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

[carpedm9587]

But if there's nothing beyond our universe, wouldn't that simply mean that there is nothing that could hinder the universe from expanding? Because if you say that space cannot expand into nothing you're saying that there is some attribute of nothing that stops space from expanding in to it. But nothing is the complete absence of things, it's not a thing in itself, and as such cannot have any attributes. If there is nothing outside of the universe, then there is nothing in the way of the universe's expansion.

Now why didn't I think of that?

[seer]

Now why didn't I think of that?

Yeah, that was pretty good...

[shunyadragon]

Stating that currently the best supported model in science for the origin of the universe is the BB theory?

It is not the currently best supported model alone in science for the origin of the universe. The current view of science is that the the BB is NOT a beginning without previously existing matter/energy. Regardless of your ex-spurt opinion the multiverse is a widely held hypothesis among physicists and cosmologists far more qualified than you.

The current view of science does not consider the beginning of our universe as a singularity as a definitive beginning without preexisting matter and/or energy.

That is my religious agenda?

Your religious agenda is reflected as cited that scientific 'findings' may be used to support religious arguments.

By your 'ex-spurt opinions' so far you do not measure up to Vilenkin, Hawking, and the others I cited. I am not the issue that you are playing ad hominem games with, it is the qualified physicists, and cosmologists that you have no comperable qualifications. I demonstrated your religious agenda by directly citing your previous posts.

[element771]

It is not the currently best supported model alone in science for the origin of the universe. The current view of science is that the the BB is NOT a beginning without previously existing matter/energy. Regardless of your ex-spurt opinion the multiverse is a widely held hypothesis among physicists and cosmologists far more qualified than you.

Moron,

It is the best supported model full stop.

This is not the current view, please stop pretending to understand science.

The current view of science does not consider the beginning of our universe as a singularity as a definitive beginning without preexisting matter and/or energy.

You are wrong and are a text book example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Your religious agenda is reflected as cited that scientific 'findings' may be used to support religious arguments.

Carp agrees with me moron. He is an atheist...i guess he has a religious agenda too.

By your 'ex-spurt opinions' so far you do not measure up to Vilenkin, Hawking, and the others I cited. I am not the issue that you are playing ad hominem games with, it is the qualified physicists, and cosmologists that you have no comperable qualifications. I demonstrated your religious agenda by directly citing your previous posts.

You are the issue because you misrepresent everything to fit your agenda or do you not remember that? Science job? Made up sentences in articles? All around jackassary?

[Tassman]

But I never defined our universe as being "all that there is." My contention is that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the conventional sense of the term. Therefore, outside of our universe, or beyond that part of it which we can observe, there is either more space, or, there is a spaceless vacuum of non-zero energy into which our universe expands and out of which our universe was born. If we start with the premise that our universe is all that there is, then we are stuck with the odd idea that the universe not only emerged from out of nothing, but that it is expanding even though there is no existing something, no place, which it can expand into.

Vilenkin agrees with you. From 1983: Where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space-time. "Nothing" is a realm of unrestrained quantum gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc., lose their meaning.

[shunyadragon]

It is the best supported model full stop.

False, big time as cited.

This is not the current view, please stop pretending to understand science.

Moron, stop pretending to understand science. I have cited the contemporary physicists and cosmologists. All you have done is toot your own ex-spurt horn and wave your aluminum foil helmet.

Carp agrees with me moron. He is an atheist...i guess he has a religious agenda too.

We disagreed. he has not called me a moron.

You are the issue because you misrepresent everything to fit your agenda or do you not remember that? Science job? Made up sentences in articles? All around jackassary?

You are the issue because you misrepresent everything to fit your agenda or do you not remember that? All around jackassary?

[shunyadragon]

Now why didn't I think of that?

I would hope you are more intelligent than that.

[JimL]

But if there's nothing beyond our universe, wouldn't that simply mean that there is nothing that could hinder the universe from expanding? Because if you say that space cannot expand into nothing you're saying that there is some attribute of nothing that stops space from expanding in to it. But nothing is the complete absence of things, it's not a thing in itself, and as such cannot have any attributes. If there is nothing outside of the universe, then there is nothing in the way of the universe's expansion.

Right, so what we call nothing is a vacuum. In other words, what is outside of our universe may not be material space, but it is a place nontheless, a place in which material space can both exist within, as well as expand into. It would be in that non-zero point energy vacuum that all universes are born, exist within, and expand, until reaching a state of equalibrium at which point they meld back into that womb whence they first emerged.

[JimL]

Vilenkin agrees with you. From 1983: Where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space-time. "Nothing" is a realm of unrestrained quantum gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc., lose their meaning.

Hmm, that's encouraging. Thank you.

[JimL]

Now why didn't I think of that?

You didn't have to think of it, it's basically what I've been saying. "Nothing," in the above sense, is not absolute "nothing." Say you have a sphere, a blown up balloon say. Now imagine that the space inside the balloon is completely void of anything, no material space, no matter, no nothing, just an empty void. That void is the "nothing" that would be outside of our universe, a kind of nothing that a universe could be said to expand into. Of course it wouldn't be completely void, it would need contain enough energy for quantum universe creation., and of course these universes would pop into, as well as go out of existence, but the total energy in the void, or what I would call the greater cosmos, would therefore remain constant. The conservation of energy, neither being created nor destroyed!

[element771]

Moron, stop pretending to understand science.

Out of the two of us, who actually does science for a living, has published peer reviewed papers, and has gotten grants from federal agencies?

You also seem to be taking a page out of the political morons who think it is resort to misspelling things on purpose. You know...the ones who don't have any actual facts to back up the crap that they say so they resort to childish misspellings?

We disagreed. he has not called me a moron.

He agrees with me yet you claim that it is my "religious agenda". Only a moron would consider a position that an atheist supports as part of a religious agenda.

Is it or is it not a part of the Bahá'í Faith that the universe is eternal?

You are the issue because you misrepresent everything to fit your agenda or do you not remember that? All around jackassary?

You remind me of a child...you lie and when you are called on it you dodge.

Do you remember claiming you do science for a living?

Do you remember adding your own sentences to sources that you use?

[JonathanL]

Right, so what we call nothing is a vacuum. In other words, what is outside of our universe may not be material space, but it is a place nontheless, a place in which material space can both exist within, as well as expand into. It would be in that non-zero point energy vacuum that all universes are born, exist within, and expand, until reaching a state of equalibrium at which point they meld back into that womb whence they first emerged.

Well no, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, if there is literally nothing outside of our universe, including the non-zero point energy vacuum that you're speaking of, then what exactly would stop the universe from existing, or expanding? I mean, nothing would be in the way of the universe simply existing, nor would anything hinder it's expansion.

[carpedm9587]

Right, so what we call nothing is a vacuum. In other words, what is outside of our universe may not be material space, but it is a place nontheless, a place in which material space can both exist within, as well as expand into. It would be in that non-zero point energy vacuum that all universes are born, exist within, and expand, until reaching a state of equalibrium at which point they meld back into that womb whence they first emerged.

You seem to still be thinking of outside the universe as "something" rather than "nothing."

[carpedm9587]

You didn't have to think of it, it's basically what I've been saying. "Nothing," in the above sense, is not absolute "nothing." Say you have a sphere, a blown up balloon say. Now imagine that the space inside the balloon is completely void of anything, no material space, no matter, no nothing, just an empty void. That void is the "nothing" that would be outside of our universe, a kind of nothing that a universe could be said to expand into. Of course it wouldn't be completely void, it would need contain enough energy for quantum universe creation., and of course these universes would pop into, as well as go out of existence, but the total energy in the void, or what I would call the greater cosmos, would therefore remain constant. The conservation of energy, neither being created nor destroyed!

I'm not following that analogy, which appears to be "nothing" contained within "something." But the presence of "something" all around "nothing" makes the "nothing" at least "space." However, we are talking about what lies outside the furthest object in space - beyond which there is "nothing." However, you are actually treating this "nothing" as if it's just more space - making space infinite - and therefore the universe infinite. I don't think that conforms to modern models of the universe.

Conceiving of "nothing" defies the imagination.

[JimL]

Well no, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, if there is literally nothing outside of our universe, including the non-zero point energy vacuum that you're speaking of, then what exactly would stop the universe from existing, or expanding? I mean, nothing would be in the way of the universe simply existing, nor would anything hinder it's expansion.

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.