How can anything come from nothing

[Royce]

Originally posted by Eh
One difference is that we at least know spacetime exists, whether eternal or not. We do not know any supernatural being exists at all, let alone one that it is eternal. So speculations do always have the same merit.

A few corrections; We THINK we know that spacetime exists but not what or how it is. There is speculation that spacetime is a characteristic of matter,i.e. without matter space time does not exist.

YOU do not know that an eternal "supernatural" being exists. I put quotes around supernatural because I think it is a misnomer. A more appropriate term would be IMHO ultra-natural. There are those who know that such a being does exist, I am one of them. There is more to this universe than science and the scientific "knowledge" of Man.

Did you mean to say, "So speculations do NOT always have the same merit."? If we know something then it is not pure speculation. We only speculate about what we do not know.

I did not mean to, and will not subvert the topic of this thread to speculation about a supernatural being. It was an off hand remark and should have been ignored possibly after a chuckle.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
A few corrections; We THINK we know that spacetime exists but not what or how it is.

Everyone with a functioning visual cortex will experience something we have labeled space. Anyone who is not a vegetable experiences change and we call that time. For the most part, no one seems to dispute this experience. However, most people in the world aren't likely to claim any experience of supreme being, and those that do usually aren't consistent. We do know of people who do claim to experience unsual things, but we tend to lock them up in institutions.

There is speculation that spacetime is a characteristic of matter,i.e. without matter space time does not exist.

This speculation has been shown to be incorrect by science.

YOU do not know that an eternal "supernatural" being exists. I put quotes around supernatural because I think it is a misnomer. A more appropriate term would be IMHO ultra-natural. There are those who know that such a being does exist, I am one of them. There is more to this universe than science and the scientific "knowledge" of Man.

I don't doubt you and others experience something you label "God". But I would argue the explanation of this experience has a more rational (and less complicated) source. Much like how our senses like sound and taste are explained in terms of brain processes, it would seem that kind of explanation for unsual experiences is much simpler than postulating some superpower wielding being our ancestors would cll magical.

Did you mean to say, "So speculations do NOT always have the same merit."? If we know something then it is not pure speculation. We only speculate about what we do not know.

That's right, I meant to say NOT. I often make typos, so you'll have to watch for it. At any rate, my point is that saying "God did it" is not on equal footing as a naturalistic explanations. One explanation may be based on rational thought and observations of the world, while the other is completely made up with no explanatory power. One might as well say Santa created the universe.

As I said, all speculations do not have the same merit. We cannot truly know anything outside our own experience, but the speculations we have about the outside world differ in that some offer explanatory power while others do not.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Eh
Everyone with a functioning visual cortex will experience something we have labeled space. Anyone who is not a vegetable experiences change and we call that time. For the most part, no one seems to dispute this experience. However, most people in the world aren't likely to claim any experience of supreme being, and those that do usually aren't consistent. We do know of people who do claim to experience unsual things, but we tend to lock them up in institutions.

Seeing and experiences spacetime as quoted above is a bit simplistic.
I wasn't speaking of spacetime at that level but at a deeper more scientific level and the properties of spacetime. "We" also fed them to the lions, ovens, mass graves and crucifications.

This speculation has been shown to be incorrect by science.

I am not questioning this but am very curious about when and how this was done. can you point me to link, article or book in which this is discussed?

I don't doubt you and others experience something you label "God". But I would argue the explanation of this experience has a more rational (and less complicated) source. Much like how our senses like sound and taste are explained in terms of brain processes, it would seem that kind of explanation for unsual experiences is much simpler than postulating some superpower wielding being our ancestors would cll magical.

It always amazes me to what lengths nonbelievers will go to attempt to explain in scientific natural terms what others experience and accept as natural spiritual or religious phenomena. What could be more natural than the creator of the natural universe? What is so hard to accept about that possibility but so easy to accept without qualm an infinite and eternal spacetime and/or universe. One is in my mind just as magical and improbable as the other. I do not understand the antagonistic bias against a creator.

That's right, I meant to say NOT. I often make typos, so you'll have to watch for it. At any rate, my point is that saying "God did it" is not on equal footing as a naturalistic explanations. One explanation may be based on rational thought and observations of the world, while the other is completely made up with no explanatory power. One might as well say Santa created the universe.

There are no naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Big Bang or the Big Bang itself. Nor are there any observations or rational thought as no one was there to observe. It is all specutation and can never be proved or disproved one way or the other. To say that one form of specutation has more merit than another merely admits to a bias in thinking, a preference of one over the other or preconceived notions. One is just as possible and has just as much merit as the other despite your and other's bias agains s "supernatural creator."
Yes, one might as well say that Santa did it and there is no proof that he didn't. Is that your problem with supernatural beings, you discovered that there is no such thing as a real physical Santa Claus; so now there can be no other supernateral beings including God too?

As I said, all speculations do not have the same merit. We cannot truly know anything outside our own experience, but the speculations we have about the outside world differ in that some offer explanatory power while others do not.

While I agree that all speculations do not have the same merit and that we cannot truly know anything outside our experience, the only difference that I see here is one explanation is acceptable to you while another is not simply on the basis that you do not believe in God the creator. That's fine with me. You have the right to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want just as I do. That does not, however, make you right and me wrong or qualify me for the loony bin.

 

[THANOS]

There be no creator for there is no creation.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by THANOS
There be no creator for there is no creation.

Ahh, the infinite ,immortal, eternal, all knowing THANOS has spoken.
The issue is now settled once and for all. We are wiser and grateful for the proclamation from above. One question, THANOS, Where then did the universe come from and where did you come from? Did something indeed come from nothing as the original question of this thread asked?

 

[THANOS]

Of course our universe didn't come from just nothing. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. I personally believe we always existed, for i see no proof or even a sign that creation exist. All the things man claimed to have created was merely just converted.


Plus i don't claim to know all but i do know enough*.
Nothing or no one can claim to know all under the fact that knowing all is impossible. You'll drive an all knowing being nuts if you asked that being "What is the one question that you can not answer?" Leaving them that insoluble question would prove them almost all knowing.




*partial line from matrix when morpheus speaks to neo and referring to the oracle.

 

[wolram]

maybe "know", is a word that we cannot use as yet,
"probability "is a word we can use with confidence,
the probability of the eternal existence of something
is very high, we exsist.
the probability that the something was energy is also
very high, what can happen whithout energy?
to exclude a god from creation may mean defining the
difference between primal energy and primal being,
one creation by a god would be by design, the other
by scientific laws.
if one is willing to accept that something has always
exsisted ,then nonintuitive theoies for creation can be
rejected.

 

[Royce]

Agreed Wolram; but, who or what made the scientific laws and who or what makes them work with the high probability and accuracy that they do? The question is unanswerable. The belief in a supreme being, creator, or consciousness is still just as ceditable as the eternal universe existing as it does with the laws that it has and follows.
Both beliefs are equaly improbable and hard to get hold of in our minds. Neither is satisfactory or intuitive. Neither explains anything but begs the question until it becomes not only unanswerable but unaskable if there is such a word.
To refute one belief over the other because of predjudice and call it logic is just as absurd as believing one over the other by claiming intuitive and/or absolute knowledge.
None of us KNOW and nothing is PROVED and so it is all speculation, hypothesis and theory.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

even nothing is composed from something

for example the vacuum is composed from virtual particles.

 

[sepultallica]

Originally posted by Pyrite

Also, it is theorized that before the big bang, the universe was compressed to an infinitesimal size. It is also thought that it was decompressed before the Big Bang, and may have been much like, or exactly like, the universe as it is now.

It seems likely, from what we observe of planets, and what we know of light waves, that the universe is either expanding, or moving apart. we can tell this because everything seems to be moving further and further away from us.

I might also say that if space and time blinked into existence, it would likely be exactly the same as if they had existed forever, as no time would have passed before.

the only thing that can be proven is that something exists. what that thing is may vary.

hi all! first post here so i want to make it as confusing and circular as possible so here goes

my understanding of the big bang theory stemms from this compressed pile of ****. all of a sudden, the forces acting within this compressed universe became so great that **** just hit the fan and bang here we are. now if the universe is infinitely big, then the universe cannot be expanding. it will have no where to expand to. if the universe is not infinitely big, then it can be expanding but then you have the issue of what's beyond the universe. well, you have the universe again. we'd have to continue calling this empty void (or whatever it would consist of) the universe until we came up with another description. so let's assume that the universe is not infinitely big and that there is another barrier with something else that we do not know about. now from the original compressed pile of **** (prior to the bb), could it have been possible that outside of that compresed state, could be the same as the current state of the universe with that outside barrier still existing only the universe is now taking up more space within it? this seems more probable than the universe is infinitely big. we can see that something is happening within the universe because it appears to expanding. now in the universe's current state, is it possible that it is also compressesd and is trying to expand and escape from this compressed state as in the bb. is it possible that the bb is an ongoing event that does not stop and is taking place this very second? gots to get back to work now.

 

[wolram]

may i say that the one thing this thread has established
is that "something", has allways exsisted.
personally i prefer some form of energy, i find it difficult
to imagine an all powerful eternal god, but maybe they
are one and the same, god is energy, energy is god, it
requiers a little stretch of the imagination to think
that energy could thoughtful, but then science asks
far more from our imaginations.

i think therefore i am, could that be all it takes?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce

Seeing and experiences spacetime as quoted above is a bit simplistic.
I wasn't speaking of spacetime at that level but at a deeper more scientific level and the properties of spacetime. "We" also fed them to the lions, ovens, mass graves and crucifications.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

I am not questioning this but am very curious about when and how this was done. can you point me to link, article or book in which this is discussed?

I think we can go back to Einstein for this, since he also wrote a lot about the philosophy of space and time. In The Meaning of Relativity, he covers this. Space does not owe it's existence on quarks, and GR can consistently describe universes that contain no matter at all. It is the field that space owes it's existence to. Space then is a property of this field (perhaps fundemental) and is a quite real property.

It always amazes me to what lengths nonbelievers will go to attempt to explain in scientific natural terms what others experience and accept as natural spiritual or religious phenomena.

How is offering the simplest explanation available going to great lengths? We know people have dellusions as a result of different activity in the brain, and no extra entities are required to explain them. It is those claiming "God did it" that are adding an extra complicated being as an explanation.

What could be more natural than the creator of the natural universe?

God, as defined in classic theism does not fit the definition of natural by any means. This being is said to be outside of space and time, and whether you call it ultra natural, supernatural or downright magical, the definitions are equivalent. So by very definition, God is an unnatural explanation.

What is so hard to accept about that possibility but so easy to accept without qualm an infinite and eternal spacetime and/or universe.

It's not the possibility I'm talking about. It's trying to compare one explanation that is simple and requires no great ad hoc, contrived explanations, to one that is the complete opposite. God is magic.

There are no naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Big Bang or the Big Bang itself. Nor are there any observations or rational thought as no one was there to observe. It is all specutation and can never be proved or disproved one way or the other.

There was no one around to observe the formation of the planet either, but that is irrelevant. What I mean by rational explanation is taking a few observations and seeing where it leads. For example, the big bang theory itself is a perfect example. Take the observation that the universe is expanding, and wind the clock back and you can rationally conclude that at one time the universe was much hotter and denser. Any speculation about what happened before that will require additional observations or premises. An example of this would be if observations allow us to add the premise that supergravity is an accurate description of spacetime, then the picture changes. Now from the premise that the cosmological constant in supergravity is likely to go from having positive pressure to negative, it follows that the universe could be oscillating. That would an example of a simple line of rational thought process leading to a simple explanation for what came "before" the big bang.

Now you might say that at this point there are no models that go beyond the standard model, and you'd be correct. But in this case, these new and up and coming models at least have the potential to be testible. God on the other hand, is an explanation that will never be testible, explains nothing and is just an extra entity being tacked on.

 

[wolram]

posted by EH.

I think we can go back to Einstein for this, since he also wrote a lot about the philosophy of space and time. In The Meaning of Relativity, he covers this. Space does not owe it's existence on quarks, and GR can consistently describe universes that contain no matter at all. It is the field that space owes it's existence to. Space then is a property of this field (perhaps fundemental) and is a quite real property.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i agree to all of the above except, space owing its exsistence
to the field. how can you have a field without space for it
to exsist in?

 

[pyrophoric]

We are a Reaction to an Action

have struggled with with theories for creation for onei find it totaly ilogical that nothing exsisted before creation the best i can come up with for a psudo nothing is two forces that cancel each other. Our existence must prove that absolute nothing is impossible.

If you look at how every known thing in the universe, interacts and balances each other...from the micro to the macro, everything relates and is sustained on the principle of balance/symmetry/mathematic relations, I like to assume that the force which brought about our existence was aware enough of itself to be in reaction to something. We are more of a "code" or "pattern" that was layed out with a purpose in "mind". or an reaction to an action. "nothing", in our common understanding of the word, would have no purpose, so I don't believe we came from nothing. I don't believe in God, I choose to think in dimensions. If I were to toss around a theory it would be that the "nothing" before the big bang was a black hole, (which fits our definition of nothing now as no one has ever seen one and it doesn't operate according to our physical laws), if a black hole is eating light, and spits it out on the other side, then the big bang would be the reformation of a parallel dimension as it was shot out of a black hole as the black hole (nothingness) was devouring the light and energy on the other side. absolute nothing would just be "black" or "absolute darkness" in that we just can't see what is there.

The word "Universe" means "everything" or "all that exists", as njorl already pointed out. Thus, even to say "outside the Universe" is logically meaningless.
we created words and their meaning, as with slang, any word can have any meaning anyone wants to give it and the word can never alter or change the actual "thing" described. It is whatever It is...regardless of what we name It.



either something has always existed, or space and time just blinked into existence, which is the same thing. as far as creationism goes, god(s) is/are
time only exists because of light and man's need to give light a reference point...space is a density that allows light to move through it
In this scenario, there is no time when the universe did not
exist.
that's true, in that, time only exists because there is a universe through which light travels and when we came along, we counted periods of change.

If we know something then it is not pure speculation. We only speculate about what we do not know.

If we never second guessed things that are said to be known, then we would never have come up with science at all. They "knew" the Earth was flat because they could see straight ahead...some speculated on whether or not what they knew was true. I only "know" what hasn't been proved to be wrong. or "the wise man knows he knows nothing."


that the universe is either expanding, or moving apart. we can tell this because everything seems to be moving further and further away from us.

or is it just that as "time" passes, we can see farther away...that light is traveling outward and when it is reflected back as us it has to travel farther back?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wolram
i agree to all of the above except, space owing its exsistence
to the field. how can you have a field without space for it
to exsist in?

Why would it need outside space to exist in? Logically, it need not. It goes against intuition, but if we think in terms of logic there isn't a problem.

 

[Arc_Central]

An understanding of nothing can't be had in the absence of something. It is a necessary part of existence, as Non-Existence is a requirement to Existence.

We then have a reality to Non-Existence. That reality is currently a finite number of somethings representing a finite sea of nothing defined by an infinity of Non_Existence. Your reality is confined to the current limit of definition on Non-Existence.

 

[wolram]

thanks for all replies.

the broad spectrum of views is interesting, in general
it seems that ideas are split three ways.

1 "something", has allways exsisted

2 "nothing", is indefineable

3 a god created everything

i am struggling to stick with main stream theoris BB, GR, etc
"space" expanding, space bending due to gravity, frame dragging,
entanglement etc etc.
i can only hope that projects like "gravity probe b", can send
back some real evidence as to what is going on.
until then number 1 is my prefference.

 

[Sikz]

Hmmmm... I think I'll start by asking how you know that there is SOMETHING now. How do you? How do you know that anything is anything?

Now, we can agree, I presume, that empty space is nothing? If there are no objects in all the space in the universe, the universe does not exist, correct? It is nothing? Assuming that this is true, we can examine the universe. Between every "thing" we find nothing. Upon magnifying our "thing" we find smaller "things" (atoms shall be used in our example) separated by nothing. When we magnify atoms, we find electrons, protons, and neutrons surrounded by nothing. Upon magnifying the protons and neutrons we find quarks and gluons, separated by nothing. Quarks, gluons, and electrons are sopposedly elementary particles, and theoreticly they take up no space. They are geometric points- nothing.

Therefore it might appear that the universe is, in fact, comprised of nothing. Barring this, however, what other solution might be found to our problem? Well, the phrasing you used (not of your own fault, but due to the ineptitude of the english language) was that nothing EXISTED before the universe. Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist- for to exist it would be something. Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe. The universe would appear to have always existed.

There are two ways (that is, two ways that I can think of) that the universe could have always existed (ignoring the possibility that the universe does not exist at all). Either the universe had no beginning and thus shall have no end, the universe simply recycles itself and continues forever, or it did, in a way, have a beginning. Let us examine the latter first. We find every point in time can be specified in two ways: either relative to the past or relative to the future. For instance, observing that we are about to drop a glass plate from a set distance above the floor, having calculated the time it will take from our dropping the plate to its shattering, we can define the instant in two ways. We can say "This instant is so and so hours and so and so minutes since midnight last night" (relative to the past) or we can say "This instant is so and so seconds before the shattering of the plate" (relative to the future). Any point in time can be specified like this, in two ways. Any point, that is, except for two.

The beginning of time and the end of time cannot be specified in this way. Indeed, how can time have ever begun and how can time ever end? For in order for time to begin, it must out of necessity have not existed the moment before. Yet, there WAS no moment before. There is no past. The opposite goes for the end of time: out of necessity there must be no time after the end. But there is no "after the end" which can be devoid of time!

Therefore it is similar to an asymptotic function. We can get ever closer to the beginning (or end) of time, but we can never reach it save as an abstraction.

Now we move on to the second possibility for an eternal universe: one which has simply, in the most conventional way, existed forever and shall continue to exist forever. This universe can take one of two forms: either that of a line, extending outwards infinitely from a central point (the central point being the present), or a circle, endlessly repeating.

We could go into far greater detail concerning these possibilities, but I believe they have been sufficiently covered in light of our enquiry. Nothing is not simply an absence of things, but simply an absence. It is unexplainable in the English language, an abstraction. It is a lack of anything and everything, yet it cannot, by its very nature, exist.

 

[wolram]

well sikz, i think you have covered just about everything
in your post, its amazing the time it takes thinking about
nothing.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Sikz
Hmmmm... I think I'll start by asking how you know that there is SOMETHING now. How do you? How do you know that anything is anything?

By definition, of course. It's just like asking how we can know A=A. "Things" is just the label we put on our various experiences.

Now, we can agree, I presume, that empty space is nothing?

No, see the posts above. Empty space is beyond a doubt a thing, given the claims of GR and QM. Regardless, there is no justification in taking the concept of a volume with geometric properties and claiming it to be "not anything". It would be like claiming non-existence can exist, which is a logical impossibility.

Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist- for to exist it would be something. Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe. The universe would appear to have always existed.

But we can say it, because the english sentence "nothing created the universe" does not refiy "nothing" to be something. It is a negative sentence that is literally equivalent to saying "the universe was not created from anything".

Or, "there was not anything before the big bang". Which is equivalent to "there is no before the big bang".

Nothing is not simply an absence of things, but simply an absence. It is unexplainable in the English language, an abstraction.

No it isn't. It's a word that has a function as logical negation, but does not have any meaning without being placed into the context of a sentence. A perfect example is "nothing can go faster than the speed of light". The sentence does not claim the existence of something called nothing which has the ability to exceed the speed of light, but merely negates the proposition that some things can travel faster than c.

 

[Arc_Central]

Opposition is an absolute requirement.


Non-Existence carries no meaning in the absence of Existence.

If the universe is Existence - There will be an opposition to it. I.E. Non-Existence. It is this difference that provides the definition, but there is a little more to it than that. At least as far as we are concerned. We don't Exist in a Non-Existent world. We are within the boundries of the Existent world, and to Exist within those boundries ... a difference must be noted between finite entities. These finite entities are the geometric equivalents of the initial beginning construct. The beginning construct is our universe. In the beginning - The universe cannot move in relation to anything else ... There isn't anything else ... so it expands into the infinite sea of Non-Existence. This expansion is an ongoing definition of what isn't. The product of this definition is finite entities (geometric equivalents of what initially is). These finite entities do move in relation another thing. It is this motion that provides the difference that is notable. I.E. Something slaps you in the face, and yet another thing slaps you in the face an instant later. This is what provides our understanding of things.

Non-Existence is not in our neck of the woods. There are only things, but if there are only things - how is it wee can establish a difference to be noted? The answer comes with motion (time) The separation of one event to another.

In regards to nothing? There are several definitions to it. In relation to the universe - Nothing is what the universe is made of, and it is the concept of it that makes us whole, and it is these concepts that slap us in the face.

 

[Sikz]

Eh, you are quite right about what you said in your previous post. On a few of my points, however, I obviously did not communicate my meaning effeciently.

I said:

Hmmmm... I think I'll start by asking how you know that there is SOMETHING now. How do you? How do you know that anything is anything?

By definition, you say. We are postulating that the universe is "something" in order to find the identity of another entity (not really an entity, but you shall have to bear with the inadequacy of language to describe "nothing"), "nothing". My comment was not directed towards finding the identity of "nothing" so much as simply analyzing our postulate itself. A=A only if you accept the postulate of the "Reflexive Property". While I cannot dispute this, I can dispute our postulate that the universe is "something".

I also said:

Now, we can agree, I presume, that empty space is nothing?

The next sentence mentioned my true meaning, but I should have noted that. I meant that we can agree that infinite empty space is nothing- if the entire universe is comprised only of empty space then the entire universe is nothing, for empty space can only be defined in relation to a "thing", to non-empty space. Obviously a square foot of perfect vacuum is "something", but if the netire universe consists only of perfect vacuum, the entire universe is "nothing".

Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist- for to exist it would be something. Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe. The universe would appear to have always existed.

Your comments on this are entirely correct. "Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe." was intended to mean "We cannot say that before the universe an entity called nothing existed." The universe would appear to have always existed because before it there wasn't anything- there was nothing.

While you are also correct about "nothing existed bofore the universe" implying simply an absence of things (rather than a presence of nothing), the entire point of this thread was finding the identity of "nothing" (or the lack thereof).

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Sikz
A=A only if you accept the postulate of the "Reflexive Property". While I cannot dispute this, I can dispute our postulate that the universe is "something".

The universe meets what our concept of a thing is, doesn't it? Try to list the properties of an object we would consider to be a thing, then compare it the properties we think the physical universe actually has.

The next sentence mentioned my true meaning, but I should have noted that. I meant that we can agree that infinite empty space is nothing- if the entire universe is comprised only of empty space then the entire universe is nothing, for empty space can only be defined in relation to a "thing", to non-empty space.

Keep in mind that space is only a property of the gravitational field. In an empty universe, a volume of space is still defined by the geometric relations of the field. To simplify, the field can be described as nothing but three sets of field lines. Each physical event has a corresponding geometric configuration. Empty space could be seen in terms of flat field lines.

Obviously a square foot of perfect vacuum is "something", but if the netire universe consists only of perfect vacuum, the entire universe is "nothing".

It is a thing in the ontological sense, given that it would exist.

Your comments on this are entirely correct. "Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe." was intended to mean "We cannot say that before the universe an entity called nothing existed." The universe would appear to have always existed because before it there wasn't anything- there was nothing.

That's true, but the english language is often a problem here. Instead of taking nothing to be a negative, the brain refies it to be something in it's own right. No wonder so much confusion has arisen over something that doesn't exist.

While you are also correct about "nothing existed bofore the universe" implying simply an absence of things (rather than a presence of nothing), the entire point of this thread was finding the identity of "nothing" (or the lack thereof).

As I said, nothing is a negative used to express negation. It doesn't have an identity outside this context.

 

[Sikz]

It is a thing in the ontological sense, given that it would exist.

But WOULD it exist? The only way it could be observed would by by changing its nature, by letting photons or something in. Even imagining it gives it properties that it doesn't have, for by imagining it we imagine it from a viewpoint- and there can be no viewpoints within it since nothing exists in it TO view.

It's like if you have a totally closed system that takes up no space and absorbs no energy and affects nothing outside of itself. It cannot be taken for granted that the system exists at all- in fact most people would probably state that it does not.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Eh

Originally posted by wolram
i agree to all of the above except, space owing its exsistence
to the field. how can you have a field without space for it
to exsist in?


Why would it need outside space to exist in? Logically, it need not. It goes against intuition, but if we think in terms of logic there isn't a problem.

I may be wrong, but mathematically a field is a function of space and time. So if there's no space what's left of the field?

 

[Zantra]

Only in philosophy can you find 4 pages of NOTHING

But seriously, the bottom line of all this discussion is that we do not know. I'm no more right in saying there is a something, than anyone else is in saying there is nothing.

 

[Arc_Central]

A dictionary will tell you that nothing is the absence of a thing. The problem with that is we must know what a thing is to understand the meaning of nothing. Yer in a bit of a quandry when you discuss the beginning of the universe, because yer job ... should you choose to accept it is to make a universe not knowing what a thing is. A blank slate requires that you remove yourself from the picture also.

What to do ... What to do ... What to do

Removing yourself leaves you with no way in or out of a pure state of nothing.

There are no options.

This leaves you with the impossiblity to the state of nothing, and since this is so, and we are here.

We can't begin with nothing in an absolute sense.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
I may be wrong, but mathematically a field is a function of space and time. So if there's no space what's left of the field?

The gravitational field is different from other fields like the EM. Those fields are just a distribution of some force throughout each point in spacetime, but the gravitational field (not Newtons) is spacetime itself.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Sikz
But WOULD it exist? The only way it could be observed would by by changing its nature, by letting photons or something in. Even imagining it gives it properties that it doesn't have, for by imagining it we imagine it from a viewpoint- and there can be no viewpoints within it since nothing exists in it TO view.

A line or plane still exists whether we observe it or not, ignoring the silly assumptions of extreme idealism. And as I said, even in an empty universe space is still defned by the geometric relations of the field. Flat spacetime shouldn't have any less of an ontological status than curved spacetime.

 

[Arc_Central]

The gravitational field is different from other fields like the EM. Those fields are just a distribution of some force throughout each point in spacetime, but the gravitational field (not Newtons) is spacetime itself.

These fields may be different in some ways , and the same in other ways. In fact they may be the same field. The difference may only be the meathod by which they propagate.

Although I may not disagree that a gravitational field is spacetime. How is it you know it is? Please explain.

Given that fields in general is a foggy subject. Perhaps you could shed a lttle light on the subject.