infinities cannot exist in reality.
What makes infinity impossible? How did you reach this conclusion?
nabuco
#16
Apr30-07, 04:38 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by out of whack View Post
It will sound crazy simply because "why things exist" is ultimately an unanswerable question.
No, it will sound crazy because it's a description of an event that only happened once.

Asking why things exist is a search for the cause of existence. But since the cause must itself exist then "why things exist" is a circular question, not an answerable one.
I think people are mostly concerned about the physical universe. If the origin of the physical universe can be traced to something non-physical, that would be the end of the search.

If this is not acceptable and you really need a more tangible solution then you can make one up of course. Here's one answer: because nothing cannot exist.
That doesn't seem like a satisfying answer. Most people find it very easy to consider the possibility of nothing existing. It seems, in fact, rather more natural than a universe with specific features.

What makes infinity impossible? How did you reach this conclusion?
This is simple: because infinity, like zero, is a product of human imagination.

Of course you believe things of infinite magnitude can exist, because you can think about them. But you can also think about things of zero magnitude, and those definitely don't exist!
out of whack
#17
Apr30-07, 05:24 PM
P: 465
If the origin of the physical universe can be traced to something non-physical, that would be the end of the search.
Not for everyone. This "non-physical cause" would have to exist, whatever "non-physical" means to you, which may differ from what it means to someone else. And we cannot assume that everyone will be content with some non-physical answer either. You would have to ask where this non-physical cause comes from. You would go through another iteration of this recursive question. And so on. Forever.


What makes infinity impossible? How did you reach this conclusion?
This is simple: because infinity, like zero, is a product of human imagination.
Are you saying that the mere fact that humans can formulate the concept of infinity makes infinity impossible? If so then I'm sorry but that just does not follow. Maybe I missed a step or I misunderstand what you are trying to express.


Of course you believe things of infinite magnitude can exist, because you can think about them. But you can also think about things of zero magnitude, and those definitely don't exist!
I can think of things that can exist and things that cannot exist. It proves nothing with regard to infinity.
baywax
#18
Apr30-07, 06:42 PM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by out of whack View Post
Not for everyone. This "non-physical cause" would have to exist, whatever "non-physical" means to you, which may differ from what it means to someone else. And we cannot assume that everyone will be content with some non-physical answer either. You would have to ask where this non-physical cause comes from. You would go through another iteration of this recursive question. And so on. Forever.




Are you saying that the mere fact that humans can formulate the concept of infinity makes infinity impossible? If so then I'm sorry but that just does not follow. Maybe I missed a step or I misunderstand what you are trying to express.




I can think of things that can exist and things that cannot exist. It proves nothing with regard to infinity.
To experience infinity you have to live forever. Even with this gift, you would still be uncertain as to whether infinity exists or not. It would never be proven either way.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Our Universe Is A Closed Electron In A Far Grander Universe We Can Never See? Cosmology 20
Doughnut-shaped Universe: Astronomers say Universe is small and finite Cosmology 5
If the observable universe were the entire universe, would the mass make it expand? Cosmology 7
Is the whole Universe expanding, or just the Observable Universe? Cosmology 4
Origin of the Universe: Created Universe vs Cyclical Universe Astronomy & Astrophysics 9