The paradox of The Miracle of Existence

[Scott Sieger]

Pre-amble: This post is in no way original or even discussing an original topic if anything it is merely stating the obvious and no doubt has been discussed at this forum umpteen times.....so...

Having visited and read at many internet forums and real location discussion groups I have noticed one singular underlying theme to the research and debate about Religion and Science (Physics).

This is of course my observation and I am sure others have their own.

The one solitary question that sticks out and is the premise of just about all discussion is well known, often forgotten but at all times seems to drive people on to endless arguments.

The question for Science is “How did the Universe come from nothing ( prior to the “Big Bang”) and for religion “How did “God” create himself from nothing?”

Both questions are one in the same in that what we are trying to answer is a logic paradox.

Both religion and Science are founded on this one seemingly impossible question.

The problem about this paradox is that regardless of it’s impossibility, reality has come from nothing...and even though logic screams at us to say this is impossible the evidence is staring us in the face so to speak.

The impossible has happened...and this fact plagues our rational logic like a ghost that won’t stop haunting us.

Science will say that miracles don’t happen...that they are impossible and yet we live in a miracle all our lives. The miracle of existence...that is impossible

 

[wasteofo2]

I actually asked a question very much like "Where did matter come from?" in the astrophysics forum some month ago, and got several different theories about how it could have happened. Though they were all way over my head, something about a bunch of dimensions collapsing and turning into matter in our dimension or something, but there are theories out there.

 

[olde drunk]

i'm not sure this is a paradox. once you remove the concept of time, everything is and/or was.

our physical self requires a beginning because we see reality in sequence. consider that the universe is an unending mass of probabity threads. there is the potential to visit or experience any of the infinite probabilities.

peace,

 

[Chen]

Why should the universe have a beginning anyway? Why can't we just accept the fact that it just is, it was not created and it is not going to disappear either.

 

[Scott Sieger]

Olde Drunk...gosh I like that handle...

I think your point is fair...and valid...

The problem with it is if reality was as you said and time is meaningless then wouldn't entities other than yourself take use of the infinite possibilities as well...and if so wouldn't this have been already experienced and proven as such.

What I mean is that infinite time meaningless or otherwise provides infinite possibilities and yet we see only finite results in our physical world.

Eternity is an awful long time and this could suggest that humanity has evolved and infinite number of times already thus creating another paradox. Why is the now "Now"? and not "then"

 

[pocebokli]

because humans can predict, or imagine *then* and *before* and parallel worlds. For a rock, in our terms, "then" is now and "before" is now. when investigating into the basics of matter one must not forget to pay attention to the subjectiveness of his relationship with the environment.

 

[Scott Sieger]

Well I don't know but 1 billion years^1 billion years+ is a lot of seconds if you know what I mean...subjective or not.

 

[olde drunk]

Olde Drunk...gosh I like that handle...

I think your point is fair...and valid...

The problem with it is if reality was as you said and time is meaningless then wouldn't entities other than yourself take use of the infinite possibilities as well...and if so wouldn't this have been already experienced and proven as such.

What I mean is that infinite time meaningless or otherwise provides infinite possibilities and yet we see only finite results in our physical world.

Eternity is an awful long time and this could suggest that humanity has evolved and infinite number of times already thus creating another paradox. Why is the now "Now"? and not "then"

i did not say that time was meaningless. it is a very valid aspect of our physical reality.

IMHO, our physical brain can not handle the vastness of all there is. so, by being physical we narrow the focus of our awareness to better experience this world and learn to manipulate (control) our energy. while we may have senses beyond the physical, they are, again, focused through the physical so that we can experience physical pleasure or pain.

for me, knowing that the universe is eternal, proves that this nano-life can not be all there is. it is too illogical to have consciousness that exists for a nano second compared to eternity.

'NOW', was explained to me as the intersection of past probability threads and future probability threads. my present is the current focus of my consciousness. BUT, not the only one. all experience happens on many, many levels. without time, they are all occurring right now. i just do not have my current focus there; at this very moment. i suspect, that in linear time's terms, i blink in and out of different worlds many times per second.

an example, we see a thrown ball travel through space. from a different perspective, i see a ball in the throwers hand, blink off. come back and the ball is a nanosecond out of the hand. blink off, visit with my subconscious, blink on, and the ball is now 2 nanoseconds away from the hand. etc etc.

see what close to 40 years of drinking can do to your head! the last 5 were doozies! i use the handle as a reminder.

peace,

 

[verty]

"it is too illogical to have consciousness that exists for a nano second compared to eternity."

It is logical. The universe is REALLY old. Our lives are really short. What you really mean is it is too hard to swallow. We humans in our self delusion want to believe that somehow we are worth something great. We so need that to be true we will do anything to prove it. It scares us that we might have as much impact on the universe as a quark has on a camel. Rather than try to come to terms with that, we choose to ignore it, fabricating groundless hypotheses instead.

 

[to_son]

Why should the universe have a beginning anyway? Why can't we just accept the fact that it just is, it was not created and it is not going to disappear either.

...and if we can grasp (can we...?) the idea that there is an eternity ahead of now ... then isn't it just as easy to accept that there WAS an eternity b4 now...

 

[olde drunk]

"it is too illogical to have consciousness that exists for a nano second compared to eternity."

It is logical. The universe is REALLY old. Our lives are really short. What you really mean is it is too hard to swallow. We humans in our self delusion want to believe that somehow we are worth something great. We so need that to be true we will do anything to prove it. It scares us that we might have as much impact on the universe as a quark has on a camel. Rather than try to come to terms with that, we choose to ignore it, fabricating groundless hypotheses instead.

i am not fabricating anything. can you concieve of a time when you didn't exist? ergo, you always existed.

there is nothing to be scared of. it is only when you doubt or deny your spirituality that you have fear. we reside in a safe universe. there is no good or bad, what we experience is of our own making or choosing.

there is no time, except within the physical world. view the universe as potential and my previous comments are logical conclusions, IMHO.

peace,

 

[heusdens]

Big mistake:
The universe is not "something", in fact one could not say that the universe "exists" at all in the first place.
The fact that something exist, we can verify, because we can take measurements of it.

We can not measure the universe, because we can not take measurements from "outside" the universe. For the same reason, the universe has no mass or energy, etc. There is no "outside' of the universe.

 

[Canute]

- The one solitary question that sticks out and is the premise of just about all discussion is well known, often forgotten but at all times seems to drive people on to endless arguments.

The question for Science is “How did the Universe come from nothing ( prior to the “Big Bang”) and for religion “How did “God” create himself from nothing?”

You may like to know that Heidegger argued that all metaphysical questions derive from and reduce to this one. Sounds like you've reached the same conclusion.

It is very definitely a metaphysical question though, and in my experience raises hackles if you ask it on in a science forum.

In a 'non-dual' world-view the paradox is solved. Try as I might I have found no other explanation of existence in which the question is not a paradox. Any other explanation leads to ex nihilo creation or, if we drop the BB theory, the eternal existence of matter for no particular reason.

 

[loseyourname]

You have misrepresented the point of science. Only certain branches of cosmology make any attempt to explain the origin of the universe. The purpose of science is to explain material interactions (and immaterial, insofar as energy is considered to be "immaterial") within the universe.

 

[Canute]

Scott - I think you enjoy this http://angelfire.com/super/magicrobin
(Scroll down for the article).


Here the start.

SOME-THING FROM NO-THING:

G. SPENCER-BROWN’S LAWS OF FORM

The knowledge of the ancients was perfect. How so? At first, they did not yet know there were things. That is the most perfect knowledge; nothing can be added. Next, they knew that there were things, but they did not yet make distinctions between them. Next they made distinctions, but they did not yet pass judgements on them. But when the judgements were passed, the Whole was destroyed. With the destruction of the Whole, individual bias arose.- Chuang Tzu.

Anyone who thinks deeply enough about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two “laws” that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that precedes distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges. In this paper I will introduce his ideas in order to explore the archetypal foundations of consciousness. I’ll gradually unfold his discoveries by first outlining some of the history of ideas that lie behind them.

 

[olde drunk]

Big mistake:
The universe is not "something", in fact one could not say that the universe "exists" at all in the first place.
The fact that something exist, we can verify, because we can take measurements of it.

We can not measure the universe, because we can not take measurements from "outside" the universe. For the same reason, the universe has no mass or energy, etc. There is no "outside' of the universe.

i was using universe in the 'philosophical sense' to include all that is. measurements can only be made in the time-space reality.

obviously, in the physical world, we can experience pain and suffering. but in the grand scheme of things it is a temporal event. how many people with near death experiences claim to have left their body, feeling no pain at the time of injury, only to re-enter their body, become conscious in the hospital AND then feel pain.

love & peace,
olde drunk

 

[Dayle Record]

I guess that Cosmology school isn't like Cosmetology school. What is the payscale for Cosmologists? Should I keep on splitting hairs, or take a job cutting hair? (just kidding around.)

 

[Canute]

You have misrepresented the point of science. Only certain branches of cosmology make any attempt to explain the origin of the universe. The purpose of science is to explain material interactions (and immaterial, insofar as energy is considered to be "immaterial") within the universe.

No I wasn't talking about the point of science, just it's limits. Its limits prevent it from explaining the origin of the universe, as you say. I know Alan Guth has hopes but I think he's wasting his time.

 

[heusdens]

paradox

Pre-amble: This post is in no way original or even discussing an original topic if anything it is merely stating the obvious and no doubt has been discussed at this forum umpteen times.....so...

Having visited and read at many internet forums and real location discussion groups I have noticed one singular underlying theme to the research and debate about Religion and Science (Physics).

This is of course my observation and I am sure others have their own.

The one solitary question that sticks out and is the premise of just about all discussion is well known, often forgotten but at all times seems to drive people on to endless arguments.

The question for Science is “How did the Universe come from nothing ( prior to the “Big Bang”) and for religion “How did “God” create himself from nothing?”

Both questions are one in the same in that what we are trying to answer is a logic paradox.

Both religion and Science are founded on this one seemingly impossible question.

The problem about this paradox is that regardless of it’s impossibility, reality has come from nothing...and even though logic screams at us to say this is impossible the evidence is staring us in the face so to speak.

The impossible has happened...and this fact plagues our rational logic like a ghost that won’t stop haunting us.

Science will say that miracles don’t happen...that they are impossible and yet we live in a miracle all our lives. The miracle of existence...that is impossible

In the abstract sense, your question then is, why is there Being, instead of Nothing (not-Being)?

But the question is wrongly formulated, since the question assumes that being and Nothing are seperated. They are not. They are a unity of opposites.

For people interested in theis very abstract philosophical treatment, please inspect Hegel's Doctrine of Being (a link is provided http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm" )
Hegel argues that the notions of pure Being and pure Nothing, are in fact the same. Pure being, without any qualification or determination, and pure nothing, are just determining each other: Being is not Nothing; Nothing is not Being, and in that sense are the same determinations. But also and at the same time they are exactly each others opposites. Their truth is their unity, in which one has passed over into the other, which is Becoming.


The question is non-sensical because not only it assumes wrongly that Being and Nothing are seperated, but also it can be argued that the question itself already implies that no real answer can ever exist. Any answer that could be provided is already assumed by the question itself to not exist.

 

[Scott Sieger]

Ahh but that is the point... the answer does exist ( reality exists!) when it should be impossible to do so...using standard physics logics.

huesdens, I thank you for your comment and agree that it is when the opposites become as one and are understood as such then the paradox of existence ceases to be a paradox.

 

[Canute]

Yes, I also agree. The question has false assumptions built into it and that's why it's undecidable.

 

[heusdens]

Ahh but that is the point... the answer does exist ( reality exists!) when it should be impossible to do so...using standard physics logics.

huesdens, I thank you for your comment and agree that it is when the opposites become as one and are understood as such then the paradox of existence ceases to be a paradox.

Existence is not a paradox but a dialectical unity of opposites,it is ever becoming.

What answer does physics provide on a question which does not have an answer?

 

[Thallium]

Time is a Man-made concept...

 

[wuliheron]

If existence has no beginning or end, it is the ultimate perpetual motion machine and violates the laws of causality and logic. Ultimately it is indistinguishable logically from the idea of ex nihlio creation, the idea of something from nothing. In other words, if existence is eternal, the eternal universe came from nothing because it had no primal cause.

In addition, science does not assert in any way shape or form that miracles do not exist, that is the realm of philosophy. Science is simply a tool for gathering useful information and, thus far, it has found no useful information concerning miracles. Likewise, science has nothing whatsoever to say about existence either. Oh, you can find all kinds of scientific information about the observable universe, but existence is not limited to the observable universe.

 

[loseyourname]

No I wasn't talking about the point of science, just it's limits. Its limits prevent it from explaining the origin of the universe, as you say. I know Alan Guth has hopes but I think he's wasting his time.

Scott is the one that misrepresented it. He implied that the central question of all science is "how can matter come from nothing?" That isn't the case. Even the esoteric branches of cosmology that deal with the question of matter's beginnings do not postulate that it came from nothing. As the gentleman (I forget his username) pointed out toward the beginning of the thread, most hypotheses deal with colliding membranes, which of course are "something."

 

[loseyourname]

In other words, if existence is eternal, the eternal universe came from nothing because it had no primal cause.

If existence is eternal, then it never "came" at all. It always has been.

 

[wuliheron]

If existence is eternal, then it never "came" at all. It always has been.

Exactly, eternity came from nothing.

Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. In the case of "Life, the universe, and everything" the context is not specific, quite the opposite, it is so broad as to be undemonstrable. This why words such as "eternity", "God", etc. are easily thrown around when discussing the subject.

As far as I know, the people here have already cited all the common examples. Eternity, God, Primal Cause, and ex nihlio creation are the basic catagories of terms people use when attempting to rationalize the origin or lack of origins for existence. Without exception these all defy logical analysis and observation.

 

[loseyourname]

You're missing the point. Eternity doesn't come from nothing. Eternity doesn't come into existence at all. It is eternal. What you are doing here is akin to attempting to find the spatial beginnning of the circumpherence of a circle. There isn't one.

 

[wuliheron]

You're missing the point. Eternity doesn't come from nothing. Eternity doesn't come into existence at all. It is eternal. What you are doing here is akin to attempting to find the spatial beginnning of the circumpherence of a circle. There isn't one.

No, you are missing the point. Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. There exists no proven examples of eternity. You could just as easily say humanity is eternal, love is eternal, nature is eternal, or whatever.

We all know what infinity and eternity mean, but the concepts are magical concepts nonetheless that may be useful in mathematics or whatever, but also leads to meaningless paradoxes and has no demonstrable meaning without it referring to the finiite and bounded. Paradoxes and infinities are useful shortcuts for spotting problems, just as my shadow can be useful, but such shadows contain no mass/energy or real information.

Tools

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is moulded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.

 

[loseyourname]

Relax, buddy. I didn't say the universe was eternal. But if it is, then it didn't "come" from nothing. It's nice that you're saying we can't demonstrate eternality, but that is beside the point. It has already been postulated. If you deny the possibility of accepting that postulate, then I have no qualm with you. But if you accept it, and you did, then I have a qualm when you say an eternal universe must have come from nothing. That is not the case.

 

[theamazingTWOeyedman]

We can't ever demonstrate nothing or eternity because as soon as we observe nothing it becomes something... Eternity is even more complex because you would never see the end of it, therefore it could never be proven enternity. At the level our thinking/scientific knowledge is currently I don't think that this question is answerable... yet... I enjoy reading this thread though :rofl:

 

[wuliheron]

Yes, eternity can be viewed as both more complex and, yet, equally nonsensical. Like ex nihlio creation from nothing, it is an effect without a cause or a cause without an effect depending upon how you choose to look at it. You can also treat ex nihlio creation as an effect without a cause that eventually leads to the destruction of everything with, of course, nothing left.

The big bang presents an example of this last. If spacetime was created in the big bang there was no time before the event. If the big bang had no seed but was a completely random event from out of the blue, then it was ex nihlio creation. If the universe collapses again and all the matter and energy in universe cancel each other out, then there will be nothing left. Ex nihlio creation leading back to nothing and starting the cycle all over again.

Note that my example is very similar to the idea of eternity. Logically and mathematically or whatever, both eternity and ex nihlio creation inevitably lead to the concept of a singularity, a paradox.

 

[Stockman]

I don't think time has a beginning, if it has a beginning then it must have an end which means that universe is not forever.

 

[loseyourname]

I honestly doubt we can ever know. Anything postulated ends in paradox. Some things may just be beyond our comprehension.

 

[wuliheron]

I honestly doubt we can ever know. Anything postulated ends in paradox. Some things may just be beyond our comprehension.

Exactly, once you break anything down to some kind of "ultimate" paradox and the ineffable become obvious. For example, just what the heck is "pure" energy, pure consciousness, or whatever.

The natural tendency is, of course, to look for reasonable sounding explanations even when none is apparently possible. For example, you could create any number of reasonable sounding explanations for what I have just typed, but what is the real reason? No one can prove any explanation beyond a shadow of a doubt and every possible explanation might at least have some reasonable aspects.

Just as words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context, concepts themselves apparently only have demonstrable rationalization and reason (ie meaning!) according to their use in a given context.