Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    When you say "nothing" what you mean by that is absolute nothing, including the lack of an infinite void.
    Why can't you have an infinite void with nothing in it? I mean that is what void means:containing nothing; barren; empty
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Why can't you have an infinite void with nothing in it? I mean that is what void means:containing nothing; barren; empty
      Who said you couldn't? But the point is that we have a universe which is evidence that it is not an absolute void, but a fluctuating quantum void of non-zero energy out of which, in my opinion, universes are born.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Who said you couldn't? But the point is that we have a universe which is evidence that it is not an absolute void, but a fluctuating quantum void of non-zero energy out of which, in my opinion, universes are born.
        But there is no evidence of this fluctuating quantum void, which by definition would not be a true void since it has something in it.

        And you said: my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing

        But a void would be nothing, in the sense that there is nothing, literally, in it. So our universe could expand into that void.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          But there is no evidence of this fluctuating quantum void, which by definition would not be a true void since it has something in it.
          Right, it would not be a true void, it would be what they call a false vacuum, a void of non-zero point energy. That it exists is extrapolated from what is known, it's an hypotheses, but one derived of the science. We can't observe what's beyond the universe.
          And you said: my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing
          The confusion I believe has to do with each persons idea of what is meant by"nothing." Literally nothing according to Chrawnus means "no void" as well. To me "nothing" means an existing void in which literally "nothing" else, or at least "nothing material exists.
          But a void would be nothing, in the sense that there is nothing, literally, in it. So our universe could expand into that void.
          Exactly right, which is exactly my point. No void, no expansion!
          Last edited by JimL; 05-10-2018, 10:14 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Right, it would not be a true void, it would be what they call a false vacuum, a void of non-zero point energy. That it exists is extrapolated from what is known, it's an hypotheses, but one derived of the science. We can't observe what's beyond the universe.
            No it isn't, there is zero scientific evidence for some pre-existing energy.

            The confusion I believe has to do with each persons idea of what is meant by"nothing." Literally nothing according to Chrawnus means "no void" as well. To me "nothing" means an existing void in which literally "nothing" else, or at least "nothing material exists.


            Exactly right, which is exactly my point. No void, no expansion!
            But a void, by definition is nothingness.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Okay, lets try a different tact. When we speak of "something", we are speaking of matter, and vise versa, when we speak if "nothing," we are speaking of the lack of anything material. That's all I'm suggesting when I define that which is outside our universe. In other words I'm suggesting that there is infinite non-material space within the which universes like our own are born, exist, expand and die. When you say "nothing" what you mean by that is absolute nothing, including the lack of an infinite void. That kind of "nothing," your idea of "nothing", makes no sense, because for one thing nihil ex nihilo, nothing comes from nothing, and two, an existing "something" can't expand unless there is a sort of space, a place, a void into which it can expand.

              When you ask "what exactly would stop the universe from existing or expanding if there is literally "NOTHING" , my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing.
              I am underlining your problem here. You are trying to apply concepts that you learned inside the universe to the universe itself. When you blow up a balloon, it expands "into" the surrounding air. Growing things displace other things, and occupy space previously occupied by something else. At the very least, they change their relationship to other things: the inflating balloon gets closer to your nose, etc.). But we do not know there is anything outside the universe. There is nothing to change relationship to.

              Imagine that you were the only existing thing. No stars. No planets. You're floating in a void. You can sense the motion of your body because your hand has a relationship to your face, your feet to your fingers, etc. But the very idea of "motion" in that void is meaningless. There is no reference point. You can't move towards or away from anything because there is nothing else. It's a dimensionless emptiness. That is the situation the "universe" is in. You seem to be trying to extend space to infinity and simply claim part of it has no matter or energy (i.e., outside the universe). But since space, time, matter, and energy are all bound together, that simply does not seem to work.

              Perhaps beyond the bounds of the universe, there is simply nothing. No time, no space, no matter, no energy. No thing.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                No it isn't, there is zero scientific evidence for some pre-existing energy.
                Direct scientific observation, no. But, just as it is the case that "nothing comes from nothing," it is also true that something doesn't become nothing. That which has existence, can't then become non-existent. Energy exists, that we know, ergo it has always existed, it neither came from nothing, nor could it as an existing thing become non-existent.


                But a void, by definition is nothingness.
                The infinite void in and of itself is what I would define as "nothingness". The fact that something exists within it, doesn't change the fact that in and of itself it is a void. Energy exists within it, universes exist within it, but in and of itself, it is "nothing" but a void.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Direct scientific observation, no. But, just as it is the case that "nothing comes from nothing," it is also true that something doesn't become nothing. That which has existence, can't then become non-existent. Energy exists, that we know, ergo it has always existed, it neither came from nothing, nor could it as an existing thing become non-existent.
                  Except we have no idea...



                  The infinite void in and of itself is what I would define as "nothingness". The fact that something exists within it, doesn't change the fact that in and of itself it is a void. Energy exists within it, universes exist within it, but in and of itself, it is "nothing" but a void.
                  We were speaking of where the universe could expand into - a void of nothingness could be a possibility.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Except we have no idea...
                    Actually we do have an idea, though it's derived of common sense rather than direct observation.



                    We were speaking of where the universe could expand into - a void of nothingness could be a possibility.
                    Exactly my point.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Actually we do have an idea, though it's derived of common sense rather than direct observation.
                      How Quantum Mechanics Contradicts Our Commonsense Beliefs


                      http://commonsensekiller.blogspot.co...dicts-our.html



                      Exactly my point.
                      What is your point. You said: I think that it makes no sense to say that the universe is expanding into nothing. But a void would be nothing.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Okay, lets try a different tact. When we speak of "something", we are speaking of matter, and vise versa, when we speak if "nothing," we are speaking of the lack of anything material. That's all I'm suggesting when I define that which is outside our universe. In other words I'm suggesting that there is infinite non-material space within the which universes like our own are born, exist, expand and die. When you say "nothing" what you mean by that is absolute nothing, including the lack of an infinite void. That kind of "nothing," your idea of "nothing", makes no sense, because for one thing nihil ex nihilo, nothing comes from nothing, and two, an existing "something" can't expand unless there is a sort of space, a place, a void into which it can expand.
                        When you ask "what exactly would stop the universe from existing or expanding if there is literally "NOTHING" , my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing.
                        I don't know what you mean by non-material space. Regular space is already "non-material". I'm not sure how you'd establish that "regular" space needs some sort of "higher-order" space in order to be "born, exist, expand and die". We know physical/material things need some sort of space/place in order to exist. We do not know the same about space itself. I don't know of anything that would warrant the conclusion that space itself needs it's own kind of "space" in order to be able to exist.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          I am underlining your problem here. You are trying to apply concepts that you learned inside the universe to the universe itself. When you blow up a balloon, it expands "into" the surrounding air. Growing things displace other things, and occupy space previously occupied by something else. At the very least, they change their relationship to other things: the inflating balloon gets closer to your nose, etc.). But we do not know there is anything outside the universe. There is nothing to change relationship to.

                          Imagine that you were the only existing thing. No stars. No planets. You're floating in a void. You can sense the motion of your body because your hand has a relationship to your face, your feet to your fingers, etc. But the very idea of "motion" in that void is meaningless. There is no reference point. You can't move towards or away from anything because there is nothing else. It's a dimensionless emptiness. That is the situation the "universe" is in. You seem to be trying to extend space to infinity and simply claim part of it has no matter or energy (i.e., outside the universe). But since space, time, matter, and energy are all bound together, that simply does not seem to work.

                          Perhaps beyond the bounds of the universe, there is simply nothing. No time, no space, no matter, no energy. No thing.
                          The problem is that we’re trying to understand quantum mechanics in terms of the intuitive macroscopic imagery of ‘classical physics’. Quantum mechanics is counter intuitive. According to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, there’s no such thing as "nothing" in quantum physics. If you wait long enough, you're guaranteed by the laws of quantum mechanics to produce something. Vilenkin, among others, says much the same thing.

                          http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            I don't know what you mean by non-material space.Regular space is already "non-material".
                            No, actually space as we know and experience it, is material. It's one way to understand gravity, things move through space in accordance to the warps in it caused by the objects in it. The earth revolves around the sun because it is following the warp in space caused by the sun.

                            I'm not sure how you'd establish that "regular" space needs some sort of "higher-order" space in order to be "born, exist, expand and die".
                            I'm not suggesting that the spacetime universe emerged from a higher order space, space as we know it is material. I'm suggesting that the spacetime universe is born of the cosmic void, which isn't space, but there is a fluctuating energy field. That has to be where Vilenkin's tunneling through a barrier universe creation takes place.
                            We know physical/material things need some sort of space/place in order to exist. We do not know the same about space itself. I don't know of anything that would warrant the conclusion that space itself needs it's own kind of "space" in order to be able to exist.
                            True, we don't know, maybe THE UNIVERSE is finite, but its expansion kind of rules that out for me. You can make the argument that space doesn't need a void in which to expand, but a logical argument for that hasn't been made to me. I believe that if we count a void as a something, then there is no such thing as nothing, because that void would itself undoubtedly be infinite.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, actually space as we know and experience it, is material. It's one way to understand gravity, things move through space in accordance to the warps in it caused by the objects in it. The earth revolves around the sun because it is following the warp in space caused by the sun.


                              I'm not suggesting that the spacetime universe emerged from a higher order space, space as we know it is material. I'm suggesting that the spacetime universe is born of the cosmic void, which isn't space, but there is a fluctuating energy field. That has to be where Vilenkin's tunneling through a barrier universe creation takes place.

                              True, we don't know, maybe THE UNIVERSE is finite, but its expansion kind of rules that out for me. You can make the argument that space doesn't need a void in which to expand, but a logical argument for that hasn't been made to me. I believe that if we count a void as a something, then there is no such thing as nothing, because that void would itself undoubtedly be infinite.
                              Or here's another thought. If space is the relationship between things, because there is no things outside of the bounds of the universe, there is no space. So if you travel to the very edge of the universe - to the last particle of matter in the universe, and then you go past it into "the void," you never actually go into "the void" because the act of passing that last particle makes YOU the last particle, and so you are "stretching" space as you go.

                              Now doesn't THAT blow your mind..?
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                I am underlining your problem here. You are trying to apply concepts that you learned inside the universe to the universe itself. When you blow up a balloon, it expands "into" the surrounding air. Growing things displace other things, and occupy space previously occupied by something else. At the very least, they change their relationship to other things: the inflating balloon gets closer to your nose, etc.). But we do not know there is anything outside the universe. There is nothing to change relationship to.

                                Imagine that you were the only existing thing. No stars. No planets. You're floating in a void. You can sense the motion of your body because your hand has a relationship to your face, your feet to your fingers, etc. But the very idea of "motion" in that void is meaningless. There is no reference point. You can't move towards or away from anything because there is nothing else. It's a dimensionless emptiness. That is the situation the "universe" is in. You seem to be trying to extend space to infinity and simply claim part of it has no matter or energy (i.e., outside the universe). But since space, time, matter, and energy are all bound together, that simply does not seem to work.

                                Perhaps beyond the bounds of the universe, there is simply nothing. No time, no space, no matter, no energy. No thing.
                                The bold is a very Buddhist view, but not science. I fully realize the contemporary limits of science to falsify theories and hypothesis concerning the greater cosmos beyond our universe. I also do not consider myself any kind of authority, never have despite element771 ad homnems, just a good background in science and math. rely on the main physicists and cosmologists concerning how science views the theories and hypothesis of the nature of our existence beyond our universe.

                                Relying on Valenkin, Hawking, Hertog and the many others I cited they all believe there is 'something' and not nothing beyond our universe in space and time(?) only in the potential possibility of other universes. Hawking for one seriously clams that the existence of the multiverse is possibly falsified. I believe our universe is expanding through a Quantum world that infinitely exists beyond our universe, and any hypothetical boundary does not exist because time exists as we move outward with use as still part of our universe.

                                Hawking's last paper:

                                Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2018/03/20/stephen-hawking-final-paper/



                                Before he died, renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking submitted a paper, with co-author Thomas Hertog, to an as-yet-unknown journal. Hawking’s last known scientific writing, the paper deals with the concept of the multiverse and a theory known as cosmic inflation. Though the paper currently exists only in pre-print form, meaning it hasn’t completed the process of peer-review, it’s received a significant amount of coverage. “Stephen Hawking’s last paper,” after all, does have a bit of a mythological ring to it.

                                Stephen Hawking wrote a lot of papers, though. Most dealt with the same sort of heady concepts as his last, and few received such an inordinate amount of attention. Claims that the paper make predictions for the end of universe, or could prove the multiverse exists abound. But it’s worth remembering that the things Hawking thought and wrote about are abstract, they exist largely in the realm of theory. Even more well-known concepts like Hawking radiation have continued to elude scientists, so drawing solid conclusions from any one paper is difficult.. Like many topics in theoretical physics, the ideas that Stephen Hawking pondered were so radical and far-out that we usually couldn’t even test them.

                                And even for one of the brightest minds of our time, the calculations are extremely complex. Hawking and Hertog describe their preliminary theory as a “toy model,” or one that significantly simplifies the real world to make the calculations easier. Such a model wouldn’t necessarily reflect the universe as we see it. No one said theoretical physics was easy.

                                Many Universes

                                Stephen Hawking’s last paper is titled “A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation?” It tackles the idea of a multiverse, a vast collection of universes that exist simultaneously, though they’re spread out almost unimaginably far from each other. Multiverses arose, the theory goes, because of something called inflation. In the fractions of a second after our universe emerged, space-time expanded at an immense rate. As it did so, tiny quantum fluctuations expanded to become the large-scale features of the universe we observe today, and which serve as evidence that the theory might be true.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-12-2018, 05:36 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X