- #91
Langbein
- 209
- 0
And what is then nothing ? How can the question if the universe comes from nothing have meaning if the state nothing is not defined ?
If the universe came from nothing
- Thread starter Castlegate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Universe
Click For Summary
The discussion explores the implications of the universe potentially originating from nothing, questioning whether this means the universe is conceptual rather than physical. Participants argue that if the universe came from nothing, it challenges the definition of "physical entity" and suggests that "nothing" cannot possess properties, thus leading to contradictions. Some contend that the concept of "nothing" is more complex than simply the absence of matter, while others argue that science cannot adequately address the origin of the universe. The conversation highlights the philosophical nature of these inquiries, emphasizing that definitions of "thing" and "matter" are crucial to understanding existence. Ultimately, the debate underscores the complexities and paradoxes inherent in discussing the universe's origins.
Space news on Phys.org
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Langbein said:And what is then nothing ? How can the question if the universe comes from nothing have meaning if the state nothing is not defined ?
With the question of (If the universe came from nothing) as an accepted fact, and a coveat that the state of nothing cannot be defined, we are forced to accept that the universe is an incomplete definition of it. This is to say that the universe is a finite entity, such that x number of units exist now, while x + y units will exist in the next foreseeable instant. In other words - The universe would be an ongoing definition of nothing, by which an eternity would be necessary to complete said definition.
Langbein
- 209
- 0
But if the state of nothing can not be defined, and from what I can see in some other treads nobody knows what time is, and I guess that the state of what the universe is today is also a bit unclear. ..
Wouldn't it be more clear to ask the question like this:
Has this thing that we dont't know what is "universe" made an transaction trough something we do not know what is, "time" from an initial condition that we also don't know that we call "nothing" ?
Wouldn't the clear and obvius answer be:
"That's up to your faith and belief".
Couldn't one valid answer good as any alternative be: "We are the universe from nothing belivers, and also we believe that the univerce work much like a steam engine, it's just slightly bigger".
Or possibly: "We are the technical thinkers, we have learned thinking from doing some studies on how machinery works, and that this is thinking, that is our religous belief."
Wouldn't it be more clear to ask the question like this:
Has this thing that we dont't know what is "universe" made an transaction trough something we do not know what is, "time" from an initial condition that we also don't know that we call "nothing" ?
Wouldn't the clear and obvius answer be:
"That's up to your faith and belief".
Couldn't one valid answer good as any alternative be: "We are the universe from nothing belivers, and also we believe that the univerce work much like a steam engine, it's just slightly bigger".
Or possibly: "We are the technical thinkers, we have learned thinking from doing some studies on how machinery works, and that this is thinking, that is our religous belief."
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Langbein said:But if the state of nothing can not be defined, and from what I can see in some other treads nobody knows what time is, and I guess that the state of what the universe is today is also a bit unclear. ..
Wouldn't it be more clear to ask the question like this:
Has this thing that we dont't know what is "universe" made an transaction trough something we do not know what is, "time" from an initial condition that we also don't know that we call "nothing" ?
Wouldn't the clear and obvious answer be:
"That's up to your faith and belief".
Couldn't one valid answer be as good as any other alternative : "We are the universe from nothing believers, and also we believe that the universe work much like a steam engine, it's just slightly bigger".
Or possibly: "We are the technical thinkers, we have learned thinking from doing some studies on how machinery works, and that this is thinking, that is our religous belief."
This thread is essentially about what must happen if the universe came from nothing. It is very likely in the extreme sense that there is only one roadway out of nothing, if the initial assumption is correct. My contention is that this must be a conceptual path by way of no other alternative. Time and the universe IMO becomes rather understandable down this conceptual road, and all of this propositioning would not be a belief, if one makes logical tracks, from a state of nothing, toward that of something like as our universe.
Siah
- 12
- 0
How can there be a "state" of nothing?Castlegate said:With the question of (If the universe came from nothing) as an accepted fact, and a coveat that the state of nothing cannot be defined, we are forced to accept that the universe is an incomplete definition of it.
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
By the fact that there must be one of them. This is enough for a condition of "being".Siah said:How can there be a "state" of nothing?
Philocrat
- 612
- 0
Castlegate said: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?
The problem with this question is that 'Nothing' is an illusive metaphyisical category (that is, it is not a proper metaphysical category, if any). Why? Because, it has neither a causal nor a mutational link with 'Something'. This means that 'Nothing' is irreducible to 'Something' nor 'Something' to 'Nothing'. This irreducibility relation metaphysically and epistemologically excludes 'Nothing' from the reality of 'Something'.
Last edited:
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Philocrat said:The problem with this question is that 'Nothing' is an illusive metaphyisical category (that is, it is not a proper metaphysical category, if any). Why? Because, it has neither a causal nor a mutational link with 'Something'. This means that 'Nothing' is irreducible to 'Something' nor 'Something' to 'Nothing'. This irreducibility relation metaphysically and epistemologically excludes 'Nothing' from the reality of 'Something'.
One point I was making is that all things must be composed of nothing in a universe that came from nothing. Hence we are also forced to conclude that reality is conceptual in nature, also that "nothing" cannot be divorced from "something". This is in direct opposition to what you are saying. "Nothing" would not only be included with the reality of "something", it would be an absolute requirement of all things on any level. "One nothing" is the equivalent of a thing, by which a universe can be made conceptually.
I've read your post a number of times, and some of it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Perhaps you can reword for better understanding.
octelcogopod
- 560
- 0
The concept of something and nothing is one that I find to be interesting.
The human mind has a concept of nothing because it works in quantities.
But I think in reality, the human mind cannot comprehend nothing, there will always be something, even if just a black void.
The thing is that the mind associates things based on sensory input, for instance an apple can be reduced to its shape, color, form, light, taste, feel of eating and so forth, and the brain has a mechanism that combines all these things into an associative apple. The apple in itself does not exist as we see it in nature, it only exists as these associations that we can reduce into components.
Now, the human mind has also created a symbol for 'space', this can be air in a room, outer space, or anything that we cannot directly see.
Most of our quantified symbols come from our vision, and less from other senses, IMO.
Humans usually equate a single colored white or black space with 'nothing', if there are no shapes, forms or other things to quantify it becomes a space, and seeing as we can't quantify it from our other symbols, we see it as "nothing."
Now finally to my point, the concept of nothing is somewhat meaningless, because all it really is, is an absence of that which we quantify.
It is the absence of anything our sensory system and brain can conjure, and as such it does not exist to us.
When you ask if the universe came from nothing, all you are really asking is if it came from something that we can quantify.
This is where the error lies, because humans always think in terms of shapes, time and quantity.
This leads to such things as infinite regress, primordial physical entity, time problems and a myriad of other logical traps.
The truth for me, is that the consciousness is the primordial cause of the universe.
I say this because I have concluded that everything we do, see, hear, touch, smell and so forth, comes from the brain, as such it is the root of everything that exists to you/us.
Your question immediately brings everyone to see the universe as a big ball of light, with a black space around it, wondering what the heck is in that black space, which is imo the wrong start point to begin with.
Somehow I get the feeling that humans are indeed trapped in consciousness, and that these questions we have will always lead to infinite regress and other things simply because of our brains way of quantifying and arranging associations and patterns.
The human mind has a concept of nothing because it works in quantities.
But I think in reality, the human mind cannot comprehend nothing, there will always be something, even if just a black void.
The thing is that the mind associates things based on sensory input, for instance an apple can be reduced to its shape, color, form, light, taste, feel of eating and so forth, and the brain has a mechanism that combines all these things into an associative apple. The apple in itself does not exist as we see it in nature, it only exists as these associations that we can reduce into components.
Now, the human mind has also created a symbol for 'space', this can be air in a room, outer space, or anything that we cannot directly see.
Most of our quantified symbols come from our vision, and less from other senses, IMO.
Humans usually equate a single colored white or black space with 'nothing', if there are no shapes, forms or other things to quantify it becomes a space, and seeing as we can't quantify it from our other symbols, we see it as "nothing."
Now finally to my point, the concept of nothing is somewhat meaningless, because all it really is, is an absence of that which we quantify.
It is the absence of anything our sensory system and brain can conjure, and as such it does not exist to us.
When you ask if the universe came from nothing, all you are really asking is if it came from something that we can quantify.
This is where the error lies, because humans always think in terms of shapes, time and quantity.
This leads to such things as infinite regress, primordial physical entity, time problems and a myriad of other logical traps.
The truth for me, is that the consciousness is the primordial cause of the universe.
I say this because I have concluded that everything we do, see, hear, touch, smell and so forth, comes from the brain, as such it is the root of everything that exists to you/us.
Your question immediately brings everyone to see the universe as a big ball of light, with a black space around it, wondering what the heck is in that black space, which is imo the wrong start point to begin with.
Somehow I get the feeling that humans are indeed trapped in consciousness, and that these questions we have will always lead to infinite regress and other things simply because of our brains way of quantifying and arranging associations and patterns.
chrisina
- 71
- 0
I think this discussion boilds down to the way one defines "nothing"
If I pass you an empty plate and ask you, "choose something", you'll reply, "are you crazy, there's nothing in that plate to choose from". I can reply that there is a lot of dust.
What I mean, is, when we use the word "nothing", however we use it, we always imply a certain cut-off scale.
So when you say :
"Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion."
there is no problem with that, because that means that your definition of "nothing" is :
- I pick a time t=o as the beginning of time
- whatever is in the universe before t=0 I define as "nothing"
However, the conclusion :
"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?"
... is a wrong conclusion. Because, from your own definition of "nothing" (ie what the universe was made of before time t=0), you cannot imply that this cannot be a physical entity. You've just defined a physical entity.
If I pass you an empty plate and ask you, "choose something", you'll reply, "are you crazy, there's nothing in that plate to choose from". I can reply that there is a lot of dust.
What I mean, is, when we use the word "nothing", however we use it, we always imply a certain cut-off scale.
So when you say :
"Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion."
there is no problem with that, because that means that your definition of "nothing" is :
- I pick a time t=o as the beginning of time
- whatever is in the universe before t=0 I define as "nothing"
However, the conclusion :
"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?"
... is a wrong conclusion. Because, from your own definition of "nothing" (ie what the universe was made of before time t=0), you cannot imply that this cannot be a physical entity. You've just defined a physical entity.
castlegates
So when you say :
"Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion."
there is no problem with that, because that means that your definition of "nothing" is :
- I pick a time t=o as the beginning of time
- whatever is in the universe before t=0 I define as "nothing"
Actually there would be no beginning for time, as time would be the nothing that the universe would be composed of, as such, "nothing" in the complete sense" is undefinable in reality. I.E It's full definition is "non-existence", and we happen to be here as a testament to existence, therefore the universe would be an incomplete ongoing definition of nothing, by which existence is secure forever. In other words - We can continue to exist as long as "nothing" remains undefined "in reality". This is like saying that I exist, because I don't exist, but the implicatoin must be carried, if the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact.
lllll
- 22
- 0
Castlegate said: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?
Precisely! Though there was no apparition of existence/uni-verse only our evolution of intelligence as a systematized species, or "awakening", and the existence/uni-verse is only an ever ofness (sempiternal interchangable and ever changing energy). All concepts are of absence, immeasurable prsence, eternity, "nothingness", and methematically the concept known as zero or undefined (though even such is conceptually defined).
I'm sorry, I must go, my dog escaped and needs a bath.
Good thoughts!
sd01g
- 271
- 0
Perhaps we should just conclude that it does not matter (unless God personnally told you it matters) where the universe came from, and, anyway, we will never actually know. It is fun to speculate, but in reality, it is not only unkown but unknowable-- but it is guessable.
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 24,046
- 8,188
There seems to be a lot of claims that the universe must have come from nothing. There are alternate hypotheses, such as (shoot, what's the term for it - "pulsating" universe?) This does not make use of any nothingness to describe "what was before".
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 24,046
- 8,188
This will never be an acceptable answer as long as humans draw breath.sd01g said:Perhaps we should just conclude that it does not matter where the universe came from...
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
Where did nothing come from? We made it up. Its is impossible to prove that nothing "exists" because, by its own definition, it does not exist.
Nothing is a cognitive construct that provides contrast to "something". Perhaps there is a middle ground somewhere between something and nothing that we are missing.
Nothing is a cognitive construct that provides contrast to "something". Perhaps there is a middle ground somewhere between something and nothing that we are missing.
Last edited:
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
JonF said:JonF said: pplying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.
This is in error because "from" implies coordinates and distance which simply do not apply to "nothing".
One could say "'something' takes place because 'nothing' provides the potential for something to exist".
lllll
- 22
- 0
This topic is my specialty so I will do my best to clear up all misunderstandings.
Some thing is measurable, is it not? "No thing" is immeasurable, is it not? Thus it cannot be classified as a thing. The "uni-verse" is an immeasurable presence, also known as an absence, a.k.a nothing. Some thing is a measurable presence, is it not?
From the immeasurable "uni-verse" that we are of, we measure things. So from the nothingness we create the thingness through labeling, measuring and attempting to predict and understand etc., ergo we create the one's and the wholes, hence one whole a.k.a. "uni-verse".
Where we are is immeasurable because of absence. The "universe" is not a bubble, it can never stop and it can never begin... the stars in the sky and the galaxies abound in the abyss of space are immeasurable, there is no border at which it stops and there is no hand which created its beginningness, it always has been and always will be.
There is no shape to what you have been mistakingly referring to as the "uni-verse". Energy/existence is unlimited and formless. Absence can not be outside of it acting as a force to stop it, thus create the notion of it expanding, for absence can not have a hole of absence/presence in it (the hole would be the universe. A hole of presence expanding into absence is what most models currently suggest), absence is an immeasurable presence, is it not? And a hole in absence would be another absence within absence: an impossibility: absence is the presence, and it be immeasurable as an eternal expanse.
Absence can not exist to separate its self, that which is the immeasurable presence, that which we are of and that which we are eternally connected to and never disconnected from, only in our awareness or lack thereof can we seem to ever be disconnected from some thing and to ever disconnect from some thing (the some thing here seems to be the lost concept of "nothing") is to disconnect from the immeasurable presence.
If nothing is nothing... then can it ever separate any thing? No. How can an immeasurable presence separate an immeasurable presence? It can't. We are with us, as whatever we may ever be and ever have been, for eternity as the interchangable states of conscious energetical existence.
If clarification is required then lucid perseverence is on stand-by.
I have a life just like every one else... and I make mistakes just like every one else... and tonight while I was writing this it was difficult to concentrate while taking care of my child. So I apologize for any short-comings. I'd rather play than work, I wish we could learn to mix the two.
Edit: The immeasurable is an infinite amount of what we refer to as measurables, and the measurables are never really one whole... for they are ever connected.
Therefore the immeasurable is both measurable and immeasurable. This is reflected every where, starting at us being mortal consciousnesses of an immortal consciousness that together we are.
Some thing is measurable, is it not? "No thing" is immeasurable, is it not? Thus it cannot be classified as a thing. The "uni-verse" is an immeasurable presence, also known as an absence, a.k.a nothing. Some thing is a measurable presence, is it not?
From the immeasurable "uni-verse" that we are of, we measure things. So from the nothingness we create the thingness through labeling, measuring and attempting to predict and understand etc., ergo we create the one's and the wholes, hence one whole a.k.a. "uni-verse".
Where we are is immeasurable because of absence. The "universe" is not a bubble, it can never stop and it can never begin... the stars in the sky and the galaxies abound in the abyss of space are immeasurable, there is no border at which it stops and there is no hand which created its beginningness, it always has been and always will be.
There is no shape to what you have been mistakingly referring to as the "uni-verse". Energy/existence is unlimited and formless. Absence can not be outside of it acting as a force to stop it, thus create the notion of it expanding, for absence can not have a hole of absence/presence in it (the hole would be the universe. A hole of presence expanding into absence is what most models currently suggest), absence is an immeasurable presence, is it not? And a hole in absence would be another absence within absence: an impossibility: absence is the presence, and it be immeasurable as an eternal expanse.
Absence can not exist to separate its self, that which is the immeasurable presence, that which we are of and that which we are eternally connected to and never disconnected from, only in our awareness or lack thereof can we seem to ever be disconnected from some thing and to ever disconnect from some thing (the some thing here seems to be the lost concept of "nothing") is to disconnect from the immeasurable presence.
If nothing is nothing... then can it ever separate any thing? No. How can an immeasurable presence separate an immeasurable presence? It can't. We are with us, as whatever we may ever be and ever have been, for eternity as the interchangable states of conscious energetical existence.
If clarification is required then lucid perseverence is on stand-by.
I have a life just like every one else... and I make mistakes just like every one else... and tonight while I was writing this it was difficult to concentrate while taking care of my child. So I apologize for any short-comings. I'd rather play than work, I wish we could learn to mix the two.
Edit: The immeasurable is an infinite amount of what we refer to as measurables, and the measurables are never really one whole... for they are ever connected.
Therefore the immeasurable is both measurable and immeasurable. This is reflected every where, starting at us being mortal consciousnesses of an immortal consciousness that together we are.
Last edited:
sd01g
- 271
- 0
DaveC426913 said:This will never be an acceptable answer as long as humans draw breath.
This is why we keep on guessing. Do you think we will ever know for sure the origin of the universe? If we state that 'nothing' is what is there when 'something' is not there, does this help explain the original origin, if any, of the universe?
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
sd01g said:This is why we keep on guessing. Do you think we will ever know for sure the origin of the universe?
Going by the definition of "universe" ie: "totality" we might safely say that the universe is the origin of the universe.
lllll, nothing is your specialty? You make "much adieu about a nothing" (Shakespeare)!
http://shakespeare.about.com/library/blmuch_3_1.htm
The philosophy of Nothing:
http://zork.cs.uvic.ca/quotes/nothing.html
Last edited by a moderator:
sd01g
- 271
- 0
baywax said:Going by the definition of "universe" ie: "totality" we might safely say that the universe is the origin of the universe.
If there was a time when the universe consisted of 'nothing', then the 'nothing universe' was the origin of the original universe. The question would still remain--how did the 'nothing universe' become the 'something universe'?
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
sd01g said:If there was a time when the universe consisted of 'nothing', then the 'nothing universe' was the origin of the original universe. The question would still remain--how did the 'nothing universe' become the 'something universe'?
"Totality" encompasses all states including non-states. So with this concept, the universe will never have been created nor destroyed (as in energy cannot be created or destroyed) but has always been and will always be. According to physics this would be the case.
Mike2
- 1,312
- 0
baywax said:"Totality" encompasses all states including non-states. So with this concept, the universe will never have been created nor destroyed (as in energy cannot be created or destroyed) but has always been and will always be. According to physics this would be the case.
Or perhaps a singularity is equivalent to nothing. With absolutely everything consisting of nothing but a single spacetime point, there is no dynamics. For that matter there is no discription of anything since it would all be the same spacetime point. But if a single point of spacetime can come from nothing, then this means that spacetime has the property of expansion - more space with more time.
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
Mike2 said:Or perhaps a singularity is equivalent to nothing. With absolutely everything consisting of nothing but a single spacetime point, there is no dynamics. For that matter there is no discription of anything since it would all be the same spacetime point. But if a single point of spacetime can come from nothing, then this means that spacetime has the property of expansion - more space with more time.
Conceptually I'd agree that nothing could be a singularity. Non-existence maintains its non-characteristics regardless of the existence other states.
However I'd say your statement implying that "everything consists of nothing but a single spacetime point" rules out too many of the other characteristics of "everything". Furthermore I'll risk saying that "space/time" is demonstratively relative and therefore unreliable as a benchmark.
Mike2
- 1,312
- 0
baywax said:Conceptually I'd agree that nothing could be a singularity. Non-existence maintains its non-characteristics regardless of the existence other states.
However I'd say your statement implying that "everything consists of nothing but a single spacetime point" rules out too many of the other characteristics of "everything". Furthermore I'll risk saying that "space/time" is demonstratively relative and therefore unreliable as a benchmark.
Actually, everythings else may be nothing more than just properties of spacetime. They are thinking that particles come about symmetries of spacetime, and gravity is a warping of spacetime. so maybe the way in which spacetime expands from a singularity is sufficient to create the rest of reality.
sd01g
- 271
- 0
Hello, baywax: Putting all sophistry aside, do you believe the Universe came from nothing, or do believe it has it always existed/consisted of something? I believe the Universe has always existed/consisted as something and has never existed/nonexisted as nothing. Thanks.
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
Mike2 said:Actually, everythings else may be nothing more than just properties of spacetime. They are thinking that particles come about symmetries of spacetime, and gravity is a warping of spacetime. so maybe the way in which spacetime expands from a singularity is sufficient to create the rest of reality.
I can see this being a probability. I also just realized that
"nothing" can neither be created nor destroyed.
I'm not sure if this is sophistry but it literally parallels the great axiom, "energy can neither be created nor destroyed".
So, in a literal sense, "nothing" and "everything" (as everything is energy) are somehow synergistically related.
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 24,046
- 8,188
So, if I have a box with nothing in it*, and I place a box of plumber's putty in it, have I not destroyed the nothing?baywax said:"nothing" can neither be created nor destroyed.
I'm not sure that "well, there's air or vacuum in it" counts as a refutation.
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
DaveC426913 said:So, if I have a box with nothing in it*, and I place a box of plumber's putty in it, have I not destroyed the nothing?
I'm not sure that "well, there's air or vacuum in it" counts as a refutation.
Good point. Haven't you simply displaced nothing?... the nothing is not confined by the box, since it has no dimension or, as a materialist might put it... nothing = 0 dimension(s)
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,175
- 1
But I see what you're saying. We define "nothing" as literally "no thing". So, when "something is introduced to a state of "nothing" does that destroy that state?
No. Try applying this to the opposite action not adding to but subtracting energy. When you use up your battery in your electric car have you destoryed the energy... no... you've transformed the energy of the battery into work. The work transforms again into motion, heat, and so on. So, I think the operative work here is "transform".So, if I have a box with nothing in it*, and I place a box of plumber's putty in it, have I not destroyed the nothing?
Similar threads
- · Replies 18 ·
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 20 ·
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 17 ·
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 3K
- · Replies 28 ·
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 4K
- · Replies 2 ·
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 41 ·
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 5K
- · Replies 5 ·
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 15 ·
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 3 ·
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 17 ·
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 4K