REPLY: It seems to me there is. I can see how there would be empty space. There was a time in my life when I was actually dying. The loss of blood was so much and I remember getting colder and colder and still colder. I was naked in like a dream but very very aware. So cold,so naked and on this smooth black surface sliding toward this edge and on the edge of this surface trying not to allow myself to slip over this edge. I knew if I went over this edge there was absolute nothingness. I would fall into nothingness and be gone. Whatever, ... fellowtraveler
786: Not necessarily. It could essentially mean a vacuum quantum state of some kind of multiverse. There are theories such as colliding branes in the multiverse spawning different kinds of universes with different sets of physical laws. All quite speculative, but less so than postulating some kind of unexplained God to create the universe. That's not what all physicists think. In some multiverse theories, the laws for individual universes can vary. Of course, that means that many universes can never support life. We must find ourselves in one that can, for obvious reasons. The multiverse, if it exists, must have its own laws of physics, but they would be a kind of superset of the laws of our universe. Perhaps partly, but remember that these fundamental particles are probably determined by the laws of our particular universe. Things may be different elsewhere. Based on what science, exactly? Are you a qualified physicist? Only two, eh? You're sure you've covered all the possibilities? Why bother with God at all? Why not just apply the same thinking to the multiverse, or the universe itself? Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps the multiverse is outside of time and space as we know it. Maybe there is no "why" in the teleological sense. People are good at inventing stories to explain the unknown. Natural forces more powerful than human beings appear to be god-like to primitive peoples. Physics can answer all of your questions above right now, except for "Why does the universe exist?" and "Why do these laws exist?" And we're working on those. Which God? Your God? Zeus? Osiris? the Christian God? Baal?
There is a concept of "nothingness" that does not include anything; Wouldn't those things be excluded by such a concept? And if there was a vacuum state or multiverse that preceded our observable universe, doesn't it follow that it or something would have to have always existed, or else we are back to getting something from nothing. The thinking that it is scientifically impossible to get something from nothing seems to be stated here as an opinion; one that many share and discuss in a philosophy forum. If this was a hard science forum such a statement as "scientifically impossible" would be wrong. We been over the possibilities and offer what we think is a set of possibilities that are intended to be all inclusive: Something from nothing, God did it, or the universe in some form has always existed. I would be interested in what you might be thinking of is excluded from that list. I agree. The personal choice to choose a belief in God over a universe that has always existed smacks of on who accepts dogma over reason. To get to any particular set of religious beliefs from a personal decision that the idea of God is better than the idea that the physical universe itself has always existed would be an arduous path. Clearly the various major religious beliefs are taught not discovered wholly in tact. There is a huge difference between a personal discovery of God and a full blown religion that has every aspect of peoples lives laid out. Physics is working on why the universe exists? Would it be better to say physics is working of how the universe might have come to exist, or how to explain a cosmology that would accommodate a universe that could have always existed? Yes, which God is exactly the problem. If any God exists it seems like it would have to be a huge coincidence that it would be the God of any particular religion.
quantum_wave, Only, as you say, from a hard science forum POV. But where would you start in defining "nothing" outside of "in relation to something"? Can you, or any of us even imagine "nothing', what to speak of postulating it as a possible explanation for origins? A belief in God does not necessarily result in automatic disbelief of an eternal universe. Why? Isn't that the nature of learning to understand knowledge? Do you think it is possible that people prefer the eternal universe idea because they see it as a step closer to proof that God does not exist? God is not contingent on religion. "Which God" is not a problem, there is only one God credited with the creation of the universe. Despite various names, the basic claim remains the same. jan.
Yes, "nothing" can be a difficult concept. I don't have a good answer but I did post on the topic in one of my threads. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2311129&postcount=66 No, it certainly does not. I have said in this thread that one of the options in the small set of possibilities to explain the existence of the universe is "God did it", meaning that the universe did not exist until God created it. The other two suggested possibilities are that it came from nothing somehow on its own, and that has sparked a discussion of "what is nothing". And then comes the third option in the set, the universe has always existed. There are some to whom such an eternal universe might be characterized like this: God or the universe has always exited and maybe they are one in the same. Pantheism for example. I withdraw that conclusion on my part. It isn't self evident that I was on target. It just seems to me that someone "discovering" God as a result of contemplating the possibility of the existence of God would find God, not God says to do this and live this way. Maybe those attributes of religion would be developed by like minded discovers of God. Not in my case. Earlier I said that there is no irrefutable proof either way and so it becomes a personal decision. I haven't seen a great rush of people willing to even say that they consider the eternal universe more likely than God. Of those who don't personally choose the "God did it" option I think the there is a general split between people who are searching for themselves; a split with a reasonable share preferring the "something from nothing" option and a reasonable share preferring the "eternal universe" option. There is only one God in most modern religions. I agree that God is not contingent on religion. But I would disagree to the extent that I would say because religions identify a specific God, if I may put it that way, the nature of God in any given religion is much more than the basic claim that you begin with if you are one who seeks and discovers God independently.
Well that's a well-sourced, utterly convincing argument. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So what is "nothing" then? Pasta? Dried sunflower seeds?
You don't know anything about science, so your claim is meaningless. We already know that. You also have very poor understandings of the world around you because of your bias. Another misunuderstanding, the universe isn't fine tuned for life, it's the other way round, it just is the way it is and everything exists as a result of that. In other words, a pothole does not form around the shape of the water. It doesn't fit, at all. Wrong on both counts.
Oh good. Let me ask you if you have read the thread of just the OP, because the two choices that 786 refers to are two of the three possible choices if my logic is any good. Choice one was, "The universe came from nothing"; the something from nothing option. The other two choices are, "God did it", or "the universe has always existed", were the only two left when 786 and I found that we agreed that "something from nothing" could be eliminated. If you are saying that the "something from nothing" option is the right choice, and it would appear that is what you are saying, then can you elaborate on that choice and how you came to that conclusion? It is also possible that the three options that we have been discussing are not a complete set of possible sources of the universe. If that is your position, what other option or options would you add to the list?
You dismissing something in a way that hardly has consensus in the physics community. There is much controversy around the anthropic principle with adherents among physicists for both weak and strong versions. And many physicists who have not chosen a position still find the fine tuning very puzzling. Part of the issue, which your response above might mislead people around, is that even rather tiny changes in certain constants would eliminate the possibility of life, period, not simply our form of it. In any case, your dismissal of his reaction would not be one shared by a decent % of the physics community, and while they are not theists, they would agree with him that the issue is interesting, puzzling and in need of further exploration.
In essence, there are two ways to explain cosmic coincidences such as this [fine tuning]. Either the Universe was designed with us in mind, or there many universes out there, and life can exist only in ones like ours. In the memorable analogy used by Martin Rees, it is the difference between having a suit made to measure and choosing one off the peg. If there is an infinite number of suits to choose from, one of them must be 'just right'. In Search of Superstrings, John Gribbin Icon Books, page xv.
Hardly. Where did you get that nonsense from? What may lead people to be mislead by your response is the fact that tiny changes in certain constants NOW could have drastic effects on the universe, but those same changes to the constants when the universe began may very well foster life, it would just be different. By your logic, "sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns" ~~ Gould
The nothingness of nothing is a simple ZERO of that thing . Zero by any definition is only zero and no more .
Books by physicists. I have read books that are generally dismissive of the issue and others where the physicist author does feel it is both important and puzzling. My sense is you are unaware of the discussions around the anthopic principle.
See now you have quoted one physicist and his (clever) dismissive analogy on the issue. One could take your post as implying the issue is somehow decided. But it isn't. There is hardly consensus in physics community. Someone here, outside the physics community, raised the issue and was met by smug dismissal. As if he was stupid and ignorant for thinking it might even be an issue. All the while discussions are going on among physicists on the very topic. I know you and (Q) see yourselves on the rational, science team, but a little more humility in the face of such issues will really, honestly, come across more rational.
Two. Gribbin "quoting" Rees. Dismissal? Hardly. It's a concomitant of one of the current physics theories. Only if one were to accept that particular quote/ pair of cosmologists. I merely gave that quote because A) by pure coincidence that happens to be the book I started reading today and it was apposite, and B) it offered yet another viewpoint. Quite, here's another view. (Which I also own and have read). Hmm, so my post lacked humility? Strange... where exactly did I say that it was MY answer or THE answer? :shrug:
The only way that this is going to start to make sense to everyone who doesn't quite get it yet (and I'm not talking about you Dywyddyr) is if people stop trying to represent it or describe it. The moment you try to define nothing you've led yourself astray. Of course, we have to try though don't we? And that's fine as long as the description you're giving takes this into account. For example, I couldn't say that nothing is the absence of anything and everything without pointing out that this definition is technically incorrect because you can't describe something that doesn't exist even if your description of it is that it doesn't exist. There is no it. There is no something. So you can't say anything about it without encountering an error. It's taboo I tell you! It's better for everyone if you just pretend that it doesn't exist. Seriously guys, sometimes I have trouble trying to understand why some people just can't accept this idea. Is it so hard to understand that if what you're talking about is actually significant in any way shape or form, that it is not nothing? Call it something else if you want to give it properties. Call it a void or something, as long as you don't suggest that the void is devoid of anything and everything, because then it's not a void, it's nothing, and suddenly vanishes from the existence that it never legitimately enjoyed to begin with. Trying to force nothingness into reality is right up there with the most mind-bendingly absurd endeavors in the history of intelligent thought. I've made this point before and I'm going to make it again. It is impossible for nothing to exist. It is impossible for there to ever not be something. The reason that this is true is because there is no reality anywhere where it could possibly be false. Sure, I know you're all going to feel somehow sleighted by my previous assertion, but you know, who's to say you can't have some fun with nothing?
Why not professor ?.........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .
