If the universe came from nothing

[out of whack]

Let me see if i got your argument right: there is no beginning, because any beginning would imply a boundary that divides what exist from it s negation. It is impossible, so there is no beginning. Is that correct?

Gosh. No. What you said has nothing to do with anything I said. You should have read my first post (#9 in this thread) in response to the OP. Let me indulge you and explain. The assumption in the OP is that "the universe came from nothing", which is the subject of this thread. My claim is that this statement is contradictory, therefore meaningless, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. My rationale for saying that this OP statement is contradictory is this:

If something can "come from" nothing then nothing must have the property of permitting this. But "nothing" does not have any property. When you have properties, you have something instead of nothing. Therefore the OP's claim is meaningless.

A corollary to the conclusion that the universe cannot "come from" anything is that the universe has existed for all time. Because of this corollary, the discussion has extended to infinity when some members claimed that infinity cannot be real. I asked them to substantiate their own claim and so far I have not seen any proof of it.

I am not sure what you mean by misspelled words beyond recognition. Can you you not guess?

I would rather not guess, it's a waste of time and an open door towards futile exchanges due to misunderstanding. I prefer to say when I don't understand and why. Besides, you have just shown that you can indeed spell and express yourself clearly, so I thank you for the courtesy of clarity.

If what we call the universe is something that has always existed, then it makes no sense to say there is a beginning.

Agreed.

That is fine, but if one s goal is to find some sort of ontological, metaphysical understanding of the nature of the universe in thems of causal reasoning( similar to that of scientific explanation) with the premises of infinite time, and space, then the question of a begainning is a meaningless one. Such universe world be sort of like a closed loop. Every point in the closed loop can be maped to a point in the real number line.

Except that the real number line does not loop, it extends infinitely in both directions.

 

[nabuco]

This remains speculation until you produce a logical proof. Repetition is not proof, but you have only repeated your claim in different words. You need something more substantial.

I have repeated my claim in different words in an attempt to explain it. I have obviously failed. I remain convinced that the universe had a beginning, but I am incapable of explaining why.

I will leave you with a question: why is it that physicists do not accept infinities as valid solutions to equations that describe real phenomena? (I can find some quotes in case you are not aware of this)

Suppose i said S( ex table) exist. How can you explain the existence of S form non-physical premises?

Your question is too ambiguous. What do you mean by "exist"?

The best definition of existence I know of is from mathematics: X exists in set U if X is a member of U. That's a pretty abstract notion as far as I'm concerned.

What do you mean by non-physical?

Things like truth, logical consistency, semantics, mathematics, theories, and so on.

 

[out of whack]

I remain convinced that the universe had a beginning, but I am incapable of explaining why.

Your dilemma resembles faith.

I will leave you with a question: why is it that physicists do not accept infinities as valid solutions to equations that describe real phenomena?

I don't know. It would surely depend on the phenomena under consideration and you would need to ask this specific question to the one who rejects it in order to get a specific answer. Personally I cannot give you one. I can suggest that maybe it's just the fact that science cannot deal with the origin of reality since the scientific method is not designed to do that.

 

[Castlegate]

Originally Posted by baywax
To say that nothing does not exist isn't just semantics, it is decided by the virtue and the very definition of nothing. So it is with that contradictorial and ironic sense of humour that the universe has to offer us that I remain convinced that it is only because of the existence of "something" that "nothing" can be conceptualized and said to be an influence on existence.

I not only wholeheartedly agree with this, I think this is the final explanation for why the universe exists: to give meaning to "nothing". Or something crazy along those lines.

I've been saying for a number of years now, that the universe is the definition of nothing. This is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. I also assume that all things are composed of nothing, because that is all that is available to work with.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

 

[nabuco]

I don't know

You don't know why physicists rule out infinities?

I can suggest that maybe it's just the fact that science cannot deal with the origin of reality since the scientific method is not designed to do that.

Who is talking about reality? I thought we were talking about the physical universe!

Of course reality is eternal. If that was the point of contention, we just wasted a lot of bandwidth for nothing.

I've been saying for a number of years now, that the universe is the definition of nothing

I've heard that idea several times, and even though it sounds outlandish it does seem philosophically correct. Any explanation for the universe would sound outlandish anyway so that in itself is not a weakness.

I also assume that all things are composed of nothing, because that is all that is available to work with.

Here I think you got it wrong. If all things are made of nothing, then there must be two kinds of "nothings". This is what I tried to point out in my first reply, which was probably too obscure.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you recast that in terms of "information", rather than "ones". "Ones" sounds too vague.

 

[out of whack]

Who is talking about reality? I thought we were talking about the physical universe!

Of course reality is eternal. If that was the point of contention, we just wasted a lot of bandwidth for nothing.

Don't worry, I just used the wrong word. From other conversations, since the universe is all that exist (the commonly accepted definition) and to exists is to be real (again, by common understanding) then there is no difference between "all that is real" and "reality". But I know you are interested in the physical universe only and that we have agreed to call physical what is quantifiable. Let me rephrase.

The scientific method is not designed to determine the origin of the physical universe but to describe the behavior of what already exists. It cannot address the origin of the entire physical universe since it is impossible to repeat this in experiments. We have to use philosophical reasoning instead.

I still have no evidence that what is quantifiable cannot have existed for all time. Since you say that non-quantifiable "things" indeed exist forever, maybe you can find your proof in the examination of what it means to be quantifiable. Or maybe not, I don't know if it's a good start or not to prove your contention, it's just a thought.

 

[baywax]

You are not making any sense.

I see no way to prove that infinity and/or eternity is a reality. Even living forever wouldn't prove it because an "eternal life" could end at anytime. Therein lies the uncertainty.

 

[nabuco]

From other conversations, since the universe is all that exist (the commonly accepted definition) and to exists is to be real (again, by common understanding) then there is no difference between "all that is real" and "reality".

There has to be a difference between the universe and reality, otherwise the two words could be interchanged in any context, which is not the case.

It does seem that what you call universe is what I'd call reality, and in that case there really is no disagreement.

The scientific method is not designed to determine the origin of the physical universe but to describe the behavior of what already exists. It cannot address the origin of the entire physical universe since it is impossible to repeat this in experiments.

If what you said above were true Evolution and Big Bang would not be scientific theories. Experimentation does not necessarily mean repeating the phenomenon described by a theory; more often than not, that is impossible.

We have to use philosophical reasoning instead

I'm OK with that so long as our deductions are consistent with what physics tells us about the universe. Which is precisely the problem I'm having with your reasoning.

I still have no evidence that what is quantifiable cannot have existed for all time.

I hate to repeat myself but time itself is quantifiable, so it's not a matter of things having existed forever, it's a matter of the thing we call "the age of the universe" having an infinite value. I was trying to avoid physics because I'm not sure you can contemplate how physics is essentially philosophy applied to a specific problem, but I can't find a better approach so here it goes:

The physical universe cannot exist for an infinite amount of time because of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy in the universe is increasing, and that is not an experimental finding, it is a mathematical fact - which is why it's called a law. Now if entropy increases with time, then at some point in the past it must have been zero. Beyond that point, whatever you had cannot be called "the physical universe", for "physical universe" implies all the laws of physics, which includes the second law of thermodynamics.

It gets better than that. Entropy does not only increase with time, the increase of entropy is the passage of time itself. For a closed system, and the universe is by definition a closed system, going to the future means increasing entropy, plain and simple.

Now whatever preceded the universe in its current state (in scientific terms, what came before the Big Bang), is not something that can be understood in terms that apply only to the universe as it is now. In particular, we cannot apply the concept of time to such a universe, because such universe has no entropy. And that assuming we can even apply the concept of "universe" to what came before the Big Bang; more likely we cannot apply any concept, which we express by referring to it as "nothing".

I cannot possibly express myself better than that, although I can further elaborate. I hope it has helped a bit.

 

[kant]

Gosh. No. What you said has nothing to do with anything I said. You should have read my first post (#9 in this thread) in response to the OP. Let me indulge you and explain. The assumption in the OP is that "the universe came from nothing", which is the subject of this thread. My claim is that this statement is contradictory, therefore meaningless, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. My rationale for saying that this OP statement is contradictory is this:

If something can "come from" nothing then nothing must have the property of permitting this. But "nothing" does not have any property. When you have properties, you have something instead of nothing. Therefore the OP's claim is meaningless.

A corollary to the conclusion that the universe cannot "come from" anything is that the universe has existed for all time. Because of this corollary, the discussion has extended to infinity when some members claimed that infinity cannot be real. I asked them to substantiate their own claim and so far I have not seen any proof of it.

thank of the summery

I would rather not guess, it's a waste of time and an open door towards futile exchanges due to misunderstanding. I prefer to say when I don't understand and why. Besides, you have just shown that you can indeed spell and express yourself clearly, so I thank you for the courtesy of clarity.

I belief you can guess, and i don t think you are stupid.

Except that the real number line does not loop, it extends infinitely in both directions.

This fact is not really relavent.

 

[kant]

Your question is too ambiguous. What do you mean by "exist"?

The best definition of existence I know of is from mathematics: X exists in set U if X is a member of U. That's a pretty abstract notion as far as I'm concerned.

Things like truth, logical consistency, semantics, mathematics, theories, and so on.

lets say something "exist" if it could be objectively measured in principle.


1)

The mathematical notions of existence is irrevalent to our present discussion.
Obvious there is a analytic-synthetic distinction here, and you obvious do not see it. Math is a social construction of ideas, whereas physics deals with things that can be objectively measured, and quentified. They might look the same on a piece of paper because both uses greek letters, but other than that, they are very different.

2) In terms of method, mathematics is a game, with it `s own internal rules called definitions and axioms. Given the definitions, and axioms, any theorem in math can be derived by the methods of deduction( or rules of inference). The laws of Physics on the other hand are mathematical descriptions, or models of phenonmen within our physical space-time observable universe. The use of scientific inductions plays a key role in the formulation of these physical models( law). Scientists create physical laws by gathering datas and make conjectures to fit those datas. The laws of physics is not a mathematic law( whatever that means), because one can imagine a universe with a different set of physical characteristic properties. If there are inhabitants in such weird physical universe, then those inhabitansts can model their weird universe with some other mathematical models.

 

[JonF]

Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion.

If the universe came from nothing. Doesn't this mean that the universe cannot be a physical entity? Are we not forced to assume that the universe is conceptual in nature? That the fundamentals of existence are no more than discrete conceptual geometrics of nothing?

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

 

[nabuco]

lets say something "exist" if it could be objectively measured in principle

This is too vague and not philosophically correct. I can measure the height of a shadow in a wall or the circumference of a hole in the ground. I don't think those things can be said to exist.

The mathematical notions of existence is irrevalent to our present discussion.

Why not? Isn't the universe a set, and isn't everything that exists a member of that set?

Math is a social construction of ideas, whereas physics deals with things that can be objectively measured, and quentified

Nonsense. Physics is as much a "social construction" as mathematics.

They might look the same on a piece of paper because both uses greek letters, but other than that, they are very different.

What else is there to physics other than a bunch of Greek letters?

I could agree if you said that physics gives meaning to mathematical equations. For instance, 1+2=3 doesn't mean much while "one apple plus two apples makes three apples" means a lot more. It's still very much the same thing though.

In terms of method, mathematics is a game, with it `s own internal rules called definitions and axioms. Given the definitions, and axioms, any theorem in math can be derived by the methods of deduction( or rules of inference).

... and, strangely enough, those theorems accurately describe physical phenomena. Can't you smell something here?

The laws of Physics on the other hand are mathematical descriptions, and models of phenonmen within our physical space-time observable universe. The use of scientific inductions is very important in the formulation of these physical models( law).

Induction is merely guessing and lacks philosophical justification (see "the problem of induction"). When you fully understand a physical phenomenon, you become able to deduce it from more fundamental principles - just check the history of physics. We only need induction when we don't know what we're doing.

 

[out of whack]

If what you said above were true Evolution and Big Bang would not be scientific theories. Experimentation does not necessarily mean repeating the phenomenon described by a theory; more often than not, that is impossible.

That's a pertinent comment. These theories of course are based on known science, which is based on the universe as we know it today, and this is perfectly reasonable when your aim is to understand the known universe. But since we have no information on what came before the Big Bang (if anything, more on this below) then science cannot address that part, which is central to our discussion.

We have to use philosophical reasoning instead

I'm OK with that so long as our deductions are consistent with what physics tells us about the universe. Which is precisely the problem I'm having with your reasoning.

Will you reject a logical argument if it conflicts with your understanding of a scientific theory? If so then I may in turn have a problem with your reasoning. My position is that since science must be logical then logic must win over science if there is a discrepancy.

The physical universe cannot exist for an infinite amount of time because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Oh, I see. But that approach doesn't work so well.

Let's back up to the time of zero entropy. We have all this fully useable energy bottled up that undergoes the very first change: bang, entropy is suddenly non-zero following the very first thermodynamic change. Since you say that a change in entropy is the passage of time itself, this has to be the beginning of time. Since you also stated that reality existed for all time then this first change must also be the beginning of reality, which coincides with the beginning of the physical universe. Also, since you are only concerned with quantifiable things, you must assume that the initial energy of the Big Bang was not quantifiable until after the first change that caused an increase of entropy that caused the beginning of time. But if the entropy level was quantifiable (existed) and if the energy of the universe after the first change also existed (and was quantifiable at that time) then the initial energy is clearly quantifiable as well, meaning that something quantifiable existed before the beginning of reality and of the physical universe.

"physical universe" implies all the laws of physics, which includes the second law of thermodynamics.

This, I think, is where you are mistaken. You explicitly restrict what is quantifiable to only our current interpretations of the universe. You dismiss the possibility that "quantifiable things" behaved differently before the Big Bang for example. You dismiss the possibility that humans can make errors in science. You generally restrict excessively for this topic.

Now whatever preceded the universe in its current state (in scientific terms, what came before the Big Bang), is not something that can be understood in terms that apply only to the universe as it is now. In particular, we cannot apply the concept of time to such a universe, because such universe has no entropy. And that assuming we can even apply the concept of "universe" to what came before the Big Bang; more likely we cannot apply any concept, which we express by referring to it as "nothing".

I cannot discuss the origin of the universe if you use "nothing" to refer to whatever science cannot handle. It makes it a tautology that the universe began with the first event that can be addressed by science.

 

[JonF]

This is too vague and not philosophically correct. I can measure the height of a shadow in a wall or the circumference of a hole in the ground. I don't think those things can be said to exist.

i would contend these things exist in some form.

Why not? Isn't the universe a set, and isn't everything that exists a member of that set?

No it isn't, sets are abstract objects.

Nonsense. Physics is as much a "social construction" as mathematics.

What else is there to physics other than a bunch of Greek letters?

I could agree if you said that physics gives meaning to mathematical equations. For instance, 1+2=3 doesn't mean much while "one apple plus two apples makes three apples" means a lot more. It's still very much the same thing though.

... and, strangely enough, those theorems accurately describe physical phenomena. Can't you smell something here?

Physics and math are both similar in the respect that attempt to draw deductive conclusions from a well defined system of assumptions. The big difference in math these assumptions are arbitrary, and in Physics there is an attempted to make them correspond to the real world through experimentation.

Induction is merely guessing and lacks philosophical justification (see "the problem of induction"). When you fully understand a physical phenomenon, you become able to deduce it from more fundamental principles - just check the history of physics. We only need induction when we don't know what we're doing.

I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that if you have a general principle induction is no longer necessary for statements about that principle. But the way we tend to realize something may possibly be a universal in most cases is through induction (note: I'm not claiming all cases). After we conclude "P maybe generalized to a universal" we then seek deductive justification for that generalization.

 

[kant]

This is too vague and not philosophically correct. I can measure the height of a shadow in a wall or the circumference of a hole in the ground. I don't think those things can be said to exist.

Utimately, we can only test the existence of something based on it ` s effect on something else. Hopefully, that something else can bet measure. Ex. The height of a shadow might not indicated the existence of the shadow, but it can indicate the existence of some other things. The shadow might gives us important hints on the structure of the thing that cast the shadow in the wall.

Why not? Isn't the universe a set, and isn't everything that exists a member of that set?

I agree. You can say the universe correspond to a set S, and that everything in the set exist. But what is that got to do with physical existence? Can you create another space-time universe by write down math equations, and say it "exist"?

Nonsense. Physics is as much a "social construction" as mathematics.

If a person was to be born inside a dark room, and all he has is his brain. Can we deduce modern physics by knowing peano axioms? Obvious not.

What else is there to physics other than a bunch of Greek letters?

Because the laws of nature are "mathematical models"? Physicists use mathematics as a tool, but it is not true that mathematician uses empirical facts to deduce theorms in number theory.

I could agree if you said that physics gives meaning to mathematical equations. For instance, 1+2=3 doesn't mean much while "one apple plus two apples makes three apples" means a lot more. It's still very much the same thing though.

"1+2= 3" is a trival example, but it does illustrate the notion that mathematics are used to model physical "stuff" like applies.

The statement "1+2=3" is analytically true, but by itself it tells us nothing about the physical universe, unless we assign numbers with applies. Can "1+2=3" tell use why applies exist?

... and, strangely enough, those theorems accurately describe physical phenomena. Can't you smell something here?

Those mathematical theorems would only work if we assign physically quantifable things to those greek letters. Those theorem tells use nothing about why those physically quantifable stuff exist at all. Even if everything in the universe can be describe in terms of "string", we would still be at liberty to ask why "strings" exist at all.

Induction is merely guessing and lacks philosophical justification (see "the problem of induction"). When you fully understand a physical phenomenon, you become able to deduce it from more fundamental principles - just check the history of physics. We only need induction when we don't know what we're doing.

I can write down those "fundamental principles" in a piece of paper, so what?
Can you produce a universe from writing down the "fundamental principles"? NO! Those fundamental principle needs to describe something physical.


Stephen hawking said some like this. He said even if we have a set of equation that describe everything in the universe. It could only be a set of equations. He asked: " what breath fire into the equations in the first place to make a universe from it?". What hawking means is that science cannot tell us why there is something for our equations to describe.

 

[Castlegate]

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

I'd have to agree here. Any suggestions?

 

[baywax]

I'd have to agree here. Any suggestions?

One could say something exists as the compliment of or as opposed to nothing (which does not exist).

 

[nabuco]

Can you guys stop making so many sensible comments that deserve thoughtful replies? It takes me a lot of effort to reply in kind

(seriously, I'm impressed)

These theories of course are based on known science, which is based on the universe as we know it today, and this is perfectly reasonable when your aim is to understand the known universe.

Which is what I thought we were doing…

But since we have no information on what came before the Big Bang (if anything, more on this below) then science cannot address that part, which is central to our discussion.

I would still like to keep a distinction between the universe as perceived through our senses (stars, planets, space, time, etc), and whatever else can be said to exist. I'd like to call the former "universe" and the latter "reality", which is what I believe those terms mean (I may be mistaken though; who knows for sure?)

So are we discussing the universe or are we discussing reality? It seems you agree the universe had a beginning while reality is eternal. In which case, as I stated a few times already, I don't think we disagree at all.

Will you reject a logical argument if it conflicts with your understanding of a scientific theory?

That is not always a simple choice. Rejecting a scientific theory on the basis of logic alone is what turns a lot of people into crackpots, and a few of them into heroes.

If so then I may in turn have a problem with your reasoning.

You want me to talk like a crackpot? I'm quite good at it

My position is that since science must be logical then logic must win over science if there is a discrepancy.

If only things were that simple…

The problem with logic is that we seldom fully understand what we are dealing with. As a computer programmer, many times I stared at the screen in disbelief at what I was seeing; logic told me the program should do one thing, and it was doing another which made no sense. Yet 10 times out of 10 there was a small detail I failed to consider.

When it comes to logic versus science, nature is the computer, in the sense that nature never makes logical mistakes. You may not always understand why you are not seeing what you expected to see, but you can always be sure it's your fault.

Let's back up to the time of zero entropy. We have all this fully useable energy bottled up that undergoes the very first change: bang, entropy is suddenly non-zero following the very first thermodynamic change. Since you say that a change in entropy is the passage of time itself, this has to be the beginning of time.

Yep.

Since you also stated that reality existed for all time then this first change must also be the beginning of reality, which coincides with the beginning of the physical universe.

My understanding of reality is that it does not exist in time, because it never changes. It's not correct to say "reality existed for all time", but rather "reality creates our perception of time".

if the entropy level was quantifiable (existed) and if the energy of the universe after the first change also existed (and was quantifiable at that time) then the initial energy is clearly quantifiable as well, meaning that something quantifiable existed before the beginning of reality and of the physical universe.

Not before. "Before" implies time, and you can't measure time without entropy change. There is no "before" the universe began, we use that word for lack of a better concept but we can't really speak of time without physical activity.

Consider a circle. You can talk of circles of different sizes, and you can think of circles expanding and contracting, but even though there is no limit for expansion, there is a limit for contraction. Once the radius becomes zero, the circle can no longer be contracted. Because of that, it makes no sense to talk about a circle of negative radius. You can make sentences using the concept of negative radius, and they appear semantically correct, but they are meaningless.

This is the sense in which I see the concept of time. It has no limits one way, but it must necessarily be limited in the opposite way, otherwise it becomes meaningless. Sure, we can talk about "time before the universe began", we can make up the concept, but unless we can explain what it means in terms of other concepts we already understand, it means absolutely nothing.

You explicitly restrict what is quantifiable to only our current interpretations of the universe.

That is because "quantifiable" is part of our current interpretation of the universe. Your complaint is equivalent to saying I'm explicitly restricting the meaning of the word "quantifiable" to our current interpretation of the English language, and that is an error because there may be languages which use the word "quantifiable" with a meaning that is different from English.

The basic error you are making is that you are mentally positioning yourself outside the universe as you currently know it, and trying to describe what you see. You cannot do that. Wherever you go you take your current knowledge of the universe with you, so you shouldn't be surprised you always see the same things.

The correct way to understand this issue is not by looking at the universe, but by looking at what we are left with when we ignore the entirety of our knowledge. And here you inevitably fall into some form of mysticism.

I cannot discuss the origin of the universe if you use "nothing" to refer to whatever science cannot handle.

You can also use "God" if you want. Or "The Great Unknown". Or any other concept from mysticism. Really, there is no way to avoid it.

It makes it a tautology that the universe began with the first event that can be addressed by science.

Which is great, because as you know all tautologies are true

On to the next...

No it isn't, sets are abstract objects.

We have to be careful with words as we often fool ourselves with the way we use them. Sets are abstract objects, but we often refer to the "members of the set" as "the set". It would be tiresome to be explicit all the time, but sometimes we lose sight of what we really mean.

Surely seeing the universe as a set is an abstraction, but an abstraction is just a shorthand for something else.

Physics and math are both similar in the respect that attempt to draw deductive conclusions from a well defined system of assumptions. The big difference in math these assumptions are arbitrary, and in Physics there is an attempted to make them correspond to the real world through experimentation.

This reminds me of that joke where the rector of an university asks why the physics department spends so much money on lab equipment. He says, "why don't you guys do like the mathematicians, who only need paper, pencils, and a wastebasket? Or better, like the philosophers, who only need paper and pencils!"

Mathematicians don't make arbitrary assumptions, only philosophers have that privilege (it's curious that not even theologians have such freedom as they are bound by scripture - philosophers really have it easy). Mathematicians are constrained by the requirement that the whole body of mathematics must be self-consistent. That leaves them with a very limited number of possible axioms.

Physicists are of course constrained by the universe, but the only difference between math and physics is that not all mathematical concepts correspond to physical phenomena. But when correspondences are found, the physicist can forget about observation and focus on math alone.

the way we tend to realize something may possibly be a universal in most cases is through induction (note: I'm not claiming all cases). After we conclude "P maybe generalized to a universal" we then seek deductive justification for that generalization.

There is a third possibility you failed to consider. You can tell something is a fact because you deduced it from other known facts, you can tell that something seems to be true because it looks like different versions of the same fact (induction), or you can tell that something is a fact because it is the consequence of a definition. The latter case can never be proved wrong and is independent of observation.

Consider this definition of gender: "humans can be divided in two gender: male and female. Females can give birth, males cannot". That definition has a few consequences. For instance, you can be sure there is no species whose male can give birth. You can also be sure that a species will become extinct if all females die. You can suspect some species do not have males. You can learn quite a lot of very solid knowledge about the world simply by coming up with good definitions, in which case you only have to deal with definition and deduction, and completely ignore induction and its problems.

Now to the last...

Utimately, we can only test the existence of something based on it ` s effect on something else.

I like that. It means something exist if it is capable of interaction. It's a good definition. It also implies nothing can exist by itself. (homework assignment: can the universe exist if it has, by definition, nothing to interact with?)

The height of a shadow might not indicated the existence of the shadow, but it can indicate the existence of some other things.

Surely the perception of a shadow is proof that something causing your perception exists. My point was only that it may be misleading to think it's the shadow itself that is giving you the perception. In your terms, the shadow can be said not to exist because it doesn't interact with you, it's ambient light and the wal that are doing that.

I agree. You can say the universe correspond to a set S, and that everything in the set exist. But what is that got to do with physical existence? Can you create another space-time universe by write down math equations, and say it "exist"?

Actually, you can. Whether you can relate the universe you made up in your mind with something real, that is the job for the scientist in you.

If a person was to be born inside a dark room, and all he has is his brain. Can we deduce modern physics by knowing peano axioms? Obvious not.

Not so fast! To start with, wouldn't that person's brain behave according to the laws of physics? If so, couldn't that brain discover physics simply by examining itself? Moreover, how can we be sure that physics is not, in fact, simply describing the behavior of our "brains" rather than the world?

(don't answer, just think about it)

Physicists use mathematics as a tool, but it is not true that mathematician uses empirical facts to deduce theorms in number theory

That was not the point. The point is that no empirical fact ever proved a mathematical theorem wrong. The only reason mathematicians don't conduct experiments is simply because they don't need them. They could if they wanted, just like you can count pebbles to check the correctness of your calculations.

The statement "1+2=3" is analytically true, but by itself it tells us nothing about the physical universe, unless we assign numbers with applies. Can "1+2=3" tell use why applies exist?

No, but it tells us why you get three apples when you put one on a table and somebody else adds two.

Besides, ultimately there must be something which exists for no reason. Apples exist because of apple trees, and trees because of seeds and soil and sunlight and photosynthesis, and so on and on. You go on with that but eventually you must reach a point whence you can go on no more.

Stephen hawking said some like this. He said even if we have a set of equation that describe everything in the universe. It could only be a set of equations. He asked: " what breath fire into the equations in the first place to make a universe from it?". What hawking means is that science cannot tell us why there is something for our equations to describe.

I don't think Hawking is a particularly good philosopher (nor should he be). He sees the laws of physics as some sort of computer program, so it is natural for him to ask "where is the computer running the program?". There are better ways of seeing things that don't lead to such naïve questions.

(man, I'm exhausted!)

 

[out of whack]

It takes me a lot of effort to reply in kind

Oh good. I was afraid it was just me.

Nabuco, it is clear by now that we are answering different questions, or perhaps the same question from different points of view. It is not so much that you are looking at the universe from the inside while I look at it from the outside though. I hate to think that I am looking for "mystic" answers, I have little interest in mysticism. I prefer the analogy that you look at the physics while I look at the math, or that you are practical while I am theoretical.

I don't mind establishing a distinction between the words "reality" and "universe" by definition. We could say that the universe is an entity and that reality is this entity plus how it changes. This way we can discuss the origin of the entity in question separately from what caused it to exist (if anything) and how it behaves (laws of nature). But this opens up various questions regarding time and what it means to exist: can reality exist in the absence of a quantifiable universe? What exactly is the difference between the existence of an atom and the existence of a natural law? Does time require quantifiable changes or could reality itself account for it? Can reality itself change? What can it possibly mean to exist outside of time? And where is the aspirin?

It seems you agree the universe had a beginning while reality is eternal.

No, I cannot agree with this, at least not yet. There are too many unanswered questions regarding the separation of universe and reality at the moment (some of them above). If time can only exist along with a quantifiable universe then "reality" and "universe" must both exist for all time.

Rejecting a scientific theory on the basis of logic alone is what turns a lot of people into crackpots

Only if misapplied or due to some error elsewhere. It is in line with scientific protocol that a scientific theory must be rejected if it is illogical. This goes along the same lines as what a smart person said not too long ago: "no empirical fact ever proved a mathematical theorem wrong". Math takes precedence over science, so does logic.

The problem with logic is that we seldom fully understand what we are dealing with.

This is not a problem with logic, it is merely a human shortcoming. This shortcoming also applies to science and all other fields of human endeavor.

My understanding of reality is that it does not exist in time, because it never changes.

Your observation (and others that follow) can be the start of an entirely new debate on the nature of time and its relationship to change. I don't have the energy to initiate a new debate, and this would go off topic. I would rather return to the elegant simplicity of the original post and see if anything has moved on that front.

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

I'd have to agree here. Any suggestions?

The premise that something cannot come from nothing only leaves one option: something has to come from something. For various reasons, some people find it inconceivable that this process can repeat forever. Something about the human mind makes this simple loop unacceptable. But the above rationale is concise to the point of leaving little room for human error without redefining our words into something more convenient.

I find it an inescapable conclusion that "something" has always existed. If this conflicts with other beliefs then those beliefs must be in error somehow, somewhere. Those are the one that need to be re-examined in order to reconcile them with the simple reality that nothing cannot produce something.

 

[kant]

homework assignment: can the universe exist if it has, by definition, nothing to interact with?

first of all. I never said i want you to be my teacher. I don t really give a crap in formulating some grand unified definition. I am contented with a working definition and start from there. Frankly, i don t even think language would serve us well in understanding such questions.

My point was only that it may be misleading to think it's the shadow itself that is giving you the perception..

The shadow indicate the existence of something esle. What that something is is anyone s guess.

Actually, you can. Whether you can relate the universe you made up in your mind with something real, that is the job for the scientist in you.

It makes very little sense. Physics is about putting forward conjunctures that could be tested. From what i understand from you, you are saying we can produce the universe by something non-physical( like math). The burden of proof is on you to really create another space-time universe via a non-physical way that can be deplicated in an experiment.

Not so fast! To start with, wouldn't that person's brain behave according to the laws of physics? If so, couldn't that brain discover physics simply by examining itself?

To deposite that someone can discovery modern physics by think is not a justified true belief.

Moreover, how can we be sure that physics is not, in fact, simply describing the behavior of our "brains" rather than the world?

Of course, you can "doubt" like descartes. I am not going to engage is such pointless speculations.

(don't answer, just think about it)

That was not the point. The point is that no empirical fact ever proved a mathematical theorem wrong. The only reason mathematicians don't conduct experiments is simply because they don't need them. They could if they wanted, just like you can count pebbles to check the correctness of your calculations.

The point is not really about the usefulness of computers in mathematics.
Sure, you can type in a computational problem for the computer to solve, but that is not really the problem here. Mathematics can simply imagine as a set of rules, and any mathematical theorm in math can be obtain thr a purely deductive process. The process do not invoke the know laws of physics at all. I know you are going to saying " but mathematician ` s brain is govern by the laws of nature", but to ask that question is to miss the entire point.

No, but it tells us why you get three apples when you put one on a table and somebody else adds two.

That is why i said "unless you assign numbers with applies"

Besides, ultimately there must be something which exists for no reason. Apples exist because of apple trees, and trees because of seeds and soil and sunlight and photosynthesis, and so on and on. You go on with that but eventually you must reach a point whence you can go on no more.

I am actually agreeing with you. Science will eventually reach a point in the reductist programme where they might explain everything in the physical universe using one thing. That "one thing" of course cannot be explained to exist, but we might simply assume it` s existence.

I don't think Hawking is a particularly good philosopher (nor should he be). He sees the laws of physics as some sort of computer program, so it is natural for him to ask "where is the computer running the program?". There are better ways of seeing things that don't lead to such naïve questions.

(man, I'm exhausted!

(I don t know about you, but it makes very little sense in attacking someone argument by attack the person.)

Even you admited that there must something that simply "exist for not good reason", and my point is that science will eventually reach a point where we might describe the whole universe using strings. If that is the case, then science will never be able to answer why the "strings" in string theory exist. The theory simply consider the existence of the string as necessary.

 

[nabuco]

where is the aspirin?

Now that is the really important question for me. My head is still hurting from that big post.

No, I cannot agree with this, at least not yet. There are too many unanswered questions regarding the separation of universe and reality at the moment (some of them above).

All I can say about your questions is that they are merely a matter of semantics. Define terms properly and the answers will fall like a stone. You can do that and I can do that. What's difficult is for us to agree to do it the same way, because ultimately it makes no difference which way you do it.

It is in line with scientific protocol that a scientific theory must be rejected if it is illogical.

If that were true, quantum mechanics would have been discarded a long time ago. Einstein for one never accepted it - does that mean he didn't know how to think logically?

The premise that something cannot come from nothing only leaves one option: something has to come from something.

That is not an option. If something did not come from "something that is not something" (you don't like the concept of nothing), then the only option is that "something" didn't come at all. What you are doing is called infinite regression and is not a valid proposition.

For various reasons, some people find it inconceivable that this process can repeat forever. Something about the human mind makes this simple loop unacceptable.

That something is called "reason". It's what prevents us from accepting ideas that don't make sense to us, but it's also what gives validity to any idea. You can't throw reason away and keep your truths. Either the universe can be comprehended by reason or it cannot. If we believe our brains won't digest any explanation for the universe, we might as well call it a day and go fishing. Which may not be a bad idea after all.

I find it an inescapable conclusion that "something" has always existed.

Surely. Most people, when confronted with the same question, reach the same conclusion. They even have a name for the "something" that always existed: God. Of course if we don't like that name we can always pick another one. Makes little difference as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Castilla]

Out of wack, your point of view is very sound, but...

You say that something quantifiable must have existed ever. And then we need to postulate an infinity of time behind us. But if an infinity of time has passed before we appeared, how it is possible that now we are, so to say, "bounded" in limits and boundaries?

Excuse clumsy language. I mean this. (I think Castlegate has expressed more or less the same idea previously). If you take a unit of time, say a century or an hour, with that "magnitude" you only can mentally build another quantifiable "thing" (an eon, let's say, or whatever number of them you want). With a quantifiable unit we can not jump into an infinity. So how can we have a total infinity of time behind us and, at the same time, being bounded in quantifiable time?

 

[kant]

That something is called "reason". It's what prevents us from accepting ideas that don't make sense to us, but it's also what gives validity to any idea. You can't throw reason away and keep your truths. Either the universe can be comprehended by reason or it cannot. If we believe our brains won't digest any explanation for the universe, we might as well call it a day and go fishing. Which may not be a bad idea after all.

I know you love to "quote" people, but you might be misinterpreting the quotes. Every physicist i have ever encountered, and all the physicist i have read about admit that science cannot tell us why stuff "exist". They are content that reason can be used to explain the whole universe, but admit that the question of 'orgin' is not in there sphere of practice. In any case, i would be very please if you reply to my post above, thanking you.

Surely. Most people, when confronted with the same question, reach the same conclusion. They even have a name for the "something" that always existed: God. Of course if we don't like that name we can always pick another one. Makes little difference as far as I'm concerned.

By saying that everyone thinks like that, or belief in that does not really put forward your arguement.

 

[out of whack]

It is in line with scientific protocol that a scientific theory must be rejected if it is illogical.

If that were true, quantum mechanics would have been discarded a long time ago.

Bad argument, QM is not illogical. Its mathematics are consistent with observations and with results of experiments, and it works. What you call illogical is actually unnatural or counter-intuitive. But intuition is not logic; these conflict regularly.

The premise that something cannot come from nothing only leaves one option: something has to come from something.

That is not an option. If something did not come from "something that is not something" (you don't like the concept of nothing), then the only option is that "something" didn't come at all.

Your conclusion denies existence, which is known to be true, therefore your reasoning is incorrect. The correct conclusion given that something exists (I had not foreseen the need to point this out) is that something came from "something that is something" to use your format. (The word "nothing" itself is fine with me.)

What you are doing is called infinite regression and is not a valid proposition.

There you go again with personal rules. You have an infinite regress on one hand and something popping out of nothing on the other, and you make a personal judgment that one is better than the other. I has been shown that popping out of nothing is contradictory. Now, show that an infinite regress is also contradictory. Not by your intuition, show it through logical development starting from sound premises.

For various reasons, some people find it inconceivable that this process can repeat forever. Something about the human mind makes this simple loop unacceptable.

That something is called "reason". It's what prevents us from accepting ideas that don't make sense to us

...ideas that make no sense to us like that "round earth" fable.

The reason we use logic is because human reasoning is tainted by emotions and misguided intuitions. Logic guides reason in the direction that provides correct answers.

You can't throw reason away and keep your truths.

Please. You have seen that I reason my truths logically, I don't fetch them out of thin air. Surely you can follow the reasoning I have posted here.

You say that something quantifiable must have existed ever.

Actually the "quantifiable" adjective is from nabuco who is only concerned about what science can address. I take a wider view of the question.

But if an infinity of time has passed before we appeared, how it is possible that now we are, so to say, "bounded" in limits and boundaries?

There is no principle of mutual exclusion between limited and infinite. An infinite set does not imply that all of its subsets must also be infinite. For example there is a limited number of integers from 5 to 10, yet the set of integers is infinite.

With a quantifiable unit we can not jump into an infinity. So how can we have a total infinity of time behind us and, at the same time, being bounded in quantifiable time?

The fact that some entities exist for a limited time does not mean that the set of all entities must also exist for a limited time. It is simple to see how infinity arises: just don't make the gratuitous assumption that all entities must cease to exist by some mysterious necessity. It's just as easy to conceive of eternity than to conceive of limited time and then the absence of time altogether.


We look for deep, ultimate reasons like something mysterious and sacred. Some of us spend sleepless nights pondering where we come from, hoping for enlightenment. All the while there exists an explanation that is so simple and elegant that it seems that it cannot possibly be true. If something cannot come from nothing, yet something exists, then something must come from something. It is logical and understandable. For some, it is hard to swallow. Clearly, I have no problem with it.

 

[baywax]

Judging from the amount of energy in one atom, everything could have come from a sub-atomic em wave that was left by the last universe. Stranger things have happened

 

[JonF]

One could say something exists as the compliment of or as opposed to nothing (which does not exist).

this doesn't solve or even address the problem, and neither does out of wack's comment

 

[out of whack]

this doesn't solve or even address the problem, and neither does out of wack's comment

Brevity: A
Effort: D

 

[JonF]

so i take it you're still not going to address the point?

 

[out of whack]

so i take it you're still not going to address the point?

Define the point.

 

[JonF]

JonF said:

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

 

[out of whack]

JonF said:

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

True. Anything else?

 

[kant]

I still do not know how some one could create a space-time universe by writing down equations.

 

[baywax]

I still do not know how some one could create a space-time universe by writing down equations.

One cannot create a universe with an equation. One composes an equation in the hopes of representing a space-time universe, not creating one. Of course, the original is much more desirable to live in than the on-line or on paper version.

this doesn't solve or even address the problem, and neither does out of wack's comment

Then I'd suggest leaving nothing well enough alone. It doesn't exist .

 

[kant]

One cannot create a universe with an equation. One composes an equation in the hopes of representing a space-time universe, not creating one. Of course, the original is much more desirable to live in than the on-line or on paper version.

i was being sarcastic, genius..

 

[nabuco]

Your conclusion denies existence, which is known to be true, therefore your reasoning is incorrect. The correct conclusion given that something exists (I had not foreseen the need to point this out) is that something came from "something that is something" to use your format

Just to wrap up this discussion for me, I maintain the following points:

- the universe as we know it consists of matter in constant interaction. To the best of our knowledge, the interaction must have started at some point in the past, and must cease at some point in the future (entropy)
- it's possible the universe as we know it had existed before in a state in which we wouldn't recognize it, meaning it wasn't made of matter in constant interaction but of something we never heard of and cannot even imagine.
- the question of "what came before the universe as we know it" can only be answered in one or another variant of "it came from a thing we don't understand"
- it matters little whether we call the thing we don't understand "something", "nothing", "matter in a different state", "causeless cause", "God", whatever. It adds nothing of any significance to our knowledge.
- there is, however, one important consequence of that fact: metaphysics is just a game of semantics. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

That's it for now. See in you another thread!