Poll: Something from nothing or something 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 dependent theory. It assumes the existence of spacetime. The theory that ultimately subsumes QM and relativity will be background dependent, 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 dependent 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 dependent, 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 discrete, 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 dependent theory. Loop quantum gravity is about the only real attempt that I'm aware of to formulate a background dependent 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 discrete, 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