Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Royce
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Poll
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the philosophical question of whether the universe originated from nothing or if something eternal exists. Participants explore concepts related to the Big Bang, the nature of nothingness, and the implications of eternity, engaging in both theoretical and conceptual reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the universe either came from nothing or is eternal, defining "nothing" as absolute absence and "eternal" as having no beginning or end.
  • Others argue that quantum theory suggests there cannot be a state of literal nothingness due to inherent uncertainty, complicating the binary options presented.
  • A participant questions the value of holding beliefs about unanswerable questions, suggesting that such inquiries may not matter.
  • Some express skepticism about the concept of nothingness, finding it difficult to reconcile with physical reality, while others struggle with the idea of something being eternal.
  • One participant introduces the notion of a singularity as a potential third option for the universe's origin, suggesting that different laws of physics may apply before the Big Bang.
  • There are discussions about the relationship between time and eternity, with some asserting that time cannot exist without the universe, while others explore the implications of an eternal spirit or entity.
  • Several participants express a desire for alternative perspectives or explanations regarding the origins of the universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of existence, the concept of nothingness, and the implications of eternity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity of definitions such as "nothing" and "eternal," as well as unresolved philosophical implications regarding the nature of time and existence.

Did something come from nothing or is something eternal

  • Something came from nothing.

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Something is eternal.

    Votes: 38 58.5%
  • Something else, another alternative.

    Votes: 23 35.4%

  • Total voters
    65
  • #151
I agree that the 'flow' of spacetime requires consciousness (the subjective appearence of motion and a moment-to-moment 'now'). The existence of the 'configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects' themselves does not, I think, depend on consciousness at all. If so, our minds then must be somehow outside this CIRBQO, arranging it and making sense of it all.

Even if, I don't see how that makes possible something from nothing. If the CIRBQO doesn't exist in time (which it doesnt), then how does it happen to come into being without existing in a larger CIRBQO-like structure (mind? is that where you are going?) that is itself timeless?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Picklehead said:
I agree that the 'flow' of spacetime requires consciousness (the subjective appearence of motion and a moment-to-moment 'now').
I prefer to think of it as : Consciousness generates an illusion of the flow of time.

Picklehead said:
The existence of the 'configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects' themselves does not, I think, depend on consciousness at all.
I agree. These things exist, independently of consciousness. Consciousness comes along later, and tries to make sense of them.

Picklehead said:
If so, our minds then must be somehow outside this CIRBQO, arranging it and making sense of it all.
Our minds are PART Of (not outside of.. that's the important thing) the configuration of quantum objects.

Picklehead said:
Even if, I don't see how that makes possible something from nothing. If the CIRBQO doesn't exist in time (which it doesnt), then how does it happen to come into being without existing in a larger CIRBQO-like structure (mind? is that where you are going?) that is itself timeless?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here?

Quantum objects exist, and they have relationships to each other in configuration space. Our minds, comprised of quantum objects, also exist in configuration space. Our minds try to assimilate the information we get from other quantum objects, and the best way that we can make sense of the information is by generating 3 space axes and one time axis. These axes exist in our consciousness, they do not exist in configuration space.

MF
:smile:
 
  • #153
Concerning this topic, does anyone know where I can find a quote by Steven Hawking on the Creator? It implies that time simply is.
 
  • #154
Moving Finger: Our minds try to assimilate the information we get from other quantum objects, and the best way that we can make sense of the information is by generating 3 space axes and one time axis.

We don't so much impose order because at the level of explanation where mind is evoked, information is already only coming through what essentially is 3 space axes and one time axis (gravity may leak, and whatever, but anyway). In fact it is a limiting factor, or a constraint, just try to imagine a 4D sphere, seeing a predator in the fifth dimension . . . or the future for that matter.

Its really hard to talk about time. That thread with talk of a tense-less grammar(?) is looking good about now.
 
Last edited:
  • #155
Dooga Blackrazor said:
Concerning this topic, does anyone know where I can find a quote by Steven Hawking on the Creator? It implies that time simply is.
you may be thinking of :

"One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just be."

or :

"If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

These are quotes from his book "The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe"

(though I believe he uses the same quotes in other publications too)

MF
:smile:
 
  • #156
I prefer to think of it as : Consciousness generates an illusion of the flow of time.

And how would you convert my illusory concept of "now" and "then" into objective truth?

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.

If space time is but a concept, then can I ask where and when those configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects do they exist?
If that question is nonsensical, then, can something exist outside spacetime?
Also, do those quantum objects have any dimensions? And if they have, how can you say that space is a mind-concept? (I'm not very familiar with the meaning of "quantum object").

What would it be without time? Am I correct to believe that there would be no motion?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
14K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K