Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

[Picklehead]

I want to suggest a difference between the 'something from nothing' that Royce is talking about and the 'something from nothing' that Finger is talking about. The quantum mechanical 'nothing' is more of a background in which events take place (yes, even space too, being as tied to events as it is). The energy content of the entire universe may be [0], but it's not [ ]. Other universes that might not have anything in them are still universes.

 

[Pi_314B]

Other universes that might not have anything in them are still universes.

Just for the sake of clearing this up.

Definition
Universe - The complete system of all things that exist.

We can reason from this that there can only be one universe and yer in it. If you wish to speak of other universes ... Don't expect to ever be able to prove it, because your proof would only serve to exhibit that there is only one to be had.

 

[moving finger]

I want to suggest a difference between the 'something from nothing' that Royce is talking about and the 'something from nothing' that Finger is talking about. The quantum mechanical 'nothing' is more of a background in which events take place (yes, even space too, being as tied to events as it is). The energy content of the entire universe may be [0], but it's not [ ]. Other universes that might not have anything in them are still universes.

Sorry, I don’t think we can wriggle out of it that way.
The nothing we are debating is the possible nothing from which spacetime emerged, it is not nothing within spacetime. I was using the analogy of QM only to demonstrate that in QM (a) something can be created from nothing and (b) things happen without prior cause. If this can happen in QM within spacetime then there is no reason to believe that such creation from nothing and events without cause are impossible outside of spacetime.
It is debatable whether a universe containing nothing (and that includes no spacetime) can still be said to be a universe.

MF

 

[moving finger]

Just for the sake of clearing this up.

Definition
Universe - The complete system of all things that exist.

We can reason from this that there can only be one universe and yer in it. If you wish to speak of other universes ... Don't expect to ever be able to prove it, because your proof would only serve to exhibit that there is only one to be had.

yes, strictly this is the correct definition of universe. However there are well-established "multiple universe" or "multiple worlds" theories which posit the existence of parallel universes or worlds which are (more or less) inaccessible to us. If one wishes to adhere to the strict definition of universe then we should talk of multiple worlds within one universe, where here we now mean universe as being the set of all sets of possible worlds, and that universal set of all sets contains the "null set" of an empty world as well as all other possible worlds containing "something". Of course, since it is defined as being complete, the universal set must also contain itself - ooops...

MF

 

[Pi_314B]

yes, strictly this is the correct definition of universe. However there are well-established "multiple universe" or "multiple worlds" theories which posit the existence of parallel universes or worlds which are (more or less) inaccessible to us. If one wishes to adhere to the strict definition of universe then we should talk of multiple worlds within one universe, where here we now mean universe as being the set of all sets of possible worlds, and that universal set of all sets contains the "null set" of an empty world as well as all other possible worlds containing "something". Of course, since it is defined as being complete, the universal set must also contain itself - ooops...

MF

There is no leeway beyond our universe. Discussion about other worlds that we cannot access is a practice of futility. Taking up a religion would pass off as more productive in that it at least garners some subjective reasoning in the form of philosophy. I might call a person taking up religion as mentally ill, but a person with a mutiple universe theory has to be categorized as being insane. Using the word universe alongside multi is a grievous error that should not go unpunished.

How about the word pod? Let's give it a definition.

Pod - A collection of hundreds of billions of galaxies.

We can speculate that there are other pods to which one might ask for one to be shown.

 

[moving finger]

Discussion about other worlds that we cannot access is a practice of futility.

I said "more or less inaccessible", since the Deutsch multiple worlds idea would suggest that these parallel worlds are linked in some way at the quantum level. This is one possible interpretation of QM and is certainly not "futile".

a person with a mutiple universe theory has to be categorized as being insane.

tch tch, no need to get personal - there are plenty of respectable scientists out there who would disagree with you

Using the word universe alongside multi is a grievous error that should not go unpunished. .

which is why I allowed you to call them multiple worlds, if that makes you feel any better

MF

 

[Picklehead]

I think the point I was trying to make was that QM is a background dependant theory. It assumes the existence of spacetime. The theory that ultimately subsumes QM and relativity will be background independant, meaning that spacetime will have to emerge from the equations. At that level I guess that physics might assume a fundamental timelessness to the universe. It doesn't necessarily follow that while quantum objects within the universe behave in a certain fashion, that the entire universe behaves in the same way.

Pi:Definition
Universe - The complete system of all things that exist.

Your right, I should have used the word cosmos.

 

[moving finger]

I think the point I was trying to make was that QM is a background dependant theory. It assumes the existence of spacetime.

That is an interesting statement. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "assumes the existence of spacetime". Would you care to elaborate?

The theory that ultimately subsumes QM and relativity will be background independant, meaning that spacetime will have to emerge from the equations. At that level I guess that physics might assume a fundamental timelessness to the universe.

What do you mean exactly by "timelessness"? One can view it as timeless now, time is simply a dimension of freedom like the 3 dimensions of space. If physics must assume a fundamental timelessness then does that also mean it must assume a fundamental "spacelessness" (whatever that might be)?

It doesn't necessarily follow that while quantum objects within the universe behave in a certain fashion, that the entire universe behaves in the same way.

Depends on whether one agrees with reductionism, and whether there are more fundamantal building blocks than quantum objects.

MF

 

[Picklehead]

Many, many edits later . . .

What I meant is that QM does not describe space, it describes the behavior of sub-atomic particles in space. Since it does not describe spacetime, it does not account for all the entities that exist. If it did, I would say it would be the Theory of Everything. I'm not saying that spacetime isn't in some sense quantum mechanical, as I believe spacetime to be descrete, just that its not described by QM, and thus can't be used to justify the existence of the universe from nothing when it can't explain the two most fundamental (from our limited experience) aspects of the universe . . . space and time.

Yes, time simply is a degree of freedom in 4 (or more) dimensional spacetime. But don't make the mistake of thinking that anything 'moves' along it. If somethings there, then its there. Sure, it could all just blip into existence and out again just as fast in an uber-objective sense, and we would experience no difference at all . . . but your left with an over-arching framework of time to explain. (You even mentioned David Deutsch, and I'm practically quoting him here!)

Doesnt matter. Even string theory is a background dependant theory. Loop quantum gravity is about the only real attempt that I'm aware of to formulate a background independant theory, from what I understand.

Yes, it might (will?) have to assume a fundamental 'spacelessness' too, and most likely at the same time (unless space and time really are different at some level). I haven't the foggiest idea what that would be.


I totally agree with Pi about the word multiverse. At first it had a neat sound to it, but after a while it doesn't have the definitive all encompassing sound and impact that universe has.

 

[moving finger]

What I meant is that QM does not describe space, it describes the behavior of sub-atomic particles in space.

I would say that QM describes the behaviour of quantum objects and their inter-relationships – it makes no assumptions at all about either space or time.

Since it does not describe spacetime, it does not account for all the entities that exist.

You are suggesting here that spacetime “is an entity which exists”?
I suggest that spacetime does not in fact “exist”, except as a manifestation in your mind/consciousness. “Space” and “time” are the concepts you have constructed in your mind to enable your consciousness to understand (to assimilate) the fact that quantum objects are inter-related with each other in configuration space. I suggest that neither space (your concept of 3D space) nor time has any meaning, let alone existence, in the absence of such QM inter-relationships. Hence spacetime is an emergent conceptual property that arises form the conscious attempts to interpret and understand the inter-relationship of quantum objects.

Think on this – the ultimate quantum object is not a sub-atomic particle, it is the wavefunction. What we observe as the behaviour of sub-atomic particles is simply the manifestation of the wavefunction which describes them. The wavefunction evolves completely deterministically, and exists NOT in any spacetime but in configuration space – the configuration space of all inter-related quantum objects.

If it did, I would say it would be the Theory of Everything.

I do not personally believe that we will ever have a ToE, but that’s my humble opinion and a completely different topic.

I'm not saying that spacetime isn't in some sense quantum mechanical, as I believe spacetime to be descrete, just that its not described by QM, and thus can't be used to justify the existence of the universe from nothing when it can't explain the two most fundamental (from our limited experience) aspects of the universe . . . space and time.

Spacetime is not quantum mechanical, it is a mental manifestation constructed by your consciousness to enable you to make sense of the configuration relationships between QM objects. As such, QM does not need to explain or describe spacetime, since it does not depend on spacetime.

Yes, time simply is a degree of freedom in 4 (or more) dimensional spacetime. But don't make the mistake of thinking that anything 'moves' along it.

Thank you for your advice. No, I don’t make this mistake.

If somethings there, then its there. Sure, it could all just blip into existence and out again just as fast in an uber-objective sense, and we would experience no difference at all . . . but your left with an over-arching framework of time to explain.

The explanation is simple – time is part of spacetime and spacetime is simply your conscious attempt to understand the configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects. It does not exist outside of your conscious mind. That’s it in a nutshell.

I totally agree with Pi about the word multiverse. At first it had a neat sound to it, but after a while it doesn't have the definitive all encompassing sound and impact that universe has.

A rose by any other name…… what’s in a name?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

MF

 

[Picklehead]

I agree that the 'flow' of spacetime requires consciousness (the subjective appearence of motion and a moment-to-moment 'now'). The existence of the 'configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects' themselves does not, I think, depend on consciousness at all. If so, our minds then must be somehow outside this CIRBQO, arranging it and making sense of it all.

Even if, I don't see how that makes possible something from nothing. If the CIRBQO doesn't exist in time (which it doesnt), then how does it happen to come into being without existing in a larger CIRBQO-like structure (mind? is that where you are going?) that is itself timeless?

 

[moving finger]

I agree that the 'flow' of spacetime requires consciousness (the subjective appearence of motion and a moment-to-moment 'now').

I prefer to think of it as : Consciousness generates an illusion of the flow of time.

The existence of the 'configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects' themselves does not, I think, depend on consciousness at all.

I agree. These things exist, independently of consciousness. Consciousness comes along later, and tries to make sense of them.

If so, our minds then must be somehow outside this CIRBQO, arranging it and making sense of it all.

Our minds are PART Of (not outside of.. that's the important thing) the configuration of quantum objects.

Even if, I don't see how that makes possible something from nothing. If the CIRBQO doesn't exist in time (which it doesnt), then how does it happen to come into being without existing in a larger CIRBQO-like structure (mind? is that where you are going?) that is itself timeless?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here?

Quantum objects exist, and they have relationships to each other in configuration space. Our minds, comprised of quantum objects, also exist in configuration space. Our minds try to assimilate the information we get from other quantum objects, and the best way that we can make sense of the information is by generating 3 space axes and one time axis. These axes exist in our consciousness, they do not exist in configuration space.

MF

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Concerning this topic, does anyone know where I can find a quote by Steven Hawking on the Creator? It implies that time simply is.

 

[Picklehead]

Moving Finger: Our minds try to assimilate the information we get from other quantum objects, and the best way that we can make sense of the information is by generating 3 space axes and one time axis.

We don't so much impose order because at the level of explanation where mind is evoked, information is already only coming through what essentially is 3 space axes and one time axis (gravity may leak, and whatever, but anyway). In fact it is a limiting factor, or a constraint, just try to imagine a 4D sphere, seeing a predator in the fifth dimension . . . or the future for that matter.

Its really hard to talk about time. That thread with talk of a tense-less grammar(?) is looking good about now.

 

[moving finger]

Concerning this topic, does anyone know where I can find a quote by Steven Hawking on the Creator? It implies that time simply is.

you may be thinking of :

"One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just be."

or :

"If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

These are quotes from his book "The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe"

(though I believe he uses the same quotes in other publications too)

MF

 

[P-a-u-l]

I prefer to think of it as : Consciousness generates an illusion of the flow of time.

And how would you convert my illusory concept of "now" and "then" into objective truth?

The explanation is simple – time is part of spacetime and spacetime is simply your conscious attempt to understand the configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects. It does not exist outside of your conscious mind. That’s it in a nutshell.

If space time is but a concept, then can I ask where and when those configurational inter-relationships between quantum objects do they exist?
If that question is nonsensical, then, can something exist outside spacetime?
Also, do those quantum objects have any dimensions? And if they have, how can you say that space is a mind-concept? (I'm not very familiar with the meaning of "quantum object").

What would it be without time? Am I correct to believe that there would be no motion?