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

[tom.stoer]

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

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

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

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

 

[czes]

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

 

[apeiron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tom.stoer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

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

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

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

 

[Fra]

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

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

Maybe I overinterpreted what you mean but...

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

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

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

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

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

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

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

 

[A. Neumaier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[A. Neumaier]

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

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

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

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

 

[tom.stoer]

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

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

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

 

[Fra]

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

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

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

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

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

/Fredrik

 

[apeiron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tom.stoer]

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

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

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

 

[apeiron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tom.stoer]

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

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

 

[apeiron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fra]

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

Yes I'm listening.

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

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

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

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

/Fredrik

 

[apeiron]

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

I certainly agree with both those points.

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

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

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

 

[tom.stoer]

something definite out of a state of naked potential.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[czes]

Holographic Universe has 2 levels:
1. Information is stored on the screen - no image, no events, no time.
2. Information goes to relation with each other due to a specific program - it shows an image, events and time runs.

I do not know how the information can be stored before it starts to run. What is a pure information when it is not in relation to another information , is it something or is it nothing ?

 

[apeiron]

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

I agree. At the end of the day, you are still left with "something" even if it is a naked potential, and that is bad. But it is also the most minimal possible notion of something, which is good. It is less than zero, so a step further back in the origin of things (like definite presences and absences).

The fact we have a model to describe it is not an issue as that is epistemology, whereas the potential is ontological. The model is our mental construct, not an actual constraint on reality.

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

You are quite right. The logic here is "dialectic" in the general, rather than Marxist, sense. And progress backwards has to come by folding back into itself what we find around us unfolded. We live in a broken symmetry, so we work backwards to restore the original symmetry.

But again, it is not "nothing" that lies at the end of this trail but a naked potential (the potential to become dialectically divided into the "nothingness everywhere" that seems an accurate description of a heat death universe).

The important thing here is to be able to put the OP - how could a universe arise from nothing - into a developmental ontology.

The conventional metaphysics presumes eternalism and so cannot escape eternalism. If you say the laws of physics "always were", or worse still, put them right outside the reference frame in some Platonia, then you will always have a problem talking about the origin of all things.

But if instead your presumption becomes "even the laws of physics developed/evolved", then that can become quite a different discussion. You can switch to an ontology where in the beginning there was just a naked potential (the least form of being). And the laws of physics, or however else you want to term the ontological global constraints, would now exist (in fully realized fashion) at the end of time. This is of course the Aristotelean answer - final cause.

You can't do physics w/o a physical context how negative it may be.

Of course not. But again, that is an epistemological issue. What I am arguing is that a developmental ontology can motivate the construction of development-based models.

So the "physical context" is the system's global constraints. Conventional modelling just frames the global constraints in a timeless, unsituated fashion. I am arguing that the model needs to include a representation of constraints that develop over time, and are not fully realized until the end of time.

This is the way ancient philosophers thought, and the way modern biologists think. The radical thing here is suggesting it can also be done at the most general level of modelling - fundamental physics - so as to think about the origin of the universe in a more comprehensive light.

 

[apeiron]

I do not know how the information can be stored before it starts to run. What is a pure information when it is not in relation to another information , is it something or is it nothing ?

Plainly, you cannot have information without a reference frame, a context, an observer. Holography in fact is a recognition of this.

To have a definite nothing (a 0 instead of a 1), you have to have an equally definite observer or context to tell that this is so. It is a dyadic relationship between a global context and a local event.

Holography now puts some mathematical structure into this relationship. Plug in the number of dimensions and some dynamical constants, like the speed of light/interaction, and you can actually model a context - the event horizon, or horizon for an event.

 

[qsa]

But again, it is not "nothing" that lies at the end of this trail but a naked potential (the potential to become dialectically divided into the "nothingness everywhere" that seems an accurate description of a heat death universe).

Reality came about because of a specific mathematical structure allowed it to be. only the mathematics allowed it, and mathematics itself exists and you cannot put it in terms of potential, it either is or isn't. If you define the word "potential" as anything can happen regardless, then the word looses all power. But, if you define it as a possibility based on merit then that is also bad in our case. There are gzillion mathematical structures, and they do not lead to any dynamic universe, but it JUST happened that there was one that did. It did not have to be at all ie. it is not like it was bound to happen, so the "potential" does not make sense even if you wanted to use the maths "potential" to force creation. With the existence of math you could maneuver a bit with the "potential", but looks extremely weak.

 

[czes]

Plainly, you cannot have information without a reference frame, a context, an observer. Holography in fact is a recognition of this.

To have a definite nothing (a 0 instead of a 1), you have to have an equally definite observer or context to tell that this is so. It is a dyadic relationship between a global context and a local event.

Holography now puts some mathematical structure into this relationship. Plug in the number of dimensions and some dynamical constants, like the speed of light/interaction, and you can actually model a context - the event horizon, or horizon for an event.

Yes. It depends also on the interpretation of the QM. In Copenhagen interpretation the wavefunction collapses and evoluate from nothing again with a certain probability. In the more or less deterministic interpretations like Bohm, Cramer, Rovelli and other the wave function doesn't collapse but the superposition remains in other relations.

It is commonly accepted that our Universe is a part of the biger one and we receive new information from the galaxies discovered during the expanssion of our Event Horizon (Davis, Lineweaver). The information was there but we haven't see it till it cames to our Event Horizon.
How it was before the Big Bang. Was there an information which wasn't related to another information and therefore it wasn't seen at all ?
Does the existence mean a relation with an observer ?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Yes. It depends also on the interpretation of the QM. In Copenhagen interpretation the wavefunction collapses and evoluate from nothing again with a certain probability.

No. A universe that contains nothing is invariant under the Hamiltonian dynamics. Hence nothing remains nothing unless something is measured. But there is no-one to measure, hence there is no collapse.

 

[QuantumClue]

If we have a collection of data, say, S_2=|\psi_1>, |\psi_2>...|\psi_n> and say this abstractly collects all the data of the universe, then how can data come from nothing?

The pre-state of the universe let's call it \alpha must also have information S_1=|\phi_1>, |\phi_2>...|\phi_n> meaning it cannot be an empty set Ø, as it must contain all the valuable information \Psi which is the total information to allow an equivalent union between S_1 and S_2. If the information of S_1 is sufficient for the information contained in S_2 then you can unify the two as being one dependant set call it \beta.

Using the idea that something can come from nothing goes against logic. It supposes that something which has meaning and possibly even a physical character can apparently come from what we call nothing, but equally puzzling is that we can not even call it nothing, because nothing is still something! So one might say that something must come from something else. And if we apply our logic to the universe, then the beginning of time must have all the relevant information contained within it S_1 to allow the birth of information S_2 after the existence of time, which also presupposes time did not exist before the big bang, which is consistent with relativity.

If the universe had all the information it required in the beginning, is akin to stating \Psi \in \beta where \Psi is the state vector of the universe, and \beta is again the two sets S_1 and S_2.

 

[QuantumClue]

No. A universe that contains nothing is invariant under the Hamiltonian dynamics. Hence nothing remains nothing unless something is measured. But there is no-one to measure, hence there is no collapse.

A genius response, because we are frequently told the stuff of quantum mechanics, the world of probabilities and possible measurements is the stuff of mind stuff!

But there is also a flaw with it. A universe of nothing does indeed refer to the idea that something is nothing until it is measured, but if no one was around to observe the big bang, how did the clock turn, so-to-speak? Who was there to observe the initial conditions so that we had a physical universe, nearly 15 billion years ago?

Apparently the universe found a way, and supposing there is no grand creator in the universe, then our understanding of quantum mechanics seems to be deeply incomplete, highlighting the so-called measurement problem.

So perhaps the idea that nothing refers to not observing the system is not completely true, for how can it be? Such as the idea that perhaps before the big bang there was equally nothing, because how can something come from nothing?

 

[QuantumClue]

If we have a collection of data, say, S_2=|\psi_1>, |\psi_2>...|\psi_n> and say this abstractly collects all the data of the universe, then how can data come from nothing?

The pre-state of the universe let's call it \alpha must also have information S_1=|\phi_1>, |\phi_2>...|\phi_n> meaning it cannot be an empty set Ø, as it must contain all the valuable information \Psi which is the total information to allow an equivalent union between S_1 and S_2. If the information of S_1 is sufficient for the information contained in S_2 then you can unify the two as being one dependant set call it \beta.

Using the idea that something can come from nothing goes against logic. It supposes that something which has meaning and possibly even a physical character can apparently come from what we call nothing, but equally puzzling is that we can not even call it nothing, because nothing is still something! So one might say that something must come from something else. And if we apply our logic to the universe, then the beginning of time must have all the relevant information contained within it S_1 to allow the birth of information S_2 after the existence of time, which also presupposes time did not exist before the big bang, which is consistent with relativity.

If the universe had all the information it required in the beginning, is akin to stating \Psi \in \beta where \Psi is the state vector of the universe, and \beta is again the two sets S_1 and S_2.

Yes, I am qouting myself :) Just been thinking a little more on what I said.

Does it do us any good to even speculate the condition of something which isn't even a reality? If no word successfuly describes it, because words pertain to meaning, then what is even the point in the question ''what existed before the universe''?

It's a relative point. If we talk about something before the big bang, we are talking about something outside the universe - but again, we are told that ''nothing'' exists outside the universe. So for there to be anything before the universe, there needs to be something at least we can talk about, otherwise it is pointless to even question it.

 

[friend]

Does it do us any good to even speculate the condition of something which isn't even a reality? If no word successfuly describes it, because words pertain to meaning, then what is even the point in the question ''what existed before the universe''?

Perhaps this is the same question as asking did the universe come from a singularity. For one can ask, "does a singularity actually exist?" Can a single point of space have any other properties to describe?