Start from Nothing: An Exploration of Pre BB Thinking

[Capernicus]

You have these as the options:

1. nothing causes something
2. something causes something (or something always existed without cause, but that's basically the same thing)
I can see another option:
3. "something" doesn't exist. The universe is really nothing so there is no need to worry about what caused it.
Of course, #3 contradicts all available evidence and makes no sense to me whatsoever. I agree with you that something has always existed (and it ain't God).

* * *

I think the major premise is catastrophically and incurably flawed i.e. the concept of "nothing" for "nothing" is merely a word of language for use by poets etc. In fact it is is "nothing" that does not exist. Stated another way there is always "something" and never "nothing". Now once we have done away with "nothing" then things can make sense instead of nonsense. That is to say in cosmology when you see "nothing" spend the time to ascertain what that supposed "nothing" is composed of and don't simply declare the unknown as "nothing" and carry on.

 

[castlegates]

Stated another way there is always "something" and never "nothing".

Or rather "there is always nothing between those somethings". We cannot tell one thing from another without a good dose of nothing in between. It can't be any other way near as I can tell. Put another way - Nothing is the equivalent of time, or space, or both, pick your poison, it's all the same. There is a dimensional characteristic to nothing that allows for distance between anyone thing from any other thing. Keep in mind that all things in a conceptual existence must be composed of nothing. The plot thickens.

confusing?

It sure is.

In a universe from nothing, all we have to go with is the (concept of one nothing), but that's actually plenty enough to build upon.

 

[Spoof]

There is a world of difference between "something and never nothing" and "always nothing between those somethings".

 

[MeJennifer]

I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing.

How do you conclude it started?

 

[wolram]

How do you conclude it started?

One does not, only that some evolution has been (eternal), now that is philosophy and the thread will be closed if that goes to far.

 

[Tbeer]

A word about philosophy

[ RANT ]
Wasn't it the ancient Greeks that thought the whole universe could be revealed by logic alone, that observation and experiment were needless details?

And wasn't that long LONG before the creation of the scientific method in the Renaissance? - where we discovered that, brilliant as the Greek philosophers were, they got that part COMPLETELY WRONG?

Why are we reverting to a method of discovery that's a half millenium out-of-date?

It is silly to "suppose" that something cannot come out of nothing. These are philosophical concepts! The only way to answers is to observe and collect empirical data.

But, since we can't currently (or likely, ever) do that for the beginning of the universe, that doesn't give us license to sudddenly hand-wave away things we "just don't think can happen" - such as something out of nothing.

So, to that theory I say: "If you can't show me evidence that something can't come out of nothing, then you can't claim it to be so."

[ /RANT ]

Hi Dave,

listen up! The ancient Greeks were surely up to something, but most of the just presumed that the world had always persisted. Well, I guess they preferred to think of static things and essences. But guess what! The ancient Jews didn't, they thought that the world was in the process of something, just as scientist do today! I guess for day-to-day practical problems observation is a good thing, but for the more existentialist questions I think the answer lies in the realm of the intuitive.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess for day-to-day practical problems observation is a good thing, but for the more existentialist questions I think the answer lies in the realm of the intuitive.

Absolutely. All things real and physical should be studied by scientists through observation, while all things imaginary and supernatural should be studied by non-scientists in their own heads.

 

[jonmtkisco]

Great way to summarize the discussion!

Jon

 

[Tbeer]

I don't see that sharp distinction!

Absolutely. All things real and physical should be studied by scientists through observation, while all things imaginary and supernatural should be studied by non-scientists in their own heads.

What you try to depict as black and white, I perceive to be more like shades of gray. Even scientist need to use their heads, don't they? I mean a priori knowledge play a great role in scientific process, and observation is only one aspect of the process. I think many scientist have been greatly influenced by intuition (imagination) in their work.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think many scientist have been greatly influenced by intuition (imagination) in their work...

...on physical and real things. I agree 100%.