Is the Creation of Our Universe from Nothing Truly Viable and Consistent?

[haushofer]

Hi guys,

I was thinking about something, due to Hawking's new book "The grand design". I didn't read it completely, but the book argues that it is perfectly consistent that a universe is made "out of nothing",

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.

Every now and then I come across the Hammoch physicist, which states about this:

What's this fuzz all about?

It all boils down to a media frenzy around a quotation declaring God unnecessary for starting up the universe:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist [..] It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

But again: why this hype? We know already for ages that the formation of our universe out of nothing is a perfectly viable and consistent hypothesis. In fact, given the constraints of the various cosmological observations, I know of no other workable alternative hypothesis.

I am surprised about this last "We know already for ages that the formation of our universe out of nothing is a perfectly viable and consistent hypothesis." Why is this consistent? How can it be consistent that a universe forms out of a state ("nothing", whatever that may be) of which we don't have a single clue what the laws of physics are? And how wide-spread is this idea among cosmologists and high-energy physicists in general?

It is argued, also by Hawking, that the universe perhaps has "zero energy"; the negative gravitational energy cancels the other forms of energy. But doesn't GR say that energy is absolute, contrary to classical physics and quantum field theories?

I'm curious about your thoughts about this! :)

 

[Careful]

Hi guys,

I was thinking about something, due to Hawking's new book "The grand design". I didn't read it completely, but the book argues that it is perfectly consistent that a universe is made "out of nothing",

Hawking and religion do not speak about the same type of creation and Hawking really misunderstood the issue here or at least pretended to do so. What Hawking means with creation is creation in the sense as we understand it within the context of quantum field theory. You have creation and annihilation operators on some Hilbert space, a non-free Hamiltonian and a vacuum state. So, the vacuum state may evolve into a state with particles. This is precisely what third quantization of gravity is about: you get creation operators of (topologically nontrivial) universes and you allow them to scatter and so on and so forth. So the vacuum state is not really nothing as we know for ages. Religion on the other hand speaks about genuine creation, the formation of something which had no prescription in a symbolic language at all. That is, it's information was not even given to the Hilbert space of the universe itself. So, Hawking initiated a debate there never really was since he was talking about something far more mundaine.

I am surprised about this last "We know already for ages that the formation of our universe out of nothing is a perfectly viable and consistent hypothesis." Why is this consistent? How can it be consistent that a universe forms out of a state ("nothing", whatever that may be) of which we don't have a single clue what the laws of physics are? And how wide-spread is this idea among cosmologists and high-energy physicists in general?

See above concerning the two different notions of creation.

It is argued, also by Hawking, that the universe perhaps has "zero energy"; the negative gravitational energy cancels the other forms of energy. But doesn't GR say that energy is absolute, contrary to classical physics and quantum field theories?

I'm curious about your thoughts about this! :)

Well again, Hawking thinks too simple here. What does zero energy mean? For example, could we set up an experiment that measures the exact energy content of the universe? Can all energy be used for experiment?

Careful

 

[haushofer]

Hawking and religion do not speak about the same type of creation and Hawking really misunderstood the issue here or at least pretended to do so. What Hawking means with creation is creation in the sense as we understand it within the context of quantum field theory. You have creation and annihilation operators on some Hilbert space, a non-free Hamiltonian and a vacuum state. So, the vacuum state may evolve into a state with particles. This is precisely what third quantization of gravity is about: you get creation operators of (topologically nontrivial) universes and you allow them to scatter and so on and so forth. So the vacuum state is not really nothing as we know for ages. Religion on the other hand speaks about genuine creation, the formation of something which had no prescription in a symbolic language at all. That is, it's information was not even given to the Hilbert space of the universe itself. So, Hawking initiated a debate there never really was since he was talking about something far more mundaine.

So you say Hawking's idea presupposes a vacuum state, instead of "nothing"; or, to put it in different words, it heavily depends on what that "nothing" exactly is.

I don't see what one can explain more from this than the initial singularity in conventional cosmology.

 

[Careful]

So you say Hawking's idea presupposes a vacuum state, instead of "nothing"; or, to put it in different words, it heavily depends on what that "nothing" exactly is.

Obviously, these are the intrinsic limitations of physics.

I don't see what one can explain more from this than the initial singularity in conventional cosmology.

Ah, singularities like the big bang are a bit troublesome for the intial value point of view of general relativity you see and people somehow believe that since quantum mechanics smears out everything, likewise it should be so with the intial singularity so that our naive view of a linearly evolving universe can survive. There are several possible answers to this issue even within classical relativity by dismissing the idea that the universe should be complete or one could cook up alternative gravity theories with torsion where the singularity theorems do not really hold anymore, such as Einstein Cartan theory. What Hawking does is using a whole bunch of ''exotic physics'' which is extremely unlikely (we basically have never seen scattering of our universe with another) because he has psychological problems with the fact that a naked singularity appears to cruch the linear time picture of quantum mechanics in the Heisenberg and/or Schroedinger formalism too.

Careful

 

[sheaf]

I haven't read "The Grand Design", but I assume he's referring to the no boundary proposal. From Hartle and Hawking "Wave Function of the Universe" Phys Rev D vol 28 No 12 15Dec 1983:

One can interpret the functional integral over all compact four-geometries bounded by a given three-geometry as giving the amplitude for that three-geometry to arise from a zero three-geometry, (i.e. a single point). In other words, the ground state is the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing.

 

[Careful]

I haven't read "The Grand Design", but I assume he's referring to the no boundary proposal. From Hartle and Hawking "Wave Function of the Universe" Phys Rev D vol 28 No 12 15Dec 1983:

Haha, Prigogine had something funny to say about Hartle Hawking: it came down to this. Hawking assumes that the universe started out in a euclidean phase and that time did not exist. Then, due to a quantum fluctuation, time arose spontaneously and the universe evolved. The strange thing is that this fluctuation already lasts for 15 billion years

 

[bapowell]

The quotation from the OP's post is completely false:

"In fact, given the constraints of the various cosmological observations, I know of no other workable alternative hypothesis."

There is no observational evidence that directs cosmologists to favor one origin of the universe theory over any other. Currently, science has no epistemological traction on questions regarding the big bang or other origin theories. Maybe one day, but for now we must be happy to content ourselves with understanding the universe from fractions of a second after the Planck density.

 

[sheaf]

Haha, Prigogine had something funny to say about Hartle Hawking: it came down to this. Hawking assumes that the universe started out in a euclidean phase and that time did not exist. Then, due to a quantum fluctuation, time arose spontaneously and the universe evolved. The strange thing is that this fluctuation already lasts for 15 billion years

To a cynic, it looked like the motiviation for the Euclidean phase was "because we can do the path integrals more easily there".

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that's what he must have been alluding to by "universe from nothing" in the Grand Design, given that almost the same phrasing is used in Hartle and Hawking. I've seen other objections to it based around the interpretation of probabilities and normalisation...

Edit - or maybe not - I just saw bapowell's post - maybe the quotation was inaccurate ? I really must get new glasses - the "universe from nothing" was the phrase used by the "Hammock physicist", not Hawking

 

[Naty1]

Post #7 is right on:

The quotation from the OP's post is completely false:

"In fact, given the constraints of the various cosmological observations, I know of no other workable alternative hypothesis."

In addition this "something from nothing" has not been "known for ages". In fact it's quite new: I'd suggest it was not until the Einstein's work was expanded in the 1920's and 1930's supplemented by the concept of inflation in the 1960's that a big bang theory gained real traction...that is widespread acceptance.

Satellite Observations may be able to distinguish between a big bang scenario and the cyclic universe scenario ( ENDLESS UNIVERSE of Steinhardt and Turok) but not so far. Both theories so far fall within the realm of observational evidence. A particular type of subtle gravitational wave, if detected, may distinguish which model is correct.

Also, there is a big difference between "nothing" and (even a perfect) vacuum. The vacuum which many think of as "empty space" in fact includes space (distance, an entity) as well as vacuum fluctuations even if that geography is isolated from the rest of the universe. We so far believe that at another type of singularity, that of a black hole, space and time and matter cease to exist and yet mass remains. So it appears they may be combinations of things we know and things we don't in combinations we know and combinations we don't: dark matter and dark energy, for example. What's up with them??

 

[Careful]

To a cynic, it looked like the motiviation for the Euclidean phase was "because we can do the path integrals more easily there".

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that's what he must have been alluding to by "universe from nothing" in the Grand Design, given that almost the same phrasing is used in Hartle and Hawking. I've seen other objections to it based around the interpretation of probabilities and normalisation...

Perhaps, but he shouldn't have done the merchandising as if he had solved long standing tensions between religion and science. As far as I see, there are no real tensions between both. On the technical side, the HH wavefunction is just a special state in the context of third quantization... ah well

 

[PhilKravitz]

he shouldn't have done the merchandising as if he had solved long standing tensions between religion and science

It is merchandising. It is hype. The purpose is to sell books and make money. To provide for his family. Good on him.

 

[Careful]

It is merchandising. It is hype. The purpose is to sell books and make money. To provide for his family. Good on him.

Strange, I always thought the purpose was to do good work BTW: nobody buys books in these days anymore, you can get all decent books for free from Russian pirat sites, just download Djvu and you are settled for life.

 

[S.Daedalus]

One point of view is that 'nothing' is invariant under every conceivable symmetry, and hence, a lot of physical laws apply to it -- in particular, time translation symmetry implies energy conservation, gauge symmetry implies quantum mechanics (as argued by Victor Stenger), and supersymmetry holds; so if we want to create a universe ex nihilo, we need something like gravity to balance the books, and since we have QM, we can nucleate a universe Vilenkin-style. From Hawking's point of view, supersymmetry is then needed to get everything to give out finite answers, with the most general supersymmetric theory of quantum gravity being M-theory.

To me, this isn't a convincing argument; but it also isn't as simplistic as it has been widely caricatured.

 

[qsa]

One point of view is that 'nothing' is invariant under every conceivable symmetry, and hence, a lot of physical laws apply to it -- in particular, time translation symmetry implies energy conservation, gauge symmetry implies quantum mechanics (as argued by Victor Stenger), and supersymmetry holds; so if we want to create a universe ex nihilo, we need something like gravity to balance the books, and since we have QM, we can nucleate a universe Vilenkin-style. From Hawking's point of view, supersymmetry is then needed to get everything to give out finite answers, with the most general supersymmetric theory of quantum gravity being M-theory.

To me, this isn't a convincing argument; but it also isn't as simplistic as it has been widely caricatured.

Assuming the MUH ala DR. Tegmark, you can have a universe starting with zillion numbers in a certain configuration and evolving with certain rules. Now imagine a universe with empty set and then numbers are added with some algorithm for evolving them. So, it is very easy to imagine a universe that started out as nothing.

 

[friend]

"Something from nothing"? How can nothing result in, produce, or materially imply the necessity of something? Well, we have in deductive logic the relationship between statements that is called "material implication", where one statement, called the premise, implies another statement called the conclusion. Implication holds between any two statements as long as the truth of the premise does not imply the falsity of the conclusion. Implication allows all other truth values between premise and conclusion, including a false premise and a true conclusion. It is legitimate to have a false premise imply a true conclusion.

Since we describe every physical situation, phenomena, event, thing, or entity with a propositions, we represent things that "exist" with propositions that are "true". Then logic and all its relationships between statements becomes relevant to the discussion. Certainly, we expect all the facts in reality to be consistent with and imply each other. What we cannot accept is one existing fact to prove the non-existence of another existing fact. So if logic holds even at the beginning, it is legitimate for something to come from nothing.

 

[tom.stoer]

It is argued, also by Hawking, that the universe perhaps has "zero energy"; the negative gravitational energy cancels the other forms of energy. But doesn't GR say that energy is absolute, contrary to classical physics and quantum field theories?

I don't like Hawking's writing very much. In general situations (expanding universes, ...) energy cannot even be defined uniquely in GR. Of course energy density (or better: the energy-momentum tensor) is well-defined and is conserved locally; but the global concept of "energy within a region" is still a matter of debate. But As soon as energy is no longer well-defined, the idea of "cancellation of gravitational and normal energy" becomes even more foggy. In addition there are extensions of Einstein's GR (Einstein-Cartan-theory - which seems to be a much more natural framework for gravity and perhaps quantum gravity) where even local conservation laws are modified!

Of course Hawking knows all this - but he misses to explain to his readership that there are fundamental conceptual problems. That's why I think his popular books are not always a helpful for physics and physicists.

 

[Careful]

Of course Hawking knows all this - but he misses to explain to his readership that there are fundamental conceptual problems. That's why I think his popular books are not always a helpful for physics and physicists.

True, Penrose does a much better job in presenting the material more in depth, even if one might disagree with him on several issues. Moreover, Penrose is a better mathematician than Hawking is; Hawking's best research has been in the 1970 ties when he worked together with Penrose, Ellis and others with superior mathematical skills (which is something very different than good calculational skills).

Careful

 

[haushofer]

I'll certainly read this Hartle and Hawking paper, thanks for the link! I understand that things are a whole lot more subtle than the popular literature seems to imply :)

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

To argue that something strated from nothing is logical contradictory, because you need something to get it started and from nothing you don't have anything.

But there's a distinction in philosophy of science between people who are called actuallists who assert that the things are the way they are because that's their nature, and potentialists who assert that this thing is defined with regards to something else which has different notion.
Aristotle is considered actuallist and Newton is considered potentialist.

But saying something got started from nothing is perplexing and don't tell us a lot.

 

[tom.stoer]

Of course one has to define "nothing".

I think there is a rather clear picture what "nothing" means in a QFT, it is just the vacuum |0>. If you can formulate a quantum gravity theory in a way such that it has a vacuum state |0> with zero volume and if this vacuum state can "tunnel" into something else which behaves similar to our universe i.e. has "expanding volume" where expansion is formulated according to some "clock time", then you have a creation out of nothing.

 

[friend]

Of course one has to define "nothing".

I think there is a rather clear picture what "nothing" means in a QFT, it is just the vacuum |0>. If you can formulate a quantum gravity theory in a way such that it has a vacuum state |0> with zero volume and if this vacuum state can "tunnel" into something else which behaves similar to our universe i.e. has "expanding volume" where expansion is formulated according to some "clock time", then you have a creation out of nothing.

There is a lot of mathematical structure involved with even specifying |0> of QFT. This math structure came about by describing something physical. I'm not sure it applies to "nothing". It seems you'd have to be able to justify the QFT formalism based on first principles of reasoning alone before you could apply it in the process of bringing something from nothing. Our curve fitting or symmetry fitting math to fit the experimental data does not apply to the physical state of "nothing". So it seems you need to justify the math you would use before applying it to prove that something can come from nothing. So I think something from nothing is the same as physics derived from pure logic, and not from any particular physical fact or initial conditions.

 

[PhilKravitz]

But saying something got started from nothing is perplexing and don't tell us a lot.

Yes. Indeed.

They would have to explain how and why for it to tell us anything useful.

Just saying first nothing then universe is not experimental data it is just an assertion.

 

[qsa]

There is a lot of mathematical structure involved with even specifying |0> of QFT. This math structure came about by describing something physical. I'm not sure it applies to "nothing". It seems you'd have to be able to justify the QFT formalism based on first principles of reasoning alone before you could apply it in the process of bringing something from nothing. Our curve fitting or symmetry fitting math to fit the experimental data does not apply to the physical state of "nothing". So it seems you need to justify the math you would use before applying it to prove that something can come from nothing. So I think something from nothing is the same as physics derived from pure logic, and not from any particular physical fact or initial conditions.

a related question and probably more important question is what is reality made of. if you can answer that then the OP question will be much easier.Now, when we model reality and match it to experiment, ultimately the description is going to be mathematical which should en campus all experiments made and potential ones. so, is experiment a judge of our models or our models judge that the experiments we make are sufficient to comprehend reality.So, my tentative conclusion is that we can only describe reality in terms of numbers, I don't see a way around it. And that maybe the best really, because it makes more sense than any other alternative, at least to my mind.

 

[tom.stoer]

There is a lot of mathematical structure involved with even specifying |0> of QFT.

It depends; for the physical vacuum yes, for the Fock vacuum it's rather trivial.

This math structure came about by describing something physical. I'm not sure it applies to "nothing".

Of course this is an assumption. But in LQG it can be made rather precise.

It seems you'd have to be able to justify the QFT formalism based on first principles of reasoning alone before you could apply it in the process of bringing something from nothing. Our curve fitting or symmetry fitting math to fit the experimental data does not apply to the physical state of "nothing".

What do you mean by "curve fitting"?

If you look at LQG there is a rather precise meaning of "nothing", namly a state of zero volume (which is not unique). The problem is that physical evolution of this state is not yet well understood.

 

[scottbekerham]

No random event can create highly specialized structures . I can't imagine that random events created our universe . If so , then our universe may be totally unstable and there shouldn't be any living cells at all . Also random events cannot create The highly complicated Structure-Function relationship in living beings .

 

[PhilKravitz]

No random event can create highly specialized structures . I can't imagine that random events created our universe . If so , then our universe may be totally unstable and there shouldn't be any living cells at all . Also random events cannot create The highly complicated Structure-Function relationship in living beings .

If you are debating evolution there are some thread already going about that in biology or social science.

If you want to talk about entropy. Roger Penrose gets very excited about pointing out that the initial condition of the universe is very low entropy. I guess you could say highly structured (a bit hard to think of uniformity as structure) and we have been living off that structure ever since (trading it in for local structure plus entropy). Formation of galaxys, stars, planets, etc... The disturbing question is what do we do when we deplete this nature resource?

Of course since the timescale here is far far beyond one billion years I will not be loosing any sleep about it.

 

[ZapperZ]

No random event can create highly specialized structures . I can't imagine that random events created our universe . If so , then our universe may be totally unstable and there shouldn't be any living cells at all . Also random events cannot create The highly complicated Structure-Function relationship in living beings .

This totally off-topic. Furthermore, your claim is patently false. I could start with a random set of gas molecules, and condense it into a very highly ordered crystal lattice. Try visiting a material science laboratory some time!

Zz.

 

[PhilKravitz]

I could start with a random set of gas molecules, and condense it into a very highly ordered crystal lattice.

This is an excellent example of going from a high energy state high temperature gas molecules to a low energy state cold crystal lattice and in the process creating structure.

It is in places where energy is flowing from a high energy source to a low(er) energy sink that we get life evolving. That is in mid-ocean rift vents where we have 400 degree centigrade liquid (water and many high energy molecules) flowing towards 2 degree centigrade ocean water we get lots of high structure organic chemistry. Likewise it is around stars that I expect life forms. Places with MASSIVE flows of energy from a high energy source (the star) to low energy sink dead space 4.2 degrees kelvin. Of course matter is also needed hence planets, asteroids, dust clouds?, gas clouds?

There is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics the NET entropy of the whole system is increasing. It is only the entropy of a small subset that is decreasing through the use of work (from a heat engine).

 

[chuchulainn]

As others have said, first define "nothing". In my view, a true state of "nothingness" means the absence of anything, matter, energy, forces, or physical laws at all. In the absence of any physical laws there is unlimited potential, right? After all, physical laws as we know them prevent many weird and chaotic things from happening. We do not see, for example, a giant hunk of mass appear from nothing, because of the constraints of our physical universe. But the lack of physical laws in "nothing" means that there is nothing to prevent sponteneous events from occurring - that is to say, even if there was originally nothing, it was bound not to last since its lack of physical laws resulted in infinite instability. I can only speculate what is beyond our universe but I suspect that a multitude of universes are constantly being created and destroyed (this need not mean nothing ever has a chance to evolve; outside of space-time there probably is no such thing as time but within our universe, time exists). So to the outside chaos it takes absolutely zero time for our universe to be created, evolve, and succumb to its ultimate fate (whether it be expansion or a reversal of expansion at some point), but inside the universe we experience billions and maybe trillions of years.

That's my interpretation of Hawking's statement anyway. And really it's the only logical theory of creation I've ever heard of. The whole "god did it" argument has the same flaws as other theories of creation - that is, where did god (or the universe in non-theological theories) come from?

 

[apeiron]

But the lack of physical laws in "nothing" means that there is nothing to prevent sponteneous events from occurring - that is to say, even if there was originally nothing, it was bound not to last since its lack of physical laws resulted in infinite instability.

That is certainly the broad view I have, and was the view expressed by various philosophers like Anaximander and CS Peirce.

In particular, what you put your finger on was the argument that physical laws are global constraints. The unstable fluctuations in a sea of raw potential must produce their own stabilising constraints along with the substance that gets constrained. You need the two things working synergistically for a universe to grow and become something self-organised and long run.

This gets round the need for quantum field theory or other "laws of physics" contexts to pre-exist the fluctuations that are generated. They become part of what is also generated.

 

[tom.stoer]

In my view, a true state of "nothingness" means the absence of anything, matter, energy, forces, or physical laws at all. In the absence of any physical laws there is unlimited potential, right?

This is certainly not the common physical interpretation of "nothing". First of all "nothing" has always been defined in the context of some theory which means there is already a mathematical structure, physical laws and some interpretation on top of it. Even the absence of matter, energy and forces can not be made rigorous in a typical quantum theory b/c that would mean that "nothing" is a state that is annihilated by all observables which would mean (I guess) that this state is not |0> but 0 and from 0 nothing can emerge.

I agree that this is not "creation out of nothing" in the philosophical / ontological sense.

Perhaps one idea which could bring us closer to "creation out of nothing" is the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH, Max Tegmark). But even MUH requires "more than nothing" to start with as there must exist mathematics, (consistent) mathematical structures etc.

 

[czes]

What is information ?
What is wave function ?
Nobody knows because in our real world are relation between the information or squared wave function. The matter and space-time due to Holographic Principle may be created from the relation between the information and we count it as a finite number of the bits on the screen (Event Horizon).
If the information or wave function are not a matter so we get the matter world of non-material information.
As wrote Tom Stoer - What is "nothing" ?
You have an idea of the program in computer, then you switch a button, computer runs and you have the virtual reality from what ?
From your idea.
The idea is a matter ? no. we can say "nothing " from matterial point of view.
Max Tegmark wrote a Mathematical Universe. Is this Mathematical Idea something matterial ?
It is "nothing " but an information which is... What is a pure information ...?

 

[apeiron]

This is certainly not the common physical interpretation of "nothing". First of all "nothing" has always been defined in the context of some theory which means there is already a mathematical structure, physical laws and some interpretation on top of it.

In physics this is true, but then how do you go "beyond the standard model" without changing something about what you currently believe? So do you have an argument for why the above must always be the case?

There are still ways of keeping the idea of hard global constraints in a developmental ontology. You can place them in the future of the system so they are the emergent organisation - the hidden attractor to which any free play of local fluctuations must eventually settle.

And nothingness is also frequently defined as a state of equilibrium - a state of nothing happening (even as everything is happening). A vacuum can be considered a restless sea of virtual particles. A heat death de sitter universe can be considered as a void full of blackbody photons.

You seem to be making merely an epistemic point - how we conventionally construct models - rather than an ontological claim, such as form must platonically pre-exist the substances it creates.

Perhaps one idea which could bring us closer to "creation out of nothing" is the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH, Max Tegmark). But even MUH requires "more than nothing" to start with as there must exist mathematics, (consistent) mathematical structures etc.

That approach is rather arguing against creation itself because everything already and always exists in "some-where".

 

[tom.stoer]

In physics this is true, but then how do you go "beyond the standard model" without changing something about what you currently believe?

I can certainly go beyond the standard model w/o going beyond physics.

So do you have an argument for why the above must always be the case?

Yes. In physics you always assume that mathematics is already there :-)

... rather than an ontological claim, such as form must platonically pre-exist the substances it creates.

Even if everyone in physics would agree to the Platonic view (many do not) I am not sure if "nothingness" is a metaphysical pre-existing entity from which an "existing nothing" can be created. I would say that creation from nothing is not compatible with a Platonic view which is based on eternally existing ideas (but I am not sure b/c it's a long time ago that I studied Greek metaphyiscs). [/QUOTE]

 

[Fra]

Yes. In physics you always assume that mathematics is already there :-)

I think it's true in the sense which MOST physicists think.

But it's not true if you look at the history of science. What would Newton have done w/o calculus? So mathematical are constructed along with evolving knowledge of nature.

A few rare people trie to take this seriously, Unger/Smolin (not sure what is responsible for the original quote) called this in his talks on evolving law, the "poisoned gift of mathematics to physics".

This is one think I'm trying to take more seriously, in particular to at least TRY (most physicists doesn't care) to understand how mathematics is actually emergent in nature. I mean, exactly how are microstates or information states encoded in an atom? Does the way they are encoded infact put constraints on their actions? There are many such really good questions that is not just greek philosophy.

It is philosophical but it suggests even a more unified view between physics, science and mathematics. In this sense, the choice of mathematics (choice of axioms etc) is not independent on nature, if we are not talking about PURE mathematics, but the specific mathematics that does play major roles in modelling and understanding physical systems.

In the world of all possible mathematical frameworks, which of them describes physics best? and which serves us best? Seen this way, the mathematic can't quite be taken as a god given neutral language. I think it's a fallacy that we have been tricked into by the extreme success of this method in most cases.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

I think it's true in the sense which MOST physicists think.

But it's not true if you look at the history of science. What would Newton have done w/o calculus? So mathematical are constructed along with evolving knowledge of nature.

I did not say that specific mathematical methods dp already exist, but that "mathematics" does. I think you understand the difference. It's a Platonic view regarding mathematics as a whole.

 

[Fra]

I did not say that specific mathematical methods dp already exist, but that "mathematics" does. I think you understand the difference. It's a Platonic view regarding mathematics as a whole.

Like some people argue that "all possible axiom systems" already exists in the world of all mathematics, even if nowhere implemented or used the I see the difference.

Maybe I overinterpreted what you mean but...

But what I meant is, what exactly is the line between the "basic mathematics" (such as number, real numbers in particular), and specific mathematical frameworks (such as geometry, functional analysis etc).

For example, how do you justify in the context of rating possibilities the use of real numbers? It's not void of information to assume that the physical representation is isomorphic to a real number, as is seen when you later consider the entropy of such a construction from first principles. Uncountable sets have nontrivial effecets that countables has not. Already such an extremely "basic" thing shows I think that even mathematics (not just higher order frameworks) is not "innocent".

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

I don'T nknow if I really get the point. Let's come back to the original quastion "universe from nothing".-

All what I wanted to indicate is that usually in physics (even in physics beyond the standard model) this "nothing" is interpreted as "physically nothing there" in a certain context, a theory, a theory space, a mathematical framework, ...

Therefore this "nothing" is not what could be called "nothingness" in terms of ontology as it always presupposes something according to which we agree that there is "nothing". It's context specific. It's only reasonable if we already agree what it means to have nothing, somethig instead of nothing, ... But this agreement is beyond the scope of any physical theory, it's metaphysics.

Therefore "nothing" in physics is always "relative to something". Maths was just an example for such a context.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Let's come back to the original question "universe from nothing".-

All what I wanted to indicate is that usually in physics (even in physics beyond the standard model) this "nothing" is interpreted as "physically nothing there" in a certain context, a theory, a theory space, a mathematical framework, ...

Therefore this "nothing" is not what could be called "nothingness" in terms of ontology as it always presupposes something according to which we agree that there is "nothing". It's context specific. It's only reasonable if we already agree what it means to have nothing, something instead of nothing, ... But this agreement is beyond the scope of any physical theory, it's metaphysics.

Therefore "nothing" in physics is always "relative to something". Maths was just an example for such a context.

''Nothing'' is modeled in quantum physics by the vacuum state - whether it is an empty input mode in a beam splitter or a quantum field without particles. So the question is whether a primordial vacuum could have dynamically changed into our universe.

Because of the conservation laws for momentum and energy valid in the standard model, it is impossible (under the currently accepted modeling assumptions in quantum physics) that a vacuum can turn into something nonvacuous in a region of space small enough such that gravitation is negligible. And indeed, such a thing has never been observed.

If the universe at large is governed by a local field theory, all causes are local, whence the same remains true globally in the universe.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Yes. In physics you always assume that mathematics is already there :-)

You are confusing the description level and the metalevel on which the description is made:

In doing physics, we assume mathematics to create models of reality.

But this mathematics is not part of the real system modeled but only of its description.

 

[tom.stoer]

You are confusing the description level and the metalevel on which the description is made.

No, I am certainly not confusing that. I think I am trying to point out what you are saying. I want to make clear that "nothing" according to physics and "nothingness" (or however you may call) it according to ontology is not the same - these terms are belongig to "different categories of existence". But you can't understand that in a purely physical context, it's metaphyiscs or metascience.

But I don't think that this was the original intention of this thread, so we should stop doing philosophy and come back to physics.

 

[Fra]

But this mathematics is not part of the real system modeled but only of its description.

Right, and this is exactly why I think we should distinguish between descriptive problems and decision problems.

In a decision problem, the descriptive tools at hand, becomes constraints on the decision process.

This is a distincion that's clear if you picture an observer that just describes what's going on int a controlled subsystem in this own environment, where all the ensemble abstractions makes sense. Here mathematics is powerful, but descriptive. The mathematics itself has no physical significance, it's just the language of hte model.

But the situation where the observer is itself part of the game, and the THEORY is not merely descriptive but rather an "interation tool" who serves a purpose of decision making beyond the pure descriptive one, then a different thinking is needed, and somehow the mathematics needs to be taken more seriously. It's not "only" descriptive anymore - this was my point.

/Fredrik

 

[apeiron]

Even if everyone in physics would agree to the Platonic view (many do not) I am not sure if "nothingness" is a metaphysical pre-existing entity from which an "existing nothing" can be created.

I understand your point, but it does not limit an effort to model nothingness in a more physically complete fashion.

So yes, the standard position always defines nothingness in terms of an absence. First you have the something, then you imagine what is left when this removed. When done rigorously, you end up with just whatever mathematical forms or physical framework of laws that was the prevailing context for your substantial and localised things.

So whether it is GR, QM or thermodynamics - the big three successful bodies of physical theory - you can define a zero state in which you have the "everything" of the laws, and then the absence of any measureable local action within the context of those global constraints.

All fine as far as it goes. But then the next step would be a larger physical model that can imagine the absence even of these global constraints, these particular frameworks of bounding laws.

So a nothingness which is about no events AND no contexts. You may again protest that this is beyond physics or science, and is only a metaphysical or philosophical question. But I fail to see on what grounds.

In theoretical biology, for example, this kind of developmental perspective, where you have both the local events and global constraints emerging mutually, synergistically, hierarchically, is quite a common one these days. For example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructal_theory

The argument is thus that these "philosophical" considerations can guide us on what would actually constitute a final theory sufficient to talk about the creation of the universe. It is clear that it is not enough to explain the emergence of the local substance, we also have to be modelling the emergence of the global constraints as well. So if QM is the explanation, then we have to account for both the quantum event (some kind of fluctuation) and the quantum context (the field, laws, retrocausal platonic realm, or whatever).

It also tells us which kinds of speculations are beside the point. So Tegmark's multiverse is very entertaining, for instance, but it does not tackle the issue of where the global constraints necessary for his infinite realm came from. Likewise Smolin's evolving multiverse, or Linde's eternal inflation.

Any theoretical approach which does not attempt to also account for the emergence of global constraints just cannot answer questions about the ultimate origins of things, because they already presume the existence of things (global things, even if not local things).

Therefore what you say about QM having no trouble with local absence is both perfectly true, and completely beside the point. And to say the modelling of emergent global constraint is "outside science" is arguable. Depends how much you like biology I guess .

 

[tom.stoer]

From a scientific point of view I can agree tonearly everything what you said, from a philosophical point I can't.

If you try to "model nothingness in a more physically complete fashion" you rely on a context, namely physics, and you may arrive at nothingness in terms of "absence of something", but of course not in the sense of "absence of the phyiscal context" which may emerge from nothingness. It does not emerge as it was never absent.

But this is irrelevant as this is the physics forum :-) I think from a scientific point of view one can try to reduce the input to a scientific theory as much as possible and one can even try to rely on emerging laws, inference (Fra, are you listening?). I think we can agree on that.

 

[apeiron]

If you try to "model nothingness in a more physically complete fashion" you rely on a context, namely physics, and you may arrive at nothingness in terms of "absence of something", but of course not in the sense of "absence of the phyiscal context" which may emerge from nothingness. It does not emerge as it was never absent.

I don't think you are following the argument. The developmental perspective would put the "physical context" into the future of the developing system. It is only definitely there at the end of things (because a context which is so definite as to seem lawful is part of what has to emerge from the "nothingness" of a simple potential).

So you are taking the view that the laws, the global constraints, were "always there, never absent". And this is indeed the Platonic view. And we know the paradoxes that the Platonic view creates.

I am arguing the developmental view, the self-organising view (which is more Aristotelean) where the laws, the constraints, the platonic forms, are only "always present" in the sense of always present as the future of the system. In retrospect, they appear to have that degree of logical or physical inevitability. We can see "now" - now that we are part of a very orderly universe - that there was this gradient which we just had to slither down.

So you are saying "the laws were always there". And if pushed, you will say they were always there in a mathematically platonic sense (1+1=2 in any possible reality, etc).

If you believe this solves the riddle of how universes can be created "out of nothing" then fine, I can see you need no further level of modelling.

However there is still the alternative view which finds a place for global constraints, but puts them clearly into the future of self-organising systems.

And I would have thought crucially for this discussion, the future of a system is by definition a "physical" place. It is actually located somewhere in the system (even if it is at the end of time).

Whereas mathematical Platonia is the unphysical option! Unless you get all woo-woo and start saying, well our world really is just the flickering shadow on the wall of a higher reality.

 

[tom.stoer]

You completely misunderstood. I am saying that what you are trying to do is self-contradictory.

You try to "let something emerge from nothing". But in order to do that you are referring to some principles, global constraints, self-organisation or something. It doesn't matter which guiding principle or whatever you are using - it is there. So you need at least this guiding principle as a context for the whole discussion and therefore you do not start from nothing.

 

[apeiron]

You completely misunderstood. I am saying that what you are trying to do is self-contradictory.

You try to "let something emerge from nothing". But in order to do that you are referring to some principles, global constraints, self-organisation or something. It doesn't matter which guiding principle or whatever you are using - it is there. So you need at least this guiding principle as a context for the whole discussion and therefore you do not start from nothing.

You still misunderstand the argument. I am not trying to get something out of nothing, but instead something definite out of a state of naked potential.

A potential is as much an everything as it is a nothing. And it is also less - that is prior - to both.

So what I am trying to do is make that distinction. There is a state which is less than nothing, even more primitive - because a "nothing" is a positive state of absence. It is the definite lack of something where a something could equally definitely be.

To have a localised event, you must have a global context. And to have a lack of a localised event, there must also still be that global context. But I am talking about a step back to where there is neither events, nor contexts, simply the potential for such things to arise. And there are models for describing such situations.

 

[Fra]

I think from a scientific point of view one can try to reduce the input to a scientific theory as much as possible and one can even try to rely on emerging laws, inference (Fra, are you listening?). I think we can agree on that.

Yes I'm listening.

I discussed with Apeiron before I his idea, much inspired by CS peirce etc is more or less in line with what I'm at. A couple of points of disagreements that always tends to come up are

1. The first is simply because it's hard to explain this. Because what may seem either contradictory or circular reasoning, is really evolving reasoning. It's not something from nothing, it's small improvemetns from the prior state. Just like evolution. Life did not simply emerge out of nothing in one go, it's part of evolutionary scheme. I've discussed this before several times and won't comment more there.

2. The other is then, that all this must not state at the philosophy level, the question is how to translate this into a construction of mathematics and some sort of computational system. This is also hard to discuss until more progress is made; but my view is to go from descriptive to decision views, and reconstruct a probability-like system. The constraints are there in the form of the current state of the descriptive tools (counting systems and representation of histories distinguishable events).

Note that in 2 I'm trying to implement mathematically the ideas. So we're not back at greek philosophy anymore. If I remember corrrectly Aperior is a proper philosopher, I'm not. I never ever studied philosophy except superficially in an old course I took on the "history of mathematics", which elaborates on how foundations of mathematics emerged from some old philosophers. In those days, "philosophers" and "scientists", "physicsics" where all the same guys :) that's not hte case anymore.

/Fredrik

 

[apeiron]

A couple of points of disagreements that always tends to come up are

I certainly agree with both those points.

Note that in 2 I'm trying to implement mathematically the ideas. So we're not back at greek philosophy anymore.

My background is in mind science and that led to systems science as a general way to model life and minds. The philosophy is only incidental - necessary to demonstrate where holism and reductionism first forked in the history of thought.

Systems science is a mathematical approach. But one in an early stage of development still.

 

[tom.stoer]

something definite out of a state of naked potential.

A potential is as much an everything as it is a nothing. And it is also less - that is prior - to both.

But I am talking about a step back ... simply the potential for such things to arise. And there are models for describing such situations.

I am still not convinced. I mean I understand your reasoning, but ontologically you still have something, now you call it potential, and you have a model to describe it.

You reasoning is not circular, it's something like "negative dialectics"; your approaching "nothing" dialectically. But this reasoning does only allow you describe what nothing is NOT. You "stepwise undress" your ontologigal basis - or better, you "change your ontological categories". That's perfectly OK, but still does not allow you to fully describe nothing - which seems to be self-contradictory and therefore impossible at all (to me).

But again - this is a philosophical discussion and I think that in the physical sense we nearly agree. What I am trying to say philosophically is irrelevant physically. You can't do physics w/o a physical context how negative it may be.