Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

[Canute]

Royce

We seem to be on about the same wavelength and I agree with most of what you say. But a couple of comments.

The term that I kept running into when studying Buddhism and Zen was "the void." I am assuming that this is what Jung is talking about rather than the physicalist "nothing" I found the void to be a misnomer as to me it was, while empty of anything physical, completely full of consciousness, knowledge and wisdom.

The 'void' is a misnomer really. 'Emptiness' is a better term, since it implies something that is not nothing yet also implies nothing. The 'Tao' is also better, since the term has no meaning in everyday language and therefore does not get defined by habit and remains ambiguous. Spencer-Brown uses the term 'void' for his ultimate axiom, but he makes it clear that this is not nothing but rather is undefinable, not at all the same thing. I think one just has to accept that any word or symbol used to represent (or 'idolise')this 'thing' is going to give the wrong impression. Hence Lao-Tsu's comment that "The Tao cannot be talked", or "The Tao that can be talked is not the eternal Tao", and so on. You'll find that Browns' 'void' is Lao-Tsu's Tao, Jung's 'nothing/something', and probably also your thing that is "empty of anything physical but full of consciousness", although only you can know that.

For some reason I never fell into this pit, probably because I had already seen that there is only the one eternal moment, no-time and than all that has ever been alway was is and will be. There is no beginning and end. There is only endless change. Essentially if one accepts no-time or The Moment then one must accept that all that is, is eternal in the sense of the word as I use it here in this thread. This includes creation and change. There is no dualism there is only one and consciousness is in a sense all that there is and all that is is conscious.

I more or less agree. However to say 'there is only one' is technically dualism, since if it is one it is not many. This then raises the old undecidable question of the one and the many. The term 'non-dual' means 'not two', but it does not mean 'one'. It's horribly difficult to talk about this thing without accidently mischaracterising it in some way.

Either I am reading this wrong or this is not a good or over simplistic quote. .circular reasoning to me. Consciousness is required to make an act of distinction to differentiate the undifferentiated to create space time in this matter so how could consciousness emerge when consciousness is required to begin the process.

Yes, this is what GSB is saying, that the maker of distinctions pre-exists the distinctions.

It may be metaphysically correct is describing the act of creation by consciousness but it is not physically correct as space/time is a property of mass/matter. Space/time emerges because of the presence of energy/mass. The Big Bang had already begun before the Higgs field formed and allowed space, time and matter to form from the energy/mass as it expanded and cooled. But that is physics or at least physical speculation.

Brown is saying that spacetime is a conceptual construct. This is consistent with physics, which has concluded that it is not fundamental.

This is also why we have so much trouble defining and getting a handle on consciousness. We still think of it as an emergent effect rather than as a or the prime, first cause and source.

Amen to that. But I feel it's better to say 'causeless cause' than cause, or perhaps 'contingent condition'. Otherwise the paradox of the 'first cause' appears.

Well there you have then in the raw, unorganized, un-thought-out, off the cuff. I hope that you and all the other can follow my rambling.

No problem.


Pi_314B ...

Actually it has everything to do with this topic. One and zero is the minimal set. One being the concept of nothing.

Yes I agree, it is relevant. The problem of whether one or zero comes first on the number line is the same as the problem of whether something or nothing comes first in existence, and seems to me to have the same solution. Zero implies one, and one implies zero. They exist conceptually in dependence on each other and so neither is fundamental. What is fundamental is whatever exists before the concept of the number line, for instance GSB's 'void' from which he derives the numbers, which is itself neither one-thing or no-thing. I like your phrase "One being the concept of nothing". It states the relationship simply and clearly. A void must be conceived of as one thing. This is why Brown's 'void' is indefinable rather than a void in a scientific sense.

 

[Picklehead]

I want to say that the difference that you are talking about is more like [ ] and [0], which are two different things (dont ask me how).

It could be argued that -1 comes before 0 on the number line, and that there is no 'beginning' to the number line, but it does have a 'middle'.

How similar or related is this topic to the question of whether or not this 'something' which exists will continue to exist or at some point cease to exist . . . or is that strictly cosmology? Or is it the same question?

 

[Thor]

There is no third option.

Yes there is.
Theory of Reciprocity

It resolves the semantical problem most theorists encounter when dealing with the subject of 'Nothing'.

That necessary but indefinite abstract we call 'nothing' is the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum - and the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system.

 

[Royce]

The 'void' is a misnomer really. 'Emptiness' is a better term, since it implies something that is not nothing yet also implies nothing. The 'Tao' is also better, since the term has no meaning in everyday language and therefore does not get defined by habit and remains ambiguous. Spencer-Brown uses the term 'void' for his ultimate axiom, but he makes it clear that this is not nothing but rather is undefinable, not at all the same thing. I think one just has to accept that any word or symbol used to represent (or 'idolize')this 'thing' is going to give the wrong impression. Hence Lao-Tsu's comment that "The Tao cannot be talked", or "The Tao that can be talked is not the eternal Tao", and so on. You'll find that Browns' 'void' is Lao-Tsu's Tao, Jung's 'nothing/something', and probably also your thing that is "empty of anything physical but full of consciousness", although only you can know that.

Terminology is always a problem when talking about these things as the human language is not adaptable to conceptual thinking but like our minds is linear and sequential. I had read long ago that Tao could be loosely translated as meaning The Way and have always thought of it as that. To me Zen is more Taoist thinking than Buddhist but that may just be me and my biases.

I think the something/nothing, void is the same as I experienced. I know that at the time I was sure that it was but could have been mistaken and it was just an assumption. There is know way that I could truly know. Yet this is still different from the absolute nothing with which this thread is concerned. I consider it, the void as part, a very real part of reality whereas "NOTHING" cannot be a part of anything including reality yet it is. It is that without attributes, properties or characteristics that is what is outside reality, the Universe. This is inadequate I know but it is the best that I can do to put it into words.

I more or less agree. However to say 'there is only one' is technically dualism, since if it is one it is not many. This then raises the old undecidable question of the one and the many. The term 'non-dual' means 'not two', but it does not mean 'one'. It's horribly difficult to talk about this thing without accidental mischaracterising it in some way.

Agreed. it is very difficult to put in words and retain and convey any meaning at all. More accurately I think I could say simple reality is, and all that is is reality; but, does this statement really hold any meaning to someone not familiar with this way of thinking and these concepts. As Lao-Tsu would say, to put it into words is to kill it. or Zen, to name it is to limit it beyond recognition.

Amen to that. But I feel it's better to say 'causeless cause' than cause, or perhaps 'contingent condition'. Otherwise the paradox of the 'first cause' appears.

The 'causeless cause' and 'first cause' as well as 'cause' are all the same thing, misnomers but lacking a better term we are forced to use them and as they are inadequate and inaccurate they all lead to paradoxes.

 

[Pi_314B]

I like your phrase "One being the concept of nothing".

My preference is to call it (The Reality Of Non-Existence). We can call reality the definition of Non-Existence, with the understanding that Non-Existence is undefinable. The insinuation here in the last sentence is that reality is incomplete, wherein the definition of Non-Existence is an ongoing process that will never be concluded.

 

[Canute]

Here are a few more comments from other people.

This first one makes clear the difficulty of describing the Tao, which is ontologically fundamental in Taoism and takes the role of both/neither something and nothing, (or 1 and 0).

"The metaphysical "substance of the Tao" is in and of itself undifferentiated and has no attributes to speak of. However, since it is the "mother" of the myriad things which have attributes, it bears a relationship to the myriad things and, as a result, takes on a set of attributes which are contingent upon this relationship and which can and must be talked about in terms of what the attributes of the myriad things both are and are not."

Edward T. Ch'ine
‘The Conception of Langauge And The Use of
Paradox In Buddhism And Taoism’
Journal of Chinese Philosophy
Vol. 11 1984

Thus the Tao is impossible to discuss in ordinary language without contradiction because of the assumptions built into that language. These assumptions form the basis of Boolean algebra, which is designed to model the way we think, and are thus the basis of the way we reason.

"Boolean algebra is concerned with ideas or objects that have only two possible stable states - e.g., on/off, closed/open, yes/no, true/false."

Jan Gullberg
‘Mathematics From the Birth of Numbers’

But this reasoning leads to problems when it gets down to the fundamental nature of reality. So...

"The vagueness of this language in use among the physicists has therefore led to attempts to define a different precise language which follows definite logical patterns in complete conformity with the mathematical scheme of quantum theory. The result of these attempts by Birkhoff and Neumann and more recently by Weizsäcker can be stated by saying that the mathematical scheme of quantum theory can be interpreted as an extension or modification of classical logic.

It is especially one fundamental principle of classical logic which seems to require a modification. In classical logic it is assumed that, if a statement has any meaning at all, either the statement or the negation of the statement must be correct. Of ‘here is a table’ or ‘here is not a table’, either the first or second statement must be correct. ‘Tertium non datur,’ a third possibility does not exist. It may be that we do not know whether the statement or its negation is correct; but ‘in reality’ one of the two is correct.

In quantum theory this law ‘tertium non datur’ is to be modified. Against any modification of this fundamental principle one can of course at once argue that the principle is assumed in common language and that we have to speak at least about our eventual modification of logic in the natural language. Therefore, it would be a self-contradiction to describe in natural language a logical scheme that does not apply to natural language."

Werner Heisenberg
Physics and Philosophy(124-5)
Penguin 1990 (1962)

This is what I meant earlier by suggesting that the mathematical structure of QM is similar to that of Taoism or Brown's calculus. The last sentence here is the reason Lao-Tsu says that the Tao must be talked about in terms of "what the attributes of the myriad things (the phenomenal universe) both are and are not". Our language, which is 'instinctively' predicated on what we these days call the laws of Boolean logic, does not allow everything that is true to be said. Likewise, this same linguistic/conceptual logic is a limiting factor on our ability to conceptualise, and entails that not everything that is can be conceived. Hence the something/nothing problem, which is caused by a conceptual failure.

While everything of which we can conceive is either something or nothing, 'something' that is neither something nor nothing cannot be conceived. This is because this 'something' is the thing that is doing the conceiving, and it is too self-referential a task to conceive of the conceiver, perceive the perceiver, imagine the imaginer etc. (One can try this. It is a task equivalent to axiomatising mathematics, and equally impossible).

Thus the fundamental 'something', that is not either something or nothing, can only be experienced non-conceptually, ('immaterially' or 'formlessly' as the mystics put it), i.e. by an apperception which transcends, or is empty of, our normal mental processes of conceiving and perceiving, and indeed all forms of mental processing.

So when Pi 314B (or Lao-Tsu, Spencer-Brown etc.) says that spacetime is a conceptual construct they are saying that in a non-conceptual state of apperception (mind's perception of itself) spacetime ceases to exist, along with the notion of something and nothing, leaving only what underlies our ordinary human consciousness. This cannot be said to be one thing or the other since it transcends all distinctions, including that between something and nothing, or subject and object, and even that between existing or not-existing.

This is likely to seem like complete nonsense to some. But those who hold this view state that an exploration of ones own consciousness can make it self-evidently true. At least we can say that it does not contradict the facts, for if what is fundamental to our existence cannot be properly characterised as either something or nothing then the question of which of these two things it is would be undecidable, and it is.

It seems to me that the most simple and elegant explanation of why the something/nothing question is undecidable is that neither answer is correct. That is to say, it seems reasonable to suppose that the reason it makes no sense to say that the universe began with something or nothing is that it didn't.

 

[Pi_314B]

Canute

I agree with much of your post. A bit of fine tuning is in order to reach complete understanding. This is not to say that my engine purrs like a kitten. I consider the initial question of this thread to be answerable. This comes with greater understanding IMO. Expecting people to accept that all of reality is not a physical entity but a conceptual one is a tall order in itself. It is difficult to argue with a person stubbing their toe, that this event is not physical. Perhaps even you would question this. I find it amazing that those who wish to explain the universe, choose to exclude the thoughts they use to explain it. I.E No explanation of what a thought is. Is this to say that thought does not exist?

I have a postulate that I cannot give up without getting lost. It is this.

( All that exist must have form )

I cannot deny the existence of thought, therefore thought has form. A baseball exist, has form, and expresses the thought baseball through interaction. The color yellow exist and therefore has form, the form (thought) of yellow. Whats the difference between baseball and yellow? The answer is the shape of the form. We are only talking in terms of geometric differences by which geometries can be changed through interaction of those geometries. The color yellow can become the color blue through interaction, and the baseball can turn to a ball of yarn with a very robust interaction with a bat. What can be noted here is the quality of the form. I.E. The baseballs geometry has changed, and along with it ...It's expression. The thought baseball is lost, for the form has changed through interaction with the bat.


One might ask: Whats this got to do with the initial question of this thread? I would submit that if you understand the quality of the form ... you will come to grips with The Reality Of Non-Existence. Such that we can understand something from nothing, but not with a completeness from a Non-Existent sense. In other words we cannot escape reality to get the brass ring, or escape reality to return with a fist full of dollars. Hence we cannot give as a matter of fact statements for something from nothing. We can only infer them through the expressions given by the forms surrounding us. These forms can't be much different from nothing at all, if we in fact are from nothing, and my interpretation of realty is just that...Geometric forms of nothing.

 

[Canute]

I'm afraid I can't follow all of that. However I agree with you that everything that exists must have form, and also that if we want to understand reality we cannot leave the nature of our thoughts unexamined. You might like this.

"What all people desire to know is that.
But our means of knowing that is by this.
How can we know that?
Only by perfecting this."

Kuan Tzu (4th - 3rd century B.C.)

"The Kuan Tzu ponders, "All men desire to know, but they do not enquire into that whereby one knows." How indeed can one know anything external when all that is known is known through the mode of the perceiver? Are we studying ourselves when we think we are studying nature? Will the "new science" eventually come to the conclusion of Kuan Tzu, that only "by perfecting this, can we truly know that"? It is an interesting question: how accurate and objective can the observation be if the observer is flawed and imperfect?"

Martin J. Verhoeven
Buddhism and Science

However we seem to disagree about something coming from nothing. It's an idea that makes no sense to me.

 

[Royce]

( All that exist must have form )

I cannot deny the existence of thought, therefore thought has form...; The answer is the shape of the form. We are only talking in terms of geometric differences by which geometries can be changed through interaction of those geometries...;

One might ask: Whats this got to do with the initial question of this thread? I would submit that if you understand the quality of the form ... you will come to grips with The Reality Of Non-Existence. Such that we can understand something from nothing, but not with a completeness from a Non-Existent sense. In other words we cannot escape reality to get the brass ring, or escape reality to return with a fist full of dollars. Hence we cannot give as a matter of fact statements for something from nothing. We can only infer them through the expressions given by the forms surrounding us. These forms can't be much different from nothing at all, if we in fact are from nothing, and my interpretation of realty is just that...Geometric forms of nothing.

The problem I am have with your philosophy is that if I were to accept form and geometry as being the ultimate or only true reality, form and geometry are still something.

True they are not physical but as you said pure thought exists in reality as something. Even if the entire universe and what we call reality is pure thought and/or consciousness it is still something thus something is not coming from nothing.

To go further, even if we think of geometry and thought or form as being nothing there remains the something that generated, created, and holds these thoughts, forms and/or geometries. Thus we are still stuck with something coming from something and that something is, by necessity, eternal even if in reality eternal is but a moment, a fleeting moment.

Even Tao is something though it may make no differentiation between something and nothing. I belief that it is addressing physical nothing and physical something. Even if Tao was all that really is and cannot be spoken of, it is still something and again by necessity eternal.

I still see no escape from the only two viable options of something from nothing or something eternal, speaking in absolute terms of course.

 

[Pi_314B]

The problem I am have with your philosophy is that if I were to accept form and geometry as being the ultimate or only true reality, form and geometry are still something.

Yes... Form is something ... Never said it wasn't. Form is the reality of nothing. It is the something you get from the nothing in the absolute sense as you refer to, (because) that is what nothing {is} in {reality}. What absolute nothing is in it's Non-Existent sense is undefinable from our perspective...we exist. Yet it {must} be defined because we are here.


A complete definition of absolute nothing can't be real by it's own definition, Therefore reality is an incomplete definition of nothing, by which we can infer an ongoing process that will never be finished. The universe is an artifact of this ongoing definition. Each and every form (geometric representative) in this universe constitutes a part of that definition, by which new parts are still being defined, and will continue to do so. Over the course of infinity ...the definition will be complete, and the universe will cease to exist.

To go further, even if we think of geometry and thought or form as being nothing there remains the something that generated, created, and holds these thoughts, forms and/or geometries.

If one were to remove all that exist...what remains? I'll answer that by saying the undefinable nothing that must be defined because we are here. We can't know that which does not exist, but we can say we exist because of it. This is the best we can do because we can't escape reality by any means whatsoever. We can only infer from the direction we may or may not be pointed to. From what I can gather the universe can only work the way it does if all things are made of nothing at all. The world is reduced to geometry, and the interactions of those forms.
How else can you fit a billion suns into a space the size of a briefcase if all things are not made of nothing? The answer can only come by way of conceptual means (the unbridled cornerstone of existence).


I am sure my replies are falling short of expectations, but I can't explain in toto that which cannot be explained in reality.

 

[Pi_314B]

I'm afraid I can't follow all of that. However I agree with you that everything that exists must have form, and also that if we want to understand reality we cannot leave the nature of our thoughts unexamined.

Well let's see if we can break that down and come to an agreement.

The nature of thought.
Since we are in agreement that all that exist must have form, we must accept that thought has form. So what is the nature of thought? I would submit that it is no more no less than the geometric embodiment of nothing, and that's all there is. Meaning that thought is the building block of our universe, and comunication between these blocks are afforded through shared geometries. I.E Interaction...A particle would be an example of shared geometry, wherein interaction is carried out between different geometric units on a continuous basis, and those units would seem to remain stationary, but are in fact moving at C. Gravity is also an example of those building blocks that make up a particle, wherein it represents the geometric extension of those blocks, and accordingly interact with other extensions, and or any other geometric representations to at least some effect. To add to that - A thought to me is the equivalent of a photon. They all move at C under any and every circumstance. If you could tie up photons such as to make them orbit...you would have the makings of a particle, and the resistance to move them from the self interaction of the photons that make it up. I.E. MASS Wherein the extensions (gravity) of the pent up photons self interact.

Do you have a view of what thought is?

However we seem to disagree about something coming from nothing. It's an idea that makes no sense to me.

Saying that something came from nothing is the same as saying that I exist because I don't exist. The cause is Non-Existence and must be defined if true, but we have no way of knowing that definition beyond what our universe tells us, and it's telling me there's a whole lotta nothing to talk about. Don't know if that made any sense to you, but it looks good from my vantage point.


On the other hand we have something eternal, which has left me in dead ends that I can't resolve. I would be happy to entertain (debate) the validity of this possibility, but when most people are pressed for the minutiae of how that works in our current universe, they tend to not have a clue. If you can explain how this works - I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[Canute]

Hmm. Afraid I still can't grasp quite what you're getting at. I agree with Royce that form or geometry is not nothing, and don't know what it could mean to say that "non-existence" is "the cause" of anything and "must be true". How can non-existence be a causal thing? What do you mean here by the term 'non-existence'? Does it not mean nothing?

Royce - You're right about the Tao, it is not nothing, and Taoists do not claim that something came from nothing (although they may well claim that Being comes from non-Being, a related issue). Yet the Tao is not something in the ordinary sense of the word. Hence it is usually referred to as 'something', the inverted commas signifying that it is not something in the everyday sense. I've wondered if it is correct to call it, in line with the current terminology of consciousness studies, 'what it is like to be nothing' or, perhaps, 'nothing but what it is like' or something similar, but I'm not far enough along to know if these phrases are really appropriate.

The point about the 'Tao' (and its equivalent in other non-dual doctrines) is that it just 'is'. It is timeless yet contains all time, unextended yet contains all extension. It cannot not be and it gives rise to everything else. It exists, yet not in the same sense that anything else exists but in a truer sense (it is said to be the only thing that exists that is a phenomenon rather than an epiphenomenon, the only uncreated 'thing'). It lies outside (/inside) of time and space and is inconceivable, unimaginable and so on, but can be known through direct non-conceptual experience. It did not arise from nothing or from something, for it is more fundamental than something and nothing and so cannot be characterised as either without causing misunderstanding. (Much as a wavicle is more fundamental than particles and waves and cannot be correctly characterised as either). It is what underlies the existence of everything else, what everything is made out of if you like. (Hence the Buddhist saying that "Emptiness lies at the heart of everything"). As far as I can tell it is what is referred to in other contexts as 'Budhha-nature', 'Nibbanah', 'the Kingdom of Heaven', 'Allah', 'the Godhead', 'Unicity' and many other such terms, (none of which signify a God!).

It sounds like a very strange 'thing'. But note that we know, if BB theory is correct, that the 'physical' universe arose from 'something' very strange that existed, in some sense or other of 'exists', before space and time existed. This must have been, and must still be, something very Tao-like. Here's the great man again on the subject.

"There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which is born before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it stands alone and does not change. It goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it the Tao."

Lao Tzu
Tao Teh Ching

 

[Royce]

Canute, from your description of Tao above I think that what I would call the universal consciousness (or in another place, the spirit of God, Holy Ghost)
that is eternal and in and of the eternal moment. IMHO, the entire universe is contained and caused within this universal consciousness and yet part of the Universal consciousness is a part of the universe. They cannot be separated or differentiated. It exists but does not exist in physical form as the universe exist in physical form but not in spiritual form. I tried to approach this in my One Reality thread but as with the Tao it is impossible to adequately put into words.

 

[Moses]

I did not read the hwole thread since i am now at work

Still, i want drop my two pennys:

At least by logic i found that this universe did not came to existnece by itself, and it may be came from another "universe" or "Creation master" i.e. God. Since invitifty of successes do not exist. [since infinity itself does not exist] This universe/universe ir oder for have a "system" for forming e.g. like physics law chemistry ...etc they should have been "programmed" .

We neded up by a thing the is not part of this creation, nor separate from it, which is its master.

I hope my enlgish does not make my two pennys looking too gray

 

[Pi_314B]

Hmm. Afraid I still can't grasp quite what you're getting at. I agree with Royce that form or geometry is not nothing

Didn't say that form is nothing. Been saying all along that form is something. I did say that a form is composed of nothing, and the shape of the form expresses the quality of the form. I think what your missing here is from the result of thinking physically. What I'm trying to say is that all units of Existence have no physical characteristics whatsoever, that they are purely conceptual in nature. I'll type out the capital letter { O } for an example of this. Let's say for the sake of discussion that this circle is all there is. Whats within that circle I will characterize as nothing (Non-Existence), for there is no form within that circle, and as accepted by you - {All that exist must have form}. From this we can safely say we have one thing of nothing. I.E. Where form is the thing that is composed of nothing.


Lets examine the form { O } - This is the line in the form of a circle, and this is where we can leave the physical playing field in favor of a conceptual undertaking. What I'm saying here is that the line in the form of a circle has no thickness. It is not a physical entity, but a conceptual one. We can do this without losing the existence of the form. In this example - Thought is form, and the quality of the thought is expressed by the shape of the form, so when we experience the colors red verses blue, we are simply measureing a geometric difference in shape.

and don't know what it could mean to say that "non-existence" is "the cause" of anything and "must be true". How can non-existence be a causal thing?

If what i wrote above is true - We have a bonafide link IMO. One thing of nothing is certainly not a far cry from absolutely nothing at all.

 

[Royce]

I did say that a form is composed of nothing,... What I'm trying to say is that all units of Existence have no physical characteristics whatsoever, that they are purely conceptual in nature... Where form is the thing that is composed of nothing.

You have yet to say how or why something can be composed of nothing. Thought, form etc. are all something, information if nothing else, a reduction of entropy if not energy. It take energy to convey information. It even take energy to hold information. While I am no expert in information theory, I do know this much.

Though not physical any form of organization such as thought of form has characteristics and your statement that all units of Existence have know physical characteristics is clearly wrong, I would agree that some units of Existence have know physical characteristics there is the Universe and all it contains that all have physical characteristics.

Some time ago I read that the sum of the total energy of the universe was 0 as gravity was negative and it could then be possible that the Universe came from nothing and would eventually return to nothing but the writer did not say how or why this happened. We are still left with the ultimate question of why there is something and not nothing.

 

[Canute]

I agree. One would have to ask why there are forms rather than nothing.

 

[Pi_314B]

You have yet to say how or why something can be composed of nothing.

I did at least tell you how something can be composed of nothing.

I'll type out the capital letter { O } for an example of this. Let's say for the sake of discussion that this circle is all there is. Whats within that circle I will characterize as nothing (Non-Existence), for there is no form within that circle, and as accepted by you - {All that exist must have form}. From this we can safely say we have one thing of nothing. I.E. Where form is the thing that is composed of nothing.

I can't tell you why something exist because that requires knowledge of that which is beyond reality. I can't know that which does not exist. I can only show the existence of nothing by conceptual means. What is real here is the concept of it. This is to say that nothing in the absolute sense knows what it (IS). Reality is the (IS) in the last sentence.

 

[Royce]

I did at least tell you how something can be composed of nothing.

You are simply giving us your distorted concept of nothing. That which is inside a circle is empty space or negative space and is just as important and as much part of the symbol "0" as the closed line of the circle itself. It is not nothing or composed of nothing but part of the symbol or form of "0." The concept of mathematical "0" is something entirely different yet it too is something.

I can't you why something exist because that requires knowledge of that which is beyond reality. I can't know that which does not exist. I can only show the existence of nothing by conceptual means. What is real here is the concept of it. This is to say that nothing in the absolute sense knows what it (IS). Reality is the (IS) in the last sentence.

There nothing that is beyond reality. Nothing knows and can know nothing. We can know nothing about nothing for there is nothing to know about nothing. We can only know and state that which nothing is not such as nothing does not exist and has no properties, values or characteristics among other things which nothing is not or has not. Only nothing can come from nothing and only nothing can return to nothing. Nothing caused nothing. Nothing influences or effects nothing. Nothing is; but, it is not something that can be said to exist.

 

[Pi_314B]

There is nothing that is beyond reality.

I'll buy that.

Nothing knows and can know nothing.

Yes - Thats what I've been saying.

We can know nothing about nothing for there is nothing to know about nothing.

Sounds good to me.

Only nothing can come from nothing

Yep

Nothing caused nothing.

Yep

Nothing is; but, it is not something that can be said to exist.

You get a perfect ten. What (IS) - (IS) the concept of it. Such as - I am, because I am not. The minimal set here is zero and one by which anything is possible. This is not saying (something eternal). It is (nothing eternal).

 

[moving finger]

I agree with you that everything that exists must have form

My apologies for joining this thread at such a late stage. The thread is very long and it would be an horrendous exercise to read it all, so forgive me for asking a question that may have been answered already :

Have we agreed clear, complete and unambiguous definitions of what we mean by "exists" and "form"? And if so, can someone please summarise what these are?

If we haven't, the debate seems pretty fruitless to me.

MF

 

[Pi_314B]

Have we agreed clear, complete and unambiguous definitions of what we mean by "exists" and "form"? And if so, can someone please summarise what these are?

If we haven't, the debate seems pretty fruitless to me.

From my electronic dictionary
Exist - Have real or actual being.
Form - Shape

You make a good point, and some of my latest post serve to answer that. If you read the word circle, and then the word triangle ... two forms come to mind. They can be characterized as different by their shape. No concern is given to that which is internal or external to what we term form. By doing so we establish difference (one verses zero), wherein the form (one) can exist as oppose to that which does not (zero). What I can't seem to get across is that none of this is physical in nature. That all of reality is not physical.

Form and Existence go hand in hand. There is no form that does not Exist, and we Exist because we have form.

These words I characterize as the same.
1. Form
2. Existence
3. One
4. Thought (concept)

Use anyone of these words and you are using them all. I.E. There is no instance where one word is used and any of the other three are excluded.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are compose of, and this is The Reality Of Non-Existence.

 

[moving finger]

From my electronic dictionary
Exist - Have real or actual being.
Form - Shape

You make a good point, and some of my latest post serve to answer that. If you read the word circle, and then the word triangle ... two forms come to mind. They can be characterized as different by their shape. No concern is given to that which is internal or external to what we term form. By doing so we establish difference (one verses zero), wherein the form (one) can exist as oppose to that which does not (zero). What I can't seem to get across is that none of this is physical in nature. That all of reality is not physical.

OK, so green and red have different shapes? (forms)?

Form and Existence go hand in hand. There is no form that does not Exist, and we Exist because we have form.

Only if one first defines form and shape to be synonymous

These words I characterize as the same.
1. Form
2. Existence
3. One
4. Thought (concept)

Use anyone of these words and you are using them all. I.E. There is no instance where one word is used and any of the other three are excluded.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are compose of, and this is The Reality Of Non-Existence.

If you define "Exist" and "Form" to be synonymous, how can there be any debate as to whether everything that "exists" also has "form" or not?
Those who disagree with you must therefore define these words to be not synonymous?
If we do define them as being synonymous, then we can dispense with the redundancy and simply use one word?
I am struggling to see what the fuss is about?

MF

 

[Pi_314B]

OK, so green and red have different shapes? (forms)?

All things are the same in that they are all forms, yet different by the shape of the form. I disagree somewhat with my electronic dictionary definition, although shape and form can easily be considered the same providing that both shape and form are considered toward the definition of one particular entity. Red and green are different shapes, with a commonality of form.

Only if one first defines form and shape to be synonymous

For any particular entity - shape and form are exactly the same.

If you define "Exist" and "Form" to be synonymous, how can there be any debate as to whether everything that "exists" also has "form" or not?

There can be no debate if it is accepted. I served this up as a postulate. I assume it to be true for lack of anything whatsover that says otherwise.

Those who disagree with you must therefore define these words to be not synonymous?

yep

If we do define them as being synonymous, then we can dispense with the redundancy and simply use one word?
I am struggling to see what the fuss is about?

I don't think there is a fuss here. The disagreement has to do with (something eternal) or (something from nothing).

I personally think that if one could knock down the physical walls that are built over a lifetime, one could understand something from nothing. Asking another to dump physicality is tantamount to asking a christian born and raised as such to spit in the face of their reality. This does not come easy if ever. From my view there is little difference between a christian and a physicist. Both believe they live in a physical world, with some sort of graduation beyond it upon their death.

I've got news - There is no greater reality than the concept of it, lest you be there, where the sun don't shine.

 

[moving finger]

Either something, the Big Bang, etc, came from nothing or something is eternal.

Some thoughts :

The question makes an implicit assumption about the nature of time, viz that time existed prior to the Big Bang.

If time did not exist prior to the Big Bang (ie the Big Bang created time and space together, where there was no time and space), then it makes no sense to ask "what came before the Big Bang", and similarly it makes no sense to ask whether "something" is eternal or not (since the concept of eternality implies a never-ending time in both the past and future).

However, the creation of time at the moment of the Big Bang does also not necessarily imply that "something" came from nothing. There may be solutions involving other dimensions outside of our familiar dimensions of space and time which could give rise to the Big Bang (the something may have come from something else), but which do not involve any eternal dimension of time.

One final note - eternality does not necessarily imply an infinite time. Time and space could be closed (finite) but unbounded, such that one could travel as "far" as one likes in either direction of time (past or future), never come to an "end" of time, and yet the time dimension could still be finite.

 

[Royce]

If you had bothered to read or at least scan over this thread you would know that we have been through this before. The definition that I used for eternal was simply without beginning and without end. Rather than imply time it implies without time or no time.
The choices are clear and make sense. They are logical and reasonable in absolute terms. Something is eternal or something came from nothing or something else. If there was something prior to the BB or caused the BB, then what was the source or cause of that. This reasoning goes all the way to the inevitable conclusion that something is therefore eternal. The alternative is that something came from nothing. The something else option is there for those that cannot accept either of the other two. No one so far has come up with a reasonable alternative or explanation for a third option.

 

[Pi_314B]

The nature of time.

Here is another item seldom agreed upon. What is time? The original question - (something from nothing) (something eternal), can't be answered to any reasonable satisfaction without a clear understanding of time. Time to me is the nothing all ones are composed of. It plays a passive role in that of Non-register, while one plays the role of register. All things (ones) serve to be containers of time. Another vital role in the registry of time is motion. We can't expect a tic or toc of time without motion. Thus - All things on the most fundamental level move. I will imply that all things on the most fundamental level move at C, but that's another story in itself. All things that move have a front and a back, and the front is always forward most in the direction of motion. The front of one of these units of time stands for tic, and the back serves as toc. This stands for the beginning and the end of a single unit of time.

If we discuss (something from nothing) we must dispense with tic and toc from the standpoint of nothing. Does this mean that nothing is all of time, or no time at all, or are they both the same? Can we say all time for no time? All of time for one infinite unit of time?

 

[moving finger]

Something is eternal or something came from nothing or something else. If there was something prior to the BB or caused the BB, then what was the source or cause of that. This reasoning goes all the way to the inevitable conclusion that something is therefore eternal. The alternative is that something came from nothing. The something else option is there for those that cannot accept either of the other two. No one so far has come up with a reasonable alternative or explanation for a third option.

OK, then with respect I suggest your question might be better phrased as :
"Was there a first cause, yes or no?"
(first cause defined as an uncaused initial event)

Why do I think this is a better question? Because it does not invoke concepts of eternal, time, "something" or "nothing". It simply talks about causation.

"No first cause" corresponds to your "something came from something", and "first cause" corresponds to your "something came from nothing".

There is clearly no third option (ie logically either there was an uncaused initial event, or there was not).

MF

 

[Royce]

The First Cause is an old religious argument and I was intentionally trying to avoid that as "Something is eternal" does not necessarily imply a god or creator as the universe itself can be eternal just as one example.
Neither religion or time is implied in the choice "Something is eternal."

As for "first cause" corresponds to your "something came from nothing"; I don't see it at all as nothing cannot have any causal relationship with something. You seem to be skipping over the absolute nothing concept and keep giving nothing properties and characteristics that nothing cannot possibly have or it would be something.

 

[moving finger]

The First Cause is an old religious argument and I was intentionally trying to avoid that as "Something is eternal" does not necessarily imply a god or creator as the universe itself can be eternal just as one example.
Neither religion or time is implied in the choice "Something is eternal." .

Macroscopic science is all about causation, it has nothing necessarily to do with God or religion.

With respect, I have not ascribed any properties to a possible first cause, YOU are the one who has done that by bringing up religion in this context. If YOU choose to equate first cause with God that is up to you.

As for "first cause" corresponds to your "something came from nothing"; I don't see it at all as nothing cannot have any causal relationship with something. You seem to be skipping over the absolute nothing concept and keep giving nothing properties and characteristics that nothing cannot possibly have or it would be something.

"First cause" simply means (in my book) something that causes everything else but is itself without any prior cause. This is one way that the universe could have come into existence, but it makes no assumptions about (a) what that first cause was or (b) whether there was somnething or nothing prior to that first cause (except that if there was "something" then by definition there was no causal relationship between that something and the universe we know).

What your poll boils down to is essentially either (a) there was no first cause (ie something is eternal) (b) there was a first cause (something came from nothing) or (c) something else. All I am saying is that logically (c) is redundant.

MF

"If the no boundary proposal is correct, He [God] had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions" (Hawking)

 

[Royce]

I agree that 'c' is redundant; however, there are others who do not think that it is.
As for first cause is not that something rather than nothing and in the absence of time, beginning or end would it not be eternal itself?
Personnally I think that something is eternal is the only logical and reasonable answer.
What that something may or may not be is pure speculation or a personal matter of choice, faith or decision.

 

[Pi_314B]

How can something eternal ever have a world full of beginnings and endings?
How does something eternal create that which does not exist, such as a beginning and an ending?
When or how do the concepts , beginning, and ending arrive?

Do we say that something eternal has a beginning and ending within it's package?

 

[Royce]

How can something eternal ever have a world full of beginnings and endings?

Change too is eternal. "For every beginning there is and ending; for every ending there is a beginning." Once the universe was created part of that creation was change.

How does something eternal create that which does not exist, such as a beginning and an ending?

By creating the universe and time. By creating change. How does that which is eternal create change? You will have to ask the creator.

When or how do the concepts , beginning, and ending arrive?

By creating change along with time.

Do we say that something eternal has a beginning and ending within it's package?

Not in the way that I am using eternal, i.e. without beginning and without end.

 

[Pi_314B]

By creating the universe and time. By creating change. How does that which is eternal create change? You will have to ask the creator.

The First Cause is an old religious argument and I was intentionally trying to avoid that as "Something is eternal" does not necessarily imply a god or creator as the universe itself can be eternal just as one example.
Neither religion or time is implied in the choice "Something is eternal."

These two statements by you don't jive. Care to elaborate?

 

[Royce]

They are two different responses to two different posts at two different times.
This thread was not meant to address religious beliefs; but that does not mean that I have none nor have religious or spiritual ideas been excluded. The term creator does not necessary imply a god of religious beliefs although that is the usual assumption.

I am convinced that there is a creator, controller and an aspect of that creator is a universal consciousness. I call that, God; but, that is my own personal belief and has no immediate bearing on this thread or my posts.

 

[moving finger]

As for first cause is not that something rather than nothing and in the absence of time, beginning or end would it not be eternal itself?
Personnally I think that something is eternal is the only logical and reasonable answer.

If one takes the Copenhagen interpretation of QM literally then no QM events are "caused", and the apparent causation we see at a macroscopic level is an illusion. This would seem to go against what you consider to be "logical and reasonable"?

Could it be that the first "event" was such an uncaused quantum event?

MF

If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things.
Rene Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637

 

[Royce]

If one takes the Copenhagen interpretation of QM literally then no QM events are "caused", and the apparent causation we see at a macroscopic level is an illusion. This would seem to go against what you consider to be "logical and reasonable"?

Could it be that the first "event" was such an uncaused quantum event?

First, can a quantum event occur from nothing? Surely such an event would require at least energy. Can energy be borrowed from nothing spontaneously?
I'm not talking about a quantum vacuum but about absolutely nothing. This is the only way that I can see something coming from nothing; but, then where did all of the necessary parameters and laws come from. The question, at least to me, is not so much how but why. What would cause such an event to happen when absolutely nothing exists. Sure, its possible or at least not proven impossible; but, for an incomprehensable series of random events to happen without cause or direction, purely spontaneously, uncaused and lead to not just the universe but to us in all our glory is all but statistically impossible. Yeah, It happened and is happening. How and why?

 

[moving finger]

First, can a quantum event occur from nothing? Surely such an event would require at least energy. Can energy be borrowed from nothing spontaneously?
I'm not talking about a quantum vacuum but about absolutely nothing.

Yes, according to the accepted interpretation of QM, as long as the product of energy and time does not exceed Planck's constant then energy can be created from literally nothing.

This is the only way that I can see something coming from nothing; but, then where did all of the necessary parameters and laws come from.

The question, at least to me, is not so much how but why. What would cause such an event to happen when absolutely nothing exists.

Ahhhh, now this is a very different question. But again it comes back to causation. To ask the question "why" means that you presume everything has a cause, whereas the Copenhagen interpretation of QM suggests that (at the quantum level) there are no causes in the normal sense of the word. When a radioactive nucleus decays it does so spontaneously without anything directly "causing it" to decay (according to Copenhagen). Similarly, energy can be created from absolutely nothing without cause in QM.

Sure, its possible or at least not proven impossible; but, for an incomprehensable series of random events to happen without cause or direction, purely spontaneously, uncaused and lead to not just the universe but to us in all our glory is all but statistically impossible. Yeah, It happened and is happening. How and why?

Now you refer to the statistical possibility of us happening, which is yet another thing altogether. This has nothing necessarily to do with whether the universe was caused or uncaused. No matter whether our universe had a first cause or not, the fact remains that there does seem to be some incredible "fine-tuning" involved in some of the parameters of our universe... and if true this seems to point to one of two things - either our universe was designed that way, or there are a multitude of different universes and we live in this one because of the anthropic principle.

MF

 

[Royce]

Yes, according to the accepted interpretation of QM, as long as the product of energy and time does not exceed Planck's constant then energy can be created from literally nothing.

Okay, while I realize that both size and time are relative can the universe originate in Planck time and energy? I really don't think so. I think that it, the origin of the universe, was a much more energetic.

Ahhhh, now this is a very different question. But again it comes back to causation. To ask the question "why" means that you presume everything has a cause, whereas the Copenhagen interpretation of QM suggests that (at the quantum level) there are no causes in the normal sense of the word. When a radioactive nucleus decays it does so spontaneously without anything directly "causing it" to decay (according to Copenhagen). Similarly, energy can be created from absolutely nothing without cause in QM.

While the question can be read as looking for a cause it is intended to be more in line with; "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Now you refer to the statistical possibility of us happening, which is yet another thing altogether. This has nothing necessarily to do with whether the universe was caused or uncaused. No matter whether our universe had a first cause or not, the fact remains that there does seem to be some incredible "fine-tuning" involved in some of the parameters of our universe... and if true this seems to point to one of two things - either our universe was designed that way, or there are a multitude of different universes and we live in this one because of the anthropic principle.

MF

While the anthropic principle may be logical it always seems to me to be a cop out and begs the question rather than giving an acceptable answer i.e. "We are here because we are here." It is in my mind no more valid or useful the the First Cause argument. Logically, God could be the first cause just as easily as the Big Bang could be the first cause; but, inevitably one must ask what caused or where did the first cause come from.

The answer is either something came from nothing or something is eternal. Yes it is possible for something spontaneously to come from nothing but it is also necessary then for something to return to nothing just as spontaneously.
We are left again with the ultimate question of; Why is there something rather than nothing as probability so strongly indicates that there should be.
Are we then nothing more than a statistical fluke existing within a Planck constant of time and energy.

I find this infinitely harder to believe than to believe in the existence of a creator controller for which it at least is more statistically probable. I therefore think that the answer is obviously, something is eternal.

 

[moving finger]

Okay, while I realize that both size and time are relative can the universe originate in Planck time and energy? I really don't think so. I think that it, the origin of the universe, was a much more energetic.

But, Royce, the debate is whether "something" can be created from nothing, and clearly, according to current QM, something can.

As to whether the universe is much more energetic or not - there is a school of thought which says the total energy content of the universe is zero.

While the question can be read as looking for a cause it is intended to be more in line with; "Why is there something rather than nothing?" .

Does there need to be a reason?
Maybe there are universes “existing” which consist of nothing rather than something, and there are universes which consist of something rather than nothing, and we (necessarily) inhabit a universe of the second kind.

While the anthropic principle may be logical it always seems to me to be a cop out and begs the question rather than giving an acceptable answer i.e. "We are here because we are here." .

How do you judge what is an acceptable answer? Perhaps because you believe there must be a “reason” for everything, and the anthropic principle provides an explanation but not a “reason”. But you could be wrong in your belief.

It is in my mind no more valid or useful the the First Cause argument. Logically, God could be the first cause just as easily as the Big Bang could be the first cause; but, inevitably one must ask what caused or where did the first cause come from.

No, not inevitably. Your question is only inevitable if one believes that there must be a reason for everything. If you rise above this belief, then your “inevitable” question is irrelevant.

The answer is either something came from nothing or something is eternal. Yes it is possible for something spontaneously to come from nothing but it is also necessary then for something to return to nothing just as spontaneously.

Possibly. But so what?

We are left again with the ultimate question of; Why is there something rather than nothing as probability so strongly indicates that there should be.

See above. Maybe there are universes “existing” which consist of nothing rather than something, and there are universes which consist of something rather than nothing, and we (necessarily) inhabit a universe of the second kind.

Are we then nothing more than a statistical fluke existing within a Planck constant of time and energy.

Possibly.

I find this infinitely harder to believe than to believe in the existence of a creator controller for which it at least is more statistically probable. I therefore think that the answer is obviously, something is eternal.

Where do you derive your “statistics”? In a sample universe of 1?
If you look to the existence of a creator or controller for an explanation of why we are here, that also doesn’t really explain anything does it? It begs the question, where did the creator/controller come from, and why is he/she there? There is no end to the chain of questions if you believe that everything must have a cause/reason.

MF

 

[Picklehead]

I want to suggest a difference between the 'something from nothing' that Royce is talking about and the 'something from nothing' that Finger is talking about. The quantum mechanical 'nothing' is more of a background in which events take place (yes, even space too, being as tied to events as it is). The energy content of the entire universe may be [0], but it's not [ ]. Other universes that might not have anything in them are still universes.

 

[Pi_314B]

Other universes that might not have anything in them are still universes.

Just for the sake of clearing this up.

Definition
Universe - The complete system of all things that exist.

We can reason from this that there can only be one universe and yer in it. If you wish to speak of other universes ... Don't expect to ever be able to prove it, because your proof would only serve to exhibit that there is only one to be had.

 

[moving finger]

I want to suggest a difference between the 'something from nothing' that Royce is talking about and the 'something from nothing' that Finger is talking about. The quantum mechanical 'nothing' is more of a background in which events take place (yes, even space too, being as tied to events as it is). The energy content of the entire universe may be [0], but it's not [ ]. Other universes that might not have anything in them are still universes.

Sorry, I don’t think we can wriggle out of it that way.
The nothing we are debating is the possible nothing from which spacetime emerged, it is not nothing within spacetime. I was using the analogy of QM only to demonstrate that in QM (a) something can be created from nothing and (b) things happen without prior cause. If this can happen in QM within spacetime then there is no reason to believe that such creation from nothing and events without cause are impossible outside of spacetime.
It is debatable whether a universe containing nothing (and that includes no spacetime) can still be said to be a universe.

MF

 

[moving finger]

Just for the sake of clearing this up.

Definition
Universe - The complete system of all things that exist.

We can reason from this that there can only be one universe and yer in it. If you wish to speak of other universes ... Don't expect to ever be able to prove it, because your proof would only serve to exhibit that there is only one to be had.

yes, strictly this is the correct definition of universe. However there are well-established "multiple universe" or "multiple worlds" theories which posit the existence of parallel universes or worlds which are (more or less) inaccessible to us. If one wishes to adhere to the strict definition of universe then we should talk of multiple worlds within one universe, where here we now mean universe as being the set of all sets of possible worlds, and that universal set of all sets contains the "null set" of an empty world as well as all other possible worlds containing "something". Of course, since it is defined as being complete, the universal set must also contain itself - ooops...

MF

 

[Pi_314B]

yes, strictly this is the correct definition of universe. However there are well-established "multiple universe" or "multiple worlds" theories which posit the existence of parallel universes or worlds which are (more or less) inaccessible to us. If one wishes to adhere to the strict definition of universe then we should talk of multiple worlds within one universe, where here we now mean universe as being the set of all sets of possible worlds, and that universal set of all sets contains the "null set" of an empty world as well as all other possible worlds containing "something". Of course, since it is defined as being complete, the universal set must also contain itself - ooops...

MF

There is no leeway beyond our universe. Discussion about other worlds that we cannot access is a practice of futility. Taking up a religion would pass off as more productive in that it at least garners some subjective reasoning in the form of philosophy. I might call a person taking up religion as mentally ill, but a person with a mutiple universe theory has to be categorized as being insane. Using the word universe alongside multi is a grievous error that should not go unpunished.

How about the word pod? Let's give it a definition.

Pod - A collection of hundreds of billions of galaxies.

We can speculate that there are other pods to which one might ask for one to be shown.

 

[moving finger]

Discussion about other worlds that we cannot access is a practice of futility.

I said "more or less inaccessible", since the Deutsch multiple worlds idea would suggest that these parallel worlds are linked in some way at the quantum level. This is one possible interpretation of QM and is certainly not "futile".

a person with a mutiple universe theory has to be categorized as being insane.

tch tch, no need to get personal - there are plenty of respectable scientists out there who would disagree with you

Using the word universe alongside multi is a grievous error that should not go unpunished. .

which is why I allowed you to call them multiple worlds, if that makes you feel any better

MF

 

[Picklehead]

I think the point I was trying to make was that QM is a background dependant theory. It assumes the existence of spacetime. The theory that ultimately subsumes QM and relativity will be background independant, meaning that spacetime will have to emerge from the equations. At that level I guess that physics might assume a fundamental timelessness to the universe. It doesn't necessarily follow that while quantum objects within the universe behave in a certain fashion, that the entire universe behaves in the same way.

Pi:Definition
Universe - The complete system of all things that exist.

Your right, I should have used the word cosmos.

 

[moving finger]

I think the point I was trying to make was that QM is a background dependant theory. It assumes the existence of spacetime.

That is an interesting statement. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "assumes the existence of spacetime". Would you care to elaborate?

The theory that ultimately subsumes QM and relativity will be background independant, meaning that spacetime will have to emerge from the equations. At that level I guess that physics might assume a fundamental timelessness to the universe.

What do you mean exactly by "timelessness"? One can view it as timeless now, time is simply a dimension of freedom like the 3 dimensions of space. If physics must assume a fundamental timelessness then does that also mean it must assume a fundamental "spacelessness" (whatever that might be)?

It doesn't necessarily follow that while quantum objects within the universe behave in a certain fashion, that the entire universe behaves in the same way.

Depends on whether one agrees with reductionism, and whether there are more fundamantal building blocks than quantum objects.

MF

 

[Picklehead]

Many, many edits later . . .

What I meant is that QM does not describe space, it describes the behavior of sub-atomic particles in space. Since it does not describe spacetime, it does not account for all the entities that exist. If it did, I would say it would be the Theory of Everything. I'm not saying that spacetime isn't in some sense quantum mechanical, as I believe spacetime to be descrete, just that its not described by QM, and thus can't be used to justify the existence of the universe from nothing when it can't explain the two most fundamental (from our limited experience) aspects of the universe . . . space and time.

Yes, time simply is a degree of freedom in 4 (or more) dimensional spacetime. But don't make the mistake of thinking that anything 'moves' along it. If somethings there, then its there. Sure, it could all just blip into existence and out again just as fast in an uber-objective sense, and we would experience no difference at all . . . but your left with an over-arching framework of time to explain. (You even mentioned David Deutsch, and I'm practically quoting him here!)

Doesnt matter. Even string theory is a background dependant theory. Loop quantum gravity is about the only real attempt that I'm aware of to formulate a background independant theory, from what I understand.

Yes, it might (will?) have to assume a fundamental 'spacelessness' too, and most likely at the same time (unless space and time really are different at some level). I haven't the foggiest idea what that would be.


I totally agree with Pi about the word multiverse. At first it had a neat sound to it, but after a while it doesn't have the definitive all encompassing sound and impact that universe has.

 

[moving finger]

What I meant is that QM does not describe space, it describes the behavior of sub-atomic particles in space.

I would say that QM describes the behaviour of quantum objects and their inter-relationships – it makes no assumptions at all about either space or time.

Since it does not describe spacetime, it does not account for all the entities that exist.

You are suggesting here that spacetime “is an entity which exists”?
I suggest that spacetime does not in fact “exist”, except as a manifestation in your mind/consciousness. “Space” and “time” are the concepts you have constructed in your mind to enable your consciousness to understand (to assimilate) the fact that quantum objects are inter-related with each other in configuration space. I suggest that neither space (your concept of 3D space) nor time has any meaning, let alone existence, in the absence of such QM inter-relationships. Hence spacetime is an emergent conceptual property that arises form the conscious attempts to interpret and understand the inter-relationship of quantum objects.

Think on this – the ultimate quantum object is not a sub-atomic particle, it is the wavefunction. What we observe as the behaviour of sub-atomic particles is simply the manifestation of the wavefunction which describes them. The wavefunction evolves completely deterministically, and exists NOT in any spacetime but in configuration space – the configuration space of all inter-related quantum objects.

If it did, I would say it would be the Theory of Everything.

I do not personally believe that we will ever have a ToE, but that’s my humble opinion and a completely different topic.

I'm not saying that spacetime isn't in some sense quantum mechanical, as I believe spacetime to be descrete, just that its not described by QM, and thus can't be used to justify the existence of the universe from nothing when it can't explain the two most fundamental (from our limited experience) aspects of the universe . . . space and time.

Spacetime is not quantum mechanical, it is a mental manifestation constructed by your consciousness to enable you to make sense of the configuration relationships between QM objects. As such, QM does not need to explain or describe spacetime, since it does not depend on spacetime.

Yes, time simply is a degree of freedom in 4 (or more) dimensional spacetime. But don't make the mistake of thinking that anything 'moves' along it.

Thank you for your advice. No, I don’t make this mistake.

If somethings there, then its there. Sure, it could all just blip into existence and out again just as fast in an uber-objective sense, and we would experience no difference at all . . . but your left with an over-arching framework of time to explain.

The explanation is simple – time is part of spacetime and spacetime is simply your conscious attempt to understand the configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects. It does not exist outside of your conscious mind. That’s it in a nutshell.

I totally agree with Pi about the word multiverse. At first it had a neat sound to it, but after a while it doesn't have the definitive all encompassing sound and impact that universe has.

A rose by any other name…… what’s in a name?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

MF