If the universe came from nothing

[Castlegate]

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?

 

[nabuco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

Infinities cannot exist in reality.

What makes infinity impossible? How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[nabuco]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Castlegate]

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.

This doesn't make sense to me. If we were the number 5 on an infinite timeline ... one cannot claim an infinity before or after 5. We obviosly have a different interpretation of infinity.

Yet here we are as time passes, which implies an incomplete infinity

By making this statement I assume that when you use the word infinity, that you really mean it. i.e. a complete infinity - thusly if time still passes we are in process toward a complete infinity of time. This says to me that the universe has existed for a finite time, and had a beginning.

 

[out of whack]

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.

The good news is that we don't need to experience everything before we can understand it. We don't have to travel a light year to understand what a light year is and we don't have to experience infinity to understand what infinity is. And at this point in the discussion we have no basis to refute infinite time.

This doesn't make sense to me. If we were the number 5 on an infinite timeline ... one cannot claim an infinity before or after 5. We obviosly have a different interpretation of infinity.

Infinite: does not begin or end. There is an infinite number of values before and after 5.

But this was only an analogy. Don't concern yourself if it doesn't help since it is not essential to the argument.

if time still passes we are in process toward a complete infinity of time

Some say that since the past is gone and the future does not even exist yet then all that exist is now. It's a defensible point of view. But for practical reasons, considering both the past and the future helps us understand reality in action. How far back in the past and how far forward in the future do you need to contemplate? It depends on the question you are asking. When you do a mechanical physics experiment in class using a pendulum, you only need to look back to the start of your experiment and forward to when you plan to end it. You don't need to consider infinity to determine how a pendulum moves. On the other hand, if you ponder the origin or reality then you ponder an entirely different domain where you cannot dismiss infinite past and infinite future. It goes with the nature of the question.

 

[nabuco]

This "non-physical cause" would have to exist, whatever "non-physical" means to you, which may differ from what it means to someone else.

"Non-physical" means anything that has no size, position, mass, momentum, or any property that can be expressed as a quantity.

And we cannot assume that everyone will be content with some non-physical answer either.

We cannot assume that everyone will be content with any explanation, no matter how convincing (http://www.theflatEarth'society.org) . We don't have to worry about reaching universal consensus.

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.

Not at all. If logic can be shown to be the primary cause of the physical universe, then the search is over. It doesn't even make sense to ask where logic comes from.

Are you saying that the mere fact that humans can formulate the concept of infinity makes infinity impossible?

I didn't put it the right way so let me try again. Infinity is not a quantity, just like zero is not a quantity. If you say an object is moving at a speed of zero, you are saying it is not moving at all. If you say an object is moving at infinite speed, you are also saying it is not moving at all (this is not as obvious but just as correct; an object moving at infinite speed would be in more than one place at the same time, which really means it's not one object but many).

When you say the universe had no beginning, that it existed forever in the past, you are essentially saying that time does not exist or is not real. Again, this is not obvious, but if you think about it you'll see it's the correct interpretation.

(just notice how a lot of people make the claim that time is not real, that only the "now" exists. Which is not true either)

I can think of things that can exist and things that cannot exist. It proves nothing with regard to infinity.

But at least you should realize that most things you can think about do not or cannot exist. We have to be very careful with our ideas as most of them are arbitrary creations.

Infinite: does not begin or end. There is an infinite number of values before and after 5

Actually, the word "infinite" means "without end", not "without beginning". And the line of numbers begins at zero, not at -infinity (all numbers are defined in terms of their distance to zero, not in terms of their distance to -infinity)

 

[baywax]

The good news is that we don't need to experience everything before we can understand it. We don't have to travel a light year to understand what a light year is and we don't have to experience infinity to understand what infinity is. And at this point in the discussion we have no basis to refute infinite time.

My contention is that "nothing" does not exist (by its own definition). So, something cannot, in any way, emerge from "it".

Yet, we discuss. We diverge in opinion. We breath and so on, or, in the very least, we are under the illusion that these activities take place.

And that is "something". And it exists.

The only way "nothing" can be determined is if we have "something" to compare it to. Yet, I have yet to be shown what "nothing" looks like.

So, by my own logic, one must have something first for nothing to be discerned. Therefore, everything has emerged from "something"... including "nothing".

 

[out of whack]

"Non-physical" means anything that has no size, position, mass, momentum, or any property that can be expressed as a quantity.

So physical means quantifiable. Ok, let's use this.

We don't have to worry about reaching universal consensus.

Ok again, let's just see what can and cannot be said.

If logic can be shown to be the primary cause of the physical universe, then the search is over. It doesn't even make sense to ask where logic comes from.

Yes, asking why logic exists does seem like another circular question: we would be using logic to answer why it exists so it also seems senseless. Again, the logical approach would be not to ask why logic exists but to ask answerable questions instead.

Infinity is not a quantity, just like zero is not a quantity.

Here, I beg to differ. Infinity is a concept and not a quantity, but zero is. Zero is an exact value, infinity is not. You can add or multiply using zero and some quantity and obtain a quantity as a result, which you cannot do with infinity. There are very important differences between the two. One is a value, the other is not.

If you say an object is moving at infinite speed, you are also saying it is not moving at all

If it were possible for an object to move at infinite speed (which relativity denies, but that's science instead of philosophy) then you would have more than just one interpretation.

1. The object occupies all positions at the same time (what you were saying) so it is everywhere along its path.
2. The object occupies every individual position for 0 time so it is nowhere at all.

Of course, being everywhere or nowhere are contradictory statements. And if you are correct in saying that moving at infinite speed is the same thing as no moving at all, then you also have a contradiction. These contradictions invalidate the premise. Therefore, infinite speed must be impossible.

On the other hand, a speed of 0 is non-contradictory and perfectly possible.

When you say the universe had no beginning, that it existed forever in the past, you are essentially saying that time does not exist or is not real.

Since you based this on the equivalence of zero with infinity and I have shown that they are not equivalent, I think you can see how this does not hold.

Actually, the word "infinite" means "without end", not "without beginning".

Not exactly. It means without limits or boundaries. You can consider infinity in any direction suitable to your argument.

My contention is that "nothing" does not exist (by its own definition). So, something cannot, in any way, emerge from "it".

I made a tongue-in-cheek remark above that was similar to what you are saying. I said that "nothing cannot exist" with a wink, but there may be a useable semantic argument to be made. If we define "nothing" as the absence of anything real, and if we understand "to exist" as the same thing as to be real then we see that "nothing" cannot be real. If nothing cannot be real, the only alternative is something. This provides a semantic answer to the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" "Because nothing cannot exist." (Where is that wink smilie?)

I have yet to be shown what "nothing" looks like.

Ditto. It wouldn't look like anything of course.

one must have something first for nothing to be discerned. Therefore, everything has emerged from "something"... including "nothing".

So you are saying that "nothing" comes from "something" but not the other way around.

 

[baywax]

So you are saying that "nothing" comes from "something" but not the other way around.

This is my logic:

You can't have "shadow" without "light". Therefore one could be assured that when they feel a shadow fall upon them, its because there is a light casting the shadow.

Similarily "nothing" (which does not exist) can only be contemplated from a position of "something" or that position which compliments the lack of something.

By this reasoning it is something that defines nothing and it cannot be the other way around since the alternative to something does not exist.

To say that nothing does not exist isn't just semantics, it is decided by the virtue and the very definition of nothing. So it is with that contradictorial and ironic sense of humour that the universe has to offer us that I remain convinced that it is only because of the existence of "something" that "nothing" can be conceptualized and said to be an influence on existence.

 

[nabuco]

[infinite] means without limits or boundaries. You can consider infinity in any direction suitable to your argument.

Actually, if we stop using "infinite" to refer to the universe's past, and start using "eternal", which is really the proper word, then it should become clear that if the universe did not have a beginning then time would not exist. ("eternal" means "outside of time", as in "eternal truths").

Since time obviously exists, the universe must necessarily have had a beginning.

(I wrote a post addressing all your points, but found it ridiculously long. Hopefully this addresses the central point of the discusssion)

To say that nothing does not exist isn't just semantics, it is decided by the virtue and the very definition of nothing. So it is with that contradictorial and ironic sense of humour that the universe has to offer us that I remain convinced that it is only because of the existence of "something" that "nothing" can be conceptualized and said to be an influence on existence.

I not only wholeheartedly agree with this, I think this is the final explanation for why the universe exists: to give meaning to "nothing". Or something crazy along those lines.

 

[out of whack]

Actually, if we stop using "infinite" to refer to the universe's past, and start using "eternal", which is really the proper word, then it should become clear that if the universe did not have a beginning then time would not exist. ("eternal" means "outside of time", as in "eternal truths").

But this new word provides no new information. First, eternal does not mean outside of time or outside of anything else (I don't know where you found this definition), it means lasting forever. The word implies that time can indeed extend indefinitely. Second, the phrase "infinite amount of time" is already clear, and it does not imply in any way that time cannot be real. You have yet to explain yourself on this.

Since time obviously exists, the universe must necessarily have had a beginning.

This remains speculation until you produce a logical proof. Repetition is not proof, but you have only repeated your claim in different words. You need something more substantial.

 

[baywax]

Since time obviously exists, the universe must necessarily have had a beginning.

Not by my reasoning. Time began when humans came up with the concept of time. Probably around 2 million years ago.

I not only wholeheartedly agree with this, I think this is the final explanation for why the universe exists: to give meaning to "nothing". Or something crazy along those lines.

Meaning is a relative concept/as in relative to the human mind. Beyond what we think something "means" in nature there is only the nature of nature which is benign, balanced and perfectly neutral.

Nature has no concept of itself but through us. Nature finds no meaning in any of its states. We, on the other hand, struggle to find these meanings and in doing so create illusions that do not exist normally in nature (except for the fact that we exist as part of nature, or so we're told! ).

 

[kant]

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.

Suppose i said S( ex table) exist. How can you explain the existence of S form non-physical premises? What do you mean by non-physical?

 

[kant]

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.

You are not making any sense.

 

[kant]

The good news is that we don't need to experience everything before we can understand it. We don't have to travel a light year to understand what a light year is and we don't have to experience infinity to understand what infinity is. And at this point in the discussion we have no basis to refute infinite time.

It does not follow that time had a beginning. You seem to use the word "infinite" a lot in your sentence, so i assume you know what it is?

Infinite: does not begin or end. There is an infinite number of values before and after 5.

The number of values before and after 5 need not be distinct. in any case, i want to know what you mean by "infinity".

 

[out of whack]

The good news is that we don't need to experience everything before we can understand it. We don't have to travel a light year to understand what a light year is and we don't have to experience infinity to understand what infinity is. And at this point in the discussion we have no basis to refute infinite time.

It does not follow that time had a beginning.

Then we are in agreement. If you read the complete thread you will see that I am arguing against the idea that there was a beginning.

You seem to use the word "infinite" a lot in your sentence, so i assume you know what it is?

That was also covered in previous posts. Infinite: without limits or boundaries. It's a dictionary definition, not something I invented.

 

[kant]

Not at all. If logic can be shown to be the primary cause of the physical universe, then the search is over. It doesn't even make sense to ask where logic comes from.

Logic is just methods of good reasoning, but by itself, it don t not say anything about the world. Logic needs synthetic premises about the world to make inferences about the world.

I didn't put it the right way so let me try again. Infinity is not a quantity, just like zero is not a quantity. If you say an object is moving at a speed of zero, you are saying it is not moving at all. If you say an object is moving at infinite speed, you are also saying it is not moving at all (this is not as obvious but just as correct; an object moving at infinite speed would be in more than one place at the same time, which really means it's not one object but many).

You are not making any sense. zero is a number, and "infinite" is not a number.

 

[kant]

Then we are in agreement. If you read the complete thread you will see that I am arguing against the idea that there was a beginning.

Well, it makes no sense if you do. Just because the notion of a "beginning" is so vague, and i don t think you even clearify it.

That was also covered in previous posts. Infinite: without limits or boundaries. It's a dictionary definition, not something I invented.

Well, if you obhor to that definition, then the universe need no have a begainning,but would simply be. Even that is a bite vague, but no way can argue where the "beginning" of knot or a closed loop is at.

 

[out of whack]

Well, it makes no sense if you do. Just because the notion of a "beginning" is so vague, and i don t think you even clearify it.

Now you're the one not making sense because you don't explain yourself. What part of my rationale is incorrect? (I assume you did read the thread.)

Well, if you obhor to that definition, then the universe need no have a begainning,but would simply be. Even that is a bite vague, but no way can argue where the "beginning" of knot or a closed loop is at.

I'm sorry to say that I don't understand what you have just said. Some of your words are misspelled beyond recognition and your syntax is confused to such a point that your text can mean anything.

 

[kant]

Now you're the one not making sense because you don't explain yourself. What part of my rationale is incorrect? (I assume you did read the thread.)

Let me see if i got your argument right: there is no beginning, because any beginning would imply a boundary that divides what exist from it s negation. It is impossible, so there is no beginning. Is that correct?

I'm sorry to say that I don't understand what you have just said. Some of your words are misspelled beyond recognition and your syntax is confused to such a point that your text can mean anything

I am not sure what you mean by misspelled words beyond recognition. Can you you not guess?

If what we call the universe is something that has always existed, then it makes no sense to say there is a beginning. That is fine, but if one s goal is to find some sort of ontological, metaphysical understanding of the nature of the universe in thems of causal reasoning( similar to that of scientific explanation) with the premises of infinite time, and space, then the question of a begainning is a meaningless one. Such universe world be sort of like a closed loop. Every point in the closed loop can be maped to a point in the real number line.

 

[out of whack]

Let me see if i got your argument right: there is no beginning, because any beginning would imply a boundary that divides what exist from it s negation. It is impossible, so there is no beginning. Is that correct?

Gosh. No. What you said has nothing to do with anything I said. You should have read my first post (#9 in this thread) in response to the OP. Let me indulge you and explain. The assumption in the OP is that "the universe came from nothing", which is the subject of this thread. My claim is that this statement is contradictory, therefore meaningless, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. My rationale for saying that this OP statement is contradictory is this:

If something can "come from" nothing then nothing must have the property of permitting this. But "nothing" does not have any property. When you have properties, you have something instead of nothing. Therefore the OP's claim is meaningless.

A corollary to the conclusion that the universe cannot "come from" anything is that the universe has existed for all time. Because of this corollary, the discussion has extended to infinity when some members claimed that infinity cannot be real. I asked them to substantiate their own claim and so far I have not seen any proof of it.

I am not sure what you mean by misspelled words beyond recognition. Can you you not guess?

I would rather not guess, it's a waste of time and an open door towards futile exchanges due to misunderstanding. I prefer to say when I don't understand and why. Besides, you have just shown that you can indeed spell and express yourself clearly, so I thank you for the courtesy of clarity.

If what we call the universe is something that has always existed, then it makes no sense to say there is a beginning.

Agreed.

That is fine, but if one s goal is to find some sort of ontological, metaphysical understanding of the nature of the universe in thems of causal reasoning( similar to that of scientific explanation) with the premises of infinite time, and space, then the question of a begainning is a meaningless one. Such universe world be sort of like a closed loop. Every point in the closed loop can be maped to a point in the real number line.

Except that the real number line does not loop, it extends infinitely in both directions.

 

[nabuco]

This remains speculation until you produce a logical proof. Repetition is not proof, but you have only repeated your claim in different words. You need something more substantial.

I have repeated my claim in different words in an attempt to explain it. I have obviously failed. I remain convinced that the universe had a beginning, but I am incapable of explaining why.

I will leave you with a question: why is it that physicists do not accept infinities as valid solutions to equations that describe real phenomena? (I can find some quotes in case you are not aware of this)

Suppose i said S( ex table) exist. How can you explain the existence of S form non-physical premises?

Your question is too ambiguous. What do you mean by "exist"?

The best definition of existence I know of is from mathematics: X exists in set U if X is a member of U. That's a pretty abstract notion as far as I'm concerned.

What do you mean by non-physical?

Things like truth, logical consistency, semantics, mathematics, theories, and so on.

 

[out of whack]

I remain convinced that the universe had a beginning, but I am incapable of explaining why.

Your dilemma resembles faith.

I will leave you with a question: why is it that physicists do not accept infinities as valid solutions to equations that describe real phenomena?

I don't know. It would surely depend on the phenomena under consideration and you would need to ask this specific question to the one who rejects it in order to get a specific answer. Personally I cannot give you one. I can suggest that maybe it's just the fact that science cannot deal with the origin of reality since the scientific method is not designed to do that.

 

[Castlegate]

Originally Posted by baywax
To say that nothing does not exist isn't just semantics, it is decided by the virtue and the very definition of nothing. So it is with that contradictorial and ironic sense of humour that the universe has to offer us that I remain convinced that it is only because of the existence of "something" that "nothing" can be conceptualized and said to be an influence on existence.

I not only wholeheartedly agree with this, I think this is the final explanation for why the universe exists: to give meaning to "nothing". Or something crazy along those lines.

I've been saying for a number of years now, that the universe is the definition of nothing. This is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. I also assume that all things are composed of nothing, because that is all that is available to work with.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

 

[nabuco]

I don't know

You don't know why physicists rule out infinities?

I can suggest that maybe it's just the fact that science cannot deal with the origin of reality since the scientific method is not designed to do that.

Who is talking about reality? I thought we were talking about the physical universe!

Of course reality is eternal. If that was the point of contention, we just wasted a lot of bandwidth for nothing.

I've been saying for a number of years now, that the universe is the definition of nothing

I've heard that idea several times, and even though it sounds outlandish it does seem philosophically correct. Any explanation for the universe would sound outlandish anyway so that in itself is not a weakness.

I also assume that all things are composed of nothing, because that is all that is available to work with.

Here I think you got it wrong. If all things are made of nothing, then there must be two kinds of "nothings". This is what I tried to point out in my first reply, which was probably too obscure.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you recast that in terms of "information", rather than "ones". "Ones" sounds too vague.

 

[out of whack]

Who is talking about reality? I thought we were talking about the physical universe!

Of course reality is eternal. If that was the point of contention, we just wasted a lot of bandwidth for nothing.

Don't worry, I just used the wrong word. From other conversations, since the universe is all that exist (the commonly accepted definition) and to exists is to be real (again, by common understanding) then there is no difference between "all that is real" and "reality". But I know you are interested in the physical universe only and that we have agreed to call physical what is quantifiable. Let me rephrase.

The scientific method is not designed to determine the origin of the physical universe but to describe the behavior of what already exists. It cannot address the origin of the entire physical universe since it is impossible to repeat this in experiments. We have to use philosophical reasoning instead.

I still have no evidence that what is quantifiable cannot have existed for all time. Since you say that non-quantifiable "things" indeed exist forever, maybe you can find your proof in the examination of what it means to be quantifiable. Or maybe not, I don't know if it's a good start or not to prove your contention, it's just a thought.

 

[baywax]

You are not making any sense.

I see no way to prove that infinity and/or eternity is a reality. Even living forever wouldn't prove it because an "eternal life" could end at anytime. Therein lies the uncertainty.

 

[nabuco]

From other conversations, since the universe is all that exist (the commonly accepted definition) and to exists is to be real (again, by common understanding) then there is no difference between "all that is real" and "reality".

There has to be a difference between the universe and reality, otherwise the two words could be interchanged in any context, which is not the case.

It does seem that what you call universe is what I'd call reality, and in that case there really is no disagreement.

The scientific method is not designed to determine the origin of the physical universe but to describe the behavior of what already exists. It cannot address the origin of the entire physical universe since it is impossible to repeat this in experiments.

If what you said above were true Evolution and Big Bang would not be scientific theories. Experimentation does not necessarily mean repeating the phenomenon described by a theory; more often than not, that is impossible.

We have to use philosophical reasoning instead

I'm OK with that so long as our deductions are consistent with what physics tells us about the universe. Which is precisely the problem I'm having with your reasoning.

I still have no evidence that what is quantifiable cannot have existed for all time.

I hate to repeat myself but time itself is quantifiable, so it's not a matter of things having existed forever, it's a matter of the thing we call "the age of the universe" having an infinite value. I was trying to avoid physics because I'm not sure you can contemplate how physics is essentially philosophy applied to a specific problem, but I can't find a better approach so here it goes:

The physical universe cannot exist for an infinite amount of time because of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy in the universe is increasing, and that is not an experimental finding, it is a mathematical fact - which is why it's called a law. Now if entropy increases with time, then at some point in the past it must have been zero. Beyond that point, whatever you had cannot be called "the physical universe", for "physical universe" implies all the laws of physics, which includes the second law of thermodynamics.

It gets better than that. Entropy does not only increase with time, the increase of entropy is the passage of time itself. For a closed system, and the universe is by definition a closed system, going to the future means increasing entropy, plain and simple.

Now whatever preceded the universe in its current state (in scientific terms, what came before the Big Bang), is not something that can be understood in terms that apply only to the universe as it is now. In particular, we cannot apply the concept of time to such a universe, because such universe has no entropy. And that assuming we can even apply the concept of "universe" to what came before the Big Bang; more likely we cannot apply any concept, which we express by referring to it as "nothing".

I cannot possibly express myself better than that, although I can further elaborate. I hope it has helped a bit.

 

[kant]

Gosh. No. What you said has nothing to do with anything I said. You should have read my first post (#9 in this thread) in response to the OP. Let me indulge you and explain. The assumption in the OP is that "the universe came from nothing", which is the subject of this thread. My claim is that this statement is contradictory, therefore meaningless, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. My rationale for saying that this OP statement is contradictory is this:

If something can "come from" nothing then nothing must have the property of permitting this. But "nothing" does not have any property. When you have properties, you have something instead of nothing. Therefore the OP's claim is meaningless.

A corollary to the conclusion that the universe cannot "come from" anything is that the universe has existed for all time. Because of this corollary, the discussion has extended to infinity when some members claimed that infinity cannot be real. I asked them to substantiate their own claim and so far I have not seen any proof of it.

thank of the summery

I would rather not guess, it's a waste of time and an open door towards futile exchanges due to misunderstanding. I prefer to say when I don't understand and why. Besides, you have just shown that you can indeed spell and express yourself clearly, so I thank you for the courtesy of clarity.

I belief you can guess, and i don t think you are stupid.

Except that the real number line does not loop, it extends infinitely in both directions.

This fact is not really relavent.

 

[kant]

Your question is too ambiguous. What do you mean by "exist"?

The best definition of existence I know of is from mathematics: X exists in set U if X is a member of U. That's a pretty abstract notion as far as I'm concerned.

Things like truth, logical consistency, semantics, mathematics, theories, and so on.

lets say something "exist" if it could be objectively measured in principle.


1)

The mathematical notions of existence is irrevalent to our present discussion.
Obvious there is a analytic-synthetic distinction here, and you obvious do not see it. Math is a social construction of ideas, whereas physics deals with things that can be objectively measured, and quentified. They might look the same on a piece of paper because both uses greek letters, but other than that, they are very different.

2) In terms of method, mathematics is a game, with it `s own internal rules called definitions and axioms. Given the definitions, and axioms, any theorem in math can be derived by the methods of deduction( or rules of inference). The laws of Physics on the other hand are mathematical descriptions, or models of phenonmen within our physical space-time observable universe. The use of scientific inductions plays a key role in the formulation of these physical models( law). Scientists create physical laws by gathering datas and make conjectures to fit those datas. The laws of physics is not a mathematic law( whatever that means), because one can imagine a universe with a different set of physical characteristic properties. If there are inhabitants in such weird physical universe, then those inhabitansts can model their weird universe with some other mathematical models.

 

[JonF]

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?

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

 

[nabuco]

lets say something "exist" if it could be objectively measured in principle

This is too vague and not philosophically correct. I can measure the height of a shadow in a wall or the circumference of a hole in the ground. I don't think those things can be said to exist.

The mathematical notions of existence is irrevalent to our present discussion.

Why not? Isn't the universe a set, and isn't everything that exists a member of that set?

Math is a social construction of ideas, whereas physics deals with things that can be objectively measured, and quentified

Nonsense. Physics is as much a "social construction" as mathematics.

They might look the same on a piece of paper because both uses greek letters, but other than that, they are very different.

What else is there to physics other than a bunch of Greek letters?

I could agree if you said that physics gives meaning to mathematical equations. For instance, 1+2=3 doesn't mean much while "one apple plus two apples makes three apples" means a lot more. It's still very much the same thing though.

In terms of method, mathematics is a game, with it `s own internal rules called definitions and axioms. Given the definitions, and axioms, any theorem in math can be derived by the methods of deduction( or rules of inference).

... and, strangely enough, those theorems accurately describe physical phenomena. Can't you smell something here?

The laws of Physics on the other hand are mathematical descriptions, and models of phenonmen within our physical space-time observable universe. The use of scientific inductions is very important in the formulation of these physical models( law).

Induction is merely guessing and lacks philosophical justification (see "the problem of induction"). When you fully understand a physical phenomenon, you become able to deduce it from more fundamental principles - just check the history of physics. We only need induction when we don't know what we're doing.

 

[out of whack]

If what you said above were true Evolution and Big Bang would not be scientific theories. Experimentation does not necessarily mean repeating the phenomenon described by a theory; more often than not, that is impossible.

That's a pertinent comment. These theories of course are based on known science, which is based on the universe as we know it today, and this is perfectly reasonable when your aim is to understand the known universe. But since we have no information on what came before the Big Bang (if anything, more on this below) then science cannot address that part, which is central to our discussion.

We have to use philosophical reasoning instead

I'm OK with that so long as our deductions are consistent with what physics tells us about the universe. Which is precisely the problem I'm having with your reasoning.

Will you reject a logical argument if it conflicts with your understanding of a scientific theory? If so then I may in turn have a problem with your reasoning. My position is that since science must be logical then logic must win over science if there is a discrepancy.

The physical universe cannot exist for an infinite amount of time because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Oh, I see. But that approach doesn't work so well.

Let's back up to the time of zero entropy. We have all this fully useable energy bottled up that undergoes the very first change: bang, entropy is suddenly non-zero following the very first thermodynamic change. Since you say that a change in entropy is the passage of time itself, this has to be the beginning of time. Since you also stated that reality existed for all time then this first change must also be the beginning of reality, which coincides with the beginning of the physical universe. Also, since you are only concerned with quantifiable things, you must assume that the initial energy of the Big Bang was not quantifiable until after the first change that caused an increase of entropy that caused the beginning of time. But if the entropy level was quantifiable (existed) and if the energy of the universe after the first change also existed (and was quantifiable at that time) then the initial energy is clearly quantifiable as well, meaning that something quantifiable existed before the beginning of reality and of the physical universe.

"physical universe" implies all the laws of physics, which includes the second law of thermodynamics.

This, I think, is where you are mistaken. You explicitly restrict what is quantifiable to only our current interpretations of the universe. You dismiss the possibility that "quantifiable things" behaved differently before the Big Bang for example. You dismiss the possibility that humans can make errors in science. You generally restrict excessively for this topic.

Now whatever preceded the universe in its current state (in scientific terms, what came before the Big Bang), is not something that can be understood in terms that apply only to the universe as it is now. In particular, we cannot apply the concept of time to such a universe, because such universe has no entropy. And that assuming we can even apply the concept of "universe" to what came before the Big Bang; more likely we cannot apply any concept, which we express by referring to it as "nothing".

I cannot discuss the origin of the universe if you use "nothing" to refer to whatever science cannot handle. It makes it a tautology that the universe began with the first event that can be addressed by science.

 

[JonF]

This is too vague and not philosophically correct. I can measure the height of a shadow in a wall or the circumference of a hole in the ground. I don't think those things can be said to exist.

i would contend these things exist in some form.

Why not? Isn't the universe a set, and isn't everything that exists a member of that set?

No it isn't, sets are abstract objects.

Nonsense. Physics is as much a "social construction" as mathematics.

What else is there to physics other than a bunch of Greek letters?

I could agree if you said that physics gives meaning to mathematical equations. For instance, 1+2=3 doesn't mean much while "one apple plus two apples makes three apples" means a lot more. It's still very much the same thing though.

... and, strangely enough, those theorems accurately describe physical phenomena. Can't you smell something here?

Physics and math are both similar in the respect that attempt to draw deductive conclusions from a well defined system of assumptions. The big difference in math these assumptions are arbitrary, and in Physics there is an attempted to make them correspond to the real world through experimentation.

Induction is merely guessing and lacks philosophical justification (see "the problem of induction"). When you fully understand a physical phenomenon, you become able to deduce it from more fundamental principles - just check the history of physics. We only need induction when we don't know what we're doing.

I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that if you have a general principle induction is no longer necessary for statements about that principle. But the way we tend to realize something may possibly be a universal in most cases is through induction (note: I'm not claiming all cases). After we conclude "P maybe generalized to a universal" we then seek deductive justification for that generalization.

 

[kant]

This is too vague and not philosophically correct. I can measure the height of a shadow in a wall or the circumference of a hole in the ground. I don't think those things can be said to exist.

Utimately, we can only test the existence of something based on it ` s effect on something else. Hopefully, that something else can bet measure. Ex. The height of a shadow might not indicated the existence of the shadow, but it can indicate the existence of some other things. The shadow might gives us important hints on the structure of the thing that cast the shadow in the wall.

Why not? Isn't the universe a set, and isn't everything that exists a member of that set?

I agree. You can say the universe correspond to a set S, and that everything in the set exist. But what is that got to do with physical existence? Can you create another space-time universe by write down math equations, and say it "exist"?

Nonsense. Physics is as much a "social construction" as mathematics.

If a person was to be born inside a dark room, and all he has is his brain. Can we deduce modern physics by knowing peano axioms? Obvious not.

What else is there to physics other than a bunch of Greek letters?

Because the laws of nature are "mathematical models"? Physicists use mathematics as a tool, but it is not true that mathematician uses empirical facts to deduce theorms in number theory.

I could agree if you said that physics gives meaning to mathematical equations. For instance, 1+2=3 doesn't mean much while "one apple plus two apples makes three apples" means a lot more. It's still very much the same thing though.

"1+2= 3" is a trival example, but it does illustrate the notion that mathematics are used to model physical "stuff" like applies.

The statement "1+2=3" is analytically true, but by itself it tells us nothing about the physical universe, unless we assign numbers with applies. Can "1+2=3" tell use why applies exist?

... and, strangely enough, those theorems accurately describe physical phenomena. Can't you smell something here?

Those mathematical theorems would only work if we assign physically quantifable things to those greek letters. Those theorem tells use nothing about why those physically quantifable stuff exist at all. Even if everything in the universe can be describe in terms of "string", we would still be at liberty to ask why "strings" exist at all.

Induction is merely guessing and lacks philosophical justification (see "the problem of induction"). When you fully understand a physical phenomenon, you become able to deduce it from more fundamental principles - just check the history of physics. We only need induction when we don't know what we're doing.

I can write down those "fundamental principles" in a piece of paper, so what?
Can you produce a universe from writing down the "fundamental principles"? NO! Those fundamental principle needs to describe something physical.


Stephen hawking said some like this. He said even if we have a set of equation that describe everything in the universe. It could only be a set of equations. He asked: " what breath fire into the equations in the first place to make a universe from it?". What hawking means is that science cannot tell us why there is something for our equations to describe.