Why is there something instead of nothing? Where do the laws of nature come from?

In summary, without the laws, there would be nothing. Can the universe come into being without the laws? It is said that universe might come out of a quantum vaccum, but that( quantum vaccum) itself is a laws, a generalization within the universe. Can we apply the laws of nature outside the universe? Is there such a thing as "nothing"?
  • #36
The something/nothing debate seems to be pretty much exhausted. Anyone got any ideas about the laws of nature. Do they really exist? If so, do thy dictate the nature of the physical universe? If so, how? Are they an illusion of the scientists mind in that they reflect consciousness? Do they have an independent existence or are they a property of matter? If they exist, where indeed do they come from?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
kant said:
That is perhaps the biggest 2 question for the whole of existence.
Without it, there would be no sciences, no human, no anything...at all.
Can the laws come into being without matter/universe? Can the universe come into being without the laws? (It is said that universe might come out of a quantum vaccum, but that( quantum vaccum) itself is a laws, a generalization within the universe. Can we apply the laws of nature outside the universe? Is there such a thing as "nothing"? By "nothing", i mean the non-existence of everything.

The very simple answer is that:
a. That what exists is matter in motion (where matter can not be separated from motion), existing in time and space (the very concept of motion brings with it that matter requires time and space to exist- or perhaps better said: motion creates time and space)
b. This concept of matter in motion already includes the laws of motion, and they can not be seperated.

To ask the question why is there matter (instead of what?) is just utterly nonsensical.

Being and nonbeing just are two coins of the same medal, they can not go without each other. They form a dialectical unity of opposites, to be synthesized in their higher unity of becoming.

And further:
Read some dialectics!
 
  • #38
heusdens said:
a. That what exists is matter in motion (where matter can not be separated from motion), existing in time and space (the very concept of motion brings with it that matter requires time and space to exist- or perhaps better said: motion creates time and space)
Just for laughs let's say that the Laws = the set of all scientific laws known and unknown. The Laws would be non-local (ie:they have no location in space-time) and they would dictate/guide the nature of space-time itself (as well as the nature of existence, motion, matter and even something like consciousness). Motion does not dictate the nature of (or create) space and time, the Laws do. To say "That what exists 'is' matter in motion" comes across as a very presumptous statement (doesn't anything else exist? what if your ideas about motion prove false? what if it's simply another aspect of the Laws?)
b. This concept of matter in motion already includes the laws of motion, and they can not be seperated.
The 'concept' does not include the laws of motion (maybe it includes the concept of the laws of motion!). Indeed, matter in motion and the laws of motion cannot be separated (I assume), but they do appear to be separate things. I would argue that the laws of motion (part of the Laws) have primacy and that matter in motion appears as nothing more than a result of the Laws in our observable universe (ie: motion can be viewed as secondary to the Laws). Or am I talking codswallop?
Where do the Laws come from?
Like...totally out there duude! :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Question 1 : Why is there something instead of nothing?
Answer 1 : How can there be literally "nothing"? If the existence of "nothing" has no meaning then the only thing we have left is "something"

Question 2 : Where do the laws of nature come from?
Answer 2 : It may be the case that the laws of nature arise out of logical necessity (its just that we haven't figured it all out yet); it may be the case that there are multiple parallel universes each with different laws of nature, and we see the ones we do simply by virtue of the cosmological anthropic principle.

Moving Finger
 
  • #40
moving finger said:
Question 1 : Why is there something instead of nothing?
Answer 1 : How can there be literally "nothing"? If the existence of "nothing" has no meaning then the only thing we have left is "something"

But how can there be just being? Being would be just as changeless and featureless as non-being.

The whole issue which makes the question unanswerable is that the question presupposes that being and non-being are only separate notions.

The absolute seperatedness of being and non-being presupposed makes the notion of becoming impossible. To become means things come into being, in which both being and non-being are moments of becoming.




Question 2 : Where do the laws of nature come from?
Answer 2 : It may be the case that the laws of nature arise out of logical necessity (its just that we haven't figured it all out yet); it may be the case that there are multiple parallel universes each with different laws of nature, and we see the ones we do simply by virtue of the cosmological anthropic principle.

Moving Finger

The laws of motion can not be separated with matter and motion itself, to the extend that the question then reads: where does matter come from?

That of course has no answer.
 
  • #41
Where do the laws of nature come from?

Nature.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Where is there proof of a replacement?
 
  • #42
baywax said:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

Where is there proof of a replacement?

Right. And even better stated, the question already assumes some negative, namely that there is only something and not nothing. For if there is only something, it is saying that there is just being, which then is in fact the same as that there is just non-being. There is being and there is non-being only because there is becoming.
 
  • #43
Aren't Something and nothing relative terms? It's like asking "why am i going 10Mph instead of standing still?". Maybe you are standing still and everything else is going 10Mph. Is it a logical question if how fast you are going depends on how you look at it?
I think a better question is why do these opposites exist? Why is there a difference between nothing and something, or between going 10Mph and standing still?
Maybe because of how the human brain operates. Maybe the universe is a smooth continuum of one thing only, and somewhere in there a brain exists that sees opposites, and then it asks why there is one instead of the other when probably there's neither.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
-Job- said:
Aren't Something and nothing relative terms? It's like asking "why am i going 10Mph instead of standing still?". Maybe you are standing still and everything else is going 10Mph. Is it a logical question if how fast you are going depends on how you look at it?
I think a better question is why do these opposites exist? Why is there a difference between nothing and something, or between going 10Mph and standing still?
Maybe because of how the human brain operates. Maybe the universe is a smooth continuum of one thing only, and somewhere in there a brain exists that sees opposites, and then it asks why there is one instead of the other when probably there's neither.

Being and non-being are just moments of becoming.

The human conscioussness splits the world into a subjective and objective world, and we can distinghuis between fantasys and imagination and objective things.
Without (human) consciousness, there would still be objective relations, like planets orbiting stars, etc., only that those relations are nor verified in a consciouss mind.
 
  • #45
heusdens said:
Without (human) consciousness, there would still be objective relations, like planets orbiting stars, etc., only that those relations are nor verified in a consciouss mind.

I think that's an assumption. It's not something we can confirm so it's likely at best.
 
  • #46
-Job- said:
I think that's an assumption. It's not something we can confirm so it's likely at best.

Well as far as science is concerned, that must be the case, and is not an assumption.

How else can we determine the fact that the Earth is 4,5 billions of years old, and the universe 13,7 billion years old?

Is anything before human consciousness arises impossible to verify and testify?

I mean the Earth may be older or less old as stated here, depending on our technical dating methods, but as far as science is concerned, those dating methods do have validity. They are not a wild guess.
 
  • #47
heusdens said:
How else can we determine the fact that the Earth is 4,5 billions of years old, and the universe 13,7 billion years old?

These cannot be accepted as 'facts', only as educated guesses (as opposed to wild guesses)

Is anything before human consciousness arises impossible to verify and testify?

It may well be impossible in a specific sense but not in a general sense. Only the greatest Solipsist would argue that nothing existed before human consciousness arose (although it would be a valid argument) but, I feel, that if we try to nail down the specifics of what existed before human consciousness we find ourselves back in the realm of guessing.
In a previous post you said "Without (human) consciousness, there would still be objective relations..."
'Objective relations' must surely be viewed as a mental construct, so without human consciousness they cease to exist. I understand that what you say means "the things we call objective relations will still exist" but I would argue that breaking things down into separate entities - spacetime, matter, energy, forces, objective relations, etc.- is something that human consciousness does. Without human consciouness the universe exists as a unified whole and all out little categories and classifications disappear.
The rational mind fragments and divides things, thus displaying its own nature. Without the rational mind reality can be experienced as a unified whole.
 
  • #48
heusdens said:
How else can we determine the fact that the Earth is 4,5 billions of years old, and the universe 13,7 billion years old?

As far as i know the universe might have been created earlier today when i woke up, purposedly setup to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe.
 
  • #49
-Job- said:
As far as i know the universe might have been created earlier today when i woke up, purposedly setup to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Perhaps you could offer evidence to support your supposition. I have never encountered anyone who could present any empirical, rational, or even imaginary evidence for such a statement. Arranging words is easy. Offering evidence can be more challenging.
 
  • #50
Ok, suppose i live inside a machine. A virtual world, wherein i came into being this morning and which is around when i wake up and gone when i go to sleep (reboot).

In this virtual world there exists a planet and people. The people claim that the planet is 4.5 billion years old, and they're probably correct as it matches the current state of the universe and how the universe operates.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that the universe was created earlier this morning in such a state as to have a planet that's 4.5 million years old, so the fact that the planet is 4.5 million years old doesn't eliminate the possibility that the universe was created today.

I'm not proposing that it's a likely possibility, although to be honest it's as plausible as any other, I'm only declaring it as a possibility to refute Heusdens claim that the fact that we can show the planet and the universe to be X years old proves that the universe is around when I'm not.
And this is not a wild assumption, it's a logical proposition.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Heusdens claims do not qualify as 'facts', only educated guesses based on the amount of relevant information available. As has happened many times in the past (too many times to ignore) these 'facts' may turn out as wildly in error.
 
  • #52
-Job- said:
Ok, suppose i live inside a machine. A virtual world, wherein i came into being this morning and which is around when i wake up and gone when i go to sleep (reboot).

In this virtual world there exists a planet and people. The people claim that the planet is 4.5 billion years old, and they're probably correct as it matches the current state of the universe and how the universe operates.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that the universe was created earlier this morning in such a state as to have a planet that's 4.5 million years old, so the fact that the planet is 4.5 million years old doesn't eliminate the possibility that the universe was created today.

I'm not proposing that it's a likely possibility, although to be honest it's as plausible as any other, I'm only declaring it as a possibility to refute Heusdens claim that the fact that we can show the planet and the universe to be X years old proves that the universe is around when I'm not.
And this is not a wild assumption, it's a logical proposition.

Score: Hyperspeculation 1--Evidence 0
 
  • #53
sd01g said:
Score: Hyperspeculation 1--Evidence 0

I don't believe you're even up to speed as to what the discussion is about. Why don't you get with the context before entering the context.
The particulars of this "hyperspeculation" aren't relevant.
If somebody has to provide evidence it's you or Heusdens, who are claiming that my unlikely scenario is in fact impossible. Do you understand what I'm saying?
 
  • #54
sd01g said:
I have never encountered anyone who could present any empirical, rational, or even imaginary evidence for such a statement.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim or do you expect us to simply accept it?
As you say "Arranging words is easy".
 
Last edited:
  • #55
heusdens said:
Right. And even better stated, the question already assumes some negative, namely that there is only something and not nothing. For if there is only something, it is saying that there is just being, which then is in fact the same as that there is just non-being. There is being and there is non-being only because there is becoming.

I like the idea of becoming. Is this a form of Gradient theory?
I am becoming nothing and I am becoming something.
Is it simultanieous?
Is there a way to distinquish between the two?
Certainly not by the standards of quantum theory.
 
  • #56
I don't see the merit of considering what isn't. Considering what is means considering what applies to something or other. But what is the point of considering what doesn't apply?
 
  • #57
If someone was able to make an infinite computer that could accurately simulate some sort of big bang, the universe produced would be simply made of the information or calculations of the program.

Assuming the program takes into account all known physical laws one would be able to view that information in the form of pixels represented in a virtual 3d space. You could even find a planet with life and the people would think they are real but are just a mathematical representation.

Of course the computer would have to calculate faster than time (maybe by using a program to simulate binary switches inside strings?)

Or you might beable to only calculate the slice of information you wish to "view" like when viewing a fractal.

If you could tap into a fractal pattern that represents the state of physical matter in the universe (maybe dna?), and using that as a reference point, the program could simulate an estimation of what is beyond the furthest telescope or smaller than an atom. (But no one can grasp infinity)

Maybe the only thing that exists is information.
 
  • #58
-Job- said:
As far as i know the universe might have been created earlier today when i woke up, purposedly setup to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Yeah, right.

But then you have a different understanding of what and how the world is.

If you really think that, there is no point in discussing anything with you, nobody can proof you wrong.
But that doesn't mean the idea itself has any use or significance.

All you are saying is that the world is unknowable.

If you like to think that, it is your choice.
 
  • #59
baywax said:
I like the idea of becoming. Is this a form of Gradient theory?
I am becoming nothing and I am becoming something.
Is it simultanieous?
Is there a way to distinquish between the two?
Certainly not by the standards of quantum theory.

No, this is dialectics.

Being and non-being are opposing terms which only exist in their unity (that is: they don't have separate meaning), which is becoming.

Being and non-being must be understood as separate moments of becoming.

Take for example water which has two (well in fact three) distinct phase: liquid and gas. When we heat the water it's liquidness vanishes into gas.
There you see that being and non-being in fact belong to each other.
The liquidness ceases to be, but at the same time the gasness comes into being.
 
  • #60
tree said:
If someone was able to make an infinite computer that could accurately simulate some sort of big bang, the universe produced would be simply made of the information or calculations of the program.

Assuming the program takes into account all known physical laws one would be able to view that information in the form of pixels represented in a virtual 3d space. You could even find a planet with life and the people would think they are real but are just a mathematical representation.

Of course the computer would have to calculate faster than time (maybe by using a program to simulate binary switches inside strings?)

Or you might beable to only calculate the slice of information you wish to "view" like when viewing a fractal.

If you could tap into a fractal pattern that represents the state of physical matter in the universe (maybe dna?), and using that as a reference point, the program could simulate an estimation of what is beyond the furthest telescope or smaller than an atom. (But no one can grasp infinity)

Maybe the only thing that exists is information.


How do you have information without material substances??
 
  • #61
heusdens said:
All you are saying is that the world is unknowable.

If you like to think that, it is your choice.

My choice is that the world is possibly unknowable. Not that it is unknowable.
Apparently your choice is that the world is knowable, and that the idea that it might be unknowable is completely impossible.
 
  • #62
-Job- said:
My choice is that the world is possibly unknowable. Not that it is unknowable.
Apparently your choice is that the world is knowable, and that the idea that it might be unknowable is completely impossible.

I just stated that your reasoning - possibly the world emerged yesterday, and such - are complete nonsensical. If you allow such nonsensical ideas in your thinking in the world, there is nothing one can be certain of (not even of the existence of the world, it could be all a dilusion taking place in your mind).

It would make all knowledge about the world uncertain.

I do not claim that it must be the case that everything can be known, since there can be potentially many things we do not know, but at least something can be known.
 
  • #63
heusdens said:
I do not claim that it must be the case that everything can be known, since there can be potentially many things we do not know, but at least something can be known.

But getting back to what you said previously:

Without (human) consciousness, there would still be objective relations, like planets orbiting stars, etc., only that those relations are nor verified in a consciouss mind.

How can you know that, without consciousness, there would still be planets and stars, etc? If you agree that there are many things that we potentially don't know, then you must agree that it's possible that without consciousness there may not be stars and planets around, which is what I've been trying to get at, and that's why i called it an "assumption", and that though plausible and even likely, it's still just an assumption and thus likely at best.
I don't think this is something that controversial, and i wouldn't be nitpicking on it if you hadn't come back to disagree with it by saying:
Well as far as science is concerned, that must be the case, and is not an assumption.

How else can we determine the fact that the Earth is 4,5 billions of years old, and the universe 13,7 billion years old?

After which i proceeded to describe the scenario of a universe created early this morning purposedly set to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe. And i offered it only as a possibility, not as something believe in, just to refute that claim of yours.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
heusdens said:
How do you have information without material substances??

Are you familiar with the 'reality' of non-locality? :bugeye:
 
  • #65
-Job- said:
How can you know that, without consciousness, there would still be planets and stars, etc? If you agree that there are many things that we potentially don't know, then you must agree that it's possible that without consciousness there may not be stars and planets around, which is what I've been trying to get at, and that's why i called it an "assumption", and that though plausible and even likely, it's still just an assumption and thus likely at best.
I don't think this is something that controversial, and i wouldn't be nitpicking on it if you hadn't come back to disagree with it by saying:


After which i proceeded to describe the scenario of a universe created early this morning purposedly set to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe. And i offered it only as a possibility, not as something believe in, just to refute that claim of yours.

We "know" that, because that is how we know the universe works.

Cosmology looks at the universe how it was billions of years old. Those stars and galaxies were there before there was humanity around.

Or is that all an illusion?
 
  • #66
heusdens said:
How do you have information without material substances??

With two infinite computers, each one 'imagining' each other's existence. The information is convinced that it is material substance because there is nothing to relate it to.
 
  • #67
tree said:
With two infinite computers, each one 'imagining' each other's existence. The information is convinced that it is material substance because there is nothing to relate it to.

Hahahaha

Nice invention.

SO, you take one infinite computer (what is it made of?) to have it run a software program in which the other computer is virtually emulated, and within that second (virtual) computer you emulate the first?

And then you think, you can ignore the hardware of the first?

hahahahahahhahah

hahahhahahahahahahah

You are very amuzing!

This is like how Baron von Münchhausen pulls himself off the ground just by pulling his own hair!

hahahaha
 
Last edited:
  • #68
mosassam said:
Are you familiar with the 'reality' of non-locality? :bugeye:

How does that relate to information without material reality?
 
  • #69
heusdens said:
We "know" that, because that is how we know the universe works.

Cosmology looks at the universe how it was billions of years old. Those stars and galaxies were there before there was humanity around.

Or is that all an illusion?

Are you 100% sure that it isn't an illusion?
 
  • #70
-Job- said:
Are you 100% sure that it isn't an illusion?

What do you mean?

You imply that it could be just an illusion, but then what is the reality behind the illusion? And for that reality too,how do you know it's not also an illusion, and what is the reality behind that? And so on.

So if we have to take the remark seriously, then it is like stating that nothing can be known about reality.
 
<h2>1. Why is there something instead of nothing?</h2><p>This is a philosophical question that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for centuries. It is essentially asking about the origins of the universe and why anything exists at all. There is no definitive answer to this question, but many theories and hypotheses have been proposed.</p><h2>2. Where do the laws of nature come from?</h2><p>The laws of nature are the fundamental principles that govern the behavior of the physical universe. These laws are based on observations and experiments and have been refined over centuries by scientists. However, the ultimate source of these laws is still a mystery. Some scientists believe that they are inherent in the fabric of the universe, while others propose that they are a result of the initial conditions of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.</p><h2>3. Can the laws of nature change?</h2><p>The laws of nature are considered to be constant and unchanging. They have been observed and tested repeatedly and have not been found to vary. However, as our understanding of the universe evolves, our interpretation of these laws may change. For example, the laws of gravity were once thought to be absolute, but Einstein's theory of relativity showed that they are actually relative to the observer's frame of reference.</p><h2>4. Are the laws of nature the same throughout the universe?</h2><p>Based on our current understanding, the laws of nature appear to be the same throughout the observable universe. This is supported by the fact that the same physical principles apply to all objects and phenomena, regardless of their location in the universe. However, there may be regions of the universe that are beyond our current observational capabilities, where the laws of nature may be different.</p><h2>5. Can the laws of nature be broken?</h2><p>The laws of nature are fundamental principles that govern the behavior of the universe. They cannot be broken or violated, but they can be bent or overridden under certain conditions. For example, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted from one form to another. Similarly, the laws of motion can be temporarily overridden by external forces, such as a rocket propelling a spacecraft into orbit.</p>

1. Why is there something instead of nothing?

This is a philosophical question that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for centuries. It is essentially asking about the origins of the universe and why anything exists at all. There is no definitive answer to this question, but many theories and hypotheses have been proposed.

2. Where do the laws of nature come from?

The laws of nature are the fundamental principles that govern the behavior of the physical universe. These laws are based on observations and experiments and have been refined over centuries by scientists. However, the ultimate source of these laws is still a mystery. Some scientists believe that they are inherent in the fabric of the universe, while others propose that they are a result of the initial conditions of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.

3. Can the laws of nature change?

The laws of nature are considered to be constant and unchanging. They have been observed and tested repeatedly and have not been found to vary. However, as our understanding of the universe evolves, our interpretation of these laws may change. For example, the laws of gravity were once thought to be absolute, but Einstein's theory of relativity showed that they are actually relative to the observer's frame of reference.

4. Are the laws of nature the same throughout the universe?

Based on our current understanding, the laws of nature appear to be the same throughout the observable universe. This is supported by the fact that the same physical principles apply to all objects and phenomena, regardless of their location in the universe. However, there may be regions of the universe that are beyond our current observational capabilities, where the laws of nature may be different.

5. Can the laws of nature be broken?

The laws of nature are fundamental principles that govern the behavior of the universe. They cannot be broken or violated, but they can be bent or overridden under certain conditions. For example, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted from one form to another. Similarly, the laws of motion can be temporarily overridden by external forces, such as a rocket propelling a spacecraft into orbit.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
723
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
693
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top