A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. Richard Townsend Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    I have a feeling that there is something pre-existing but it all depends on how we set-up experiments in order to discover something.

    Not wishing to get too mystical about it, but in the final analysis, we can only ever experience our version of reality.

    One could argue that it is only through experiments that we somehow change reality.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,163
    Intellect , understands , nothing to something is not possible .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,566
    As a fundamental starting point, I begin with a pure generality:

    I call it a "formless (zero state) permittive condition with inherent mathematically permitting or restricting rules".

    Question which I have not yet heard: Was there ever No-thing? Can there ever be No-thing?
    The question is a human question and that itself limits the scope of inquiry.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    I agree, Richard!
     
    Write4U likes this.
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,566
    IMO, the laws of physics existed in an abstract and latent form before there were physical things and their specific values. An inherent abstract logical function which mathematically permits or restricts physical reality. A dimension of mathematical probabilities.

    Most cosmologists "feel" that they are discovering these laws, because these laws existed abstractly (but logically) even before the universe actually became expressed in our physical and observable reality.
    Why would it be foolish to make such a claim?

    The (necessary) problem with physical laws is that they are based on observed physical patterns of behavior in the course of events.
    But physics cannot critically accept that if a pattern is not expressed in physical reality it can still exist in the abstract.

    IMO therein lies the problem, physics tends to discount non-physical potential existence.
    We had to prove the Higgs boson (Cern) before we could physically accept the reality of that particle, although the mathematical calculations already predicted it's existence in the abstract form of mathematical permissions and restrictions (equations), which would "allow" us to create and "see" it.
    Then we presented these values to the Cern collider and have it execute the abstractions in a physical way and behold the particle appeared, congrats all around.

    Does this not suggest an abstract dimension (condition) of an inherent logic which guides the physical events in our reality? Is 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 an abstract function? IMO it must be, because we were able recognize it and translate it in the abstract language of mathematics and apply these mathematics to "create" the Higgs particle.

    This is why I like Max Tegmark's work, he explains that abstract mathematical dimension. IMHO, he has a good case for such a fundamental hierarchical dimension (aspect) of the wholeness..
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2017
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,612
    That's the problem, right there.

    The problem that I see is that if we interpret 'nothing' as the absence of everything, then any proposed physical explanation of the 'something from nothing' problem, in which the universe is theoretically derived from a temporally prior state or logically prior explanatory principles, could only be a non-sequitur since by definition there could be no prior state or principles.

    His 'nothing' seems to involve the pre-existence of both a highly abstract concept of 'empty' space and all of the relevant laws of physics. He doesn't even attempt to explain where those pre-existing explanatory 'givens' come from. So he isn't deriving something from nothing at all.

    His 'nothing' obviously isn't nothing in the traditional metaphysical sense of total and absolute non-existence of everything. Krauss insists that he doesn't give a shit about the 'nothing' of philosophers, who he dismisses as "morons", yet he continues to tell laymen that physics has succeeded in answering the ancient philosophical question of 'why is there something rather than nothing'. I think that's disingenuous. I don't think that he's even addressing the traditional question. I'm not sure that he even understands it.

    You still seem to be assuming the existence of what you call "nature". So... what accounts for the existence of 'nature' and all of the explanatory principles that it supposedly embodies? I hope that you can see how that kind of questioning can lead to an infinite explanatory regress. We always find ourselves in the position of having to explain whatever we want to explain in terms of other things (whether physical realities or abstract physical principles) that supposedly account for it. And then those explanatory principles will need explaining in turn, and then...

    It isn't clear how it would even be possible to explain everything in terms of nothing at all.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2017
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Something (a priori energy) ---> Everything (Currrent Universe, mass, residual energy) . . . .perhaps?
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,566
    David Bohm's "Wholeness" and the "Implicate Order"
    Pure energy -----> Pure Potential -----> Implicate -----> QM ----> Reality
     
  13. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Yes . . . Thanks, Write-4U . . . mine is not claimed as an original hypothesis . . . . and I very much respect Bohm's works. I'd extrapolate a bit and state (IMO) that everything listed (your post) to the left of QM is subquantum (implicate); QM is a scale (~ Planck) transition from mainly implicate domain entering the explicate (quantum) domain and that Reality is mainly our observable (explicate portion) of the Universe. Also, IMO, the Implicate is interwoven within (permeates) the Explicate, but is very difficult to show in evidence (i.e., observe). There are a great many attributes within the implicate domain that we have yet to realize, IMO, of course!
     
    Write4U likes this.
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    As you point out, he isn't trying to make a traditional philosophical argument. I don't find traditional philosophical arguments to be very worthwhile or interesting either. As they say, it's navel gazing.

    It's just a rabbit hole as far as trying to talk about the "beginning", and what came before that, and before that, etc.

    Again, everyone is being too literal about the word "nothing" in his "something from nothing" argument. It's just a catchy title for a book and once you hear his explanation you understand what he is saying. There is nothing more to it.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,566
    That is right along my understanding of Bohm's work.

    As to the connection between Implicate and Explicate, IMO this not a back-in-time association, but rather that each Explicate has its own inherent Potentials and Implicates.
    IOW, it is a forward process in time, but within the context of going back and forth into the larger dimension of the Implicate, which then becomes chronologically Explicated in the next moment of time. It is so difficult to describe these abstract functions clearly.

    I have still a problem with the explicate affecting the prior implicate which already determined the explicate expression. IMO, that kind of circularity would imply a possible change in the implicate which then would alter the current explicate, and I believe that would be in conflict with Determinism, which can only occur going forward in time as a specific cause which can only yield a specific effect.

    The Explicate going back in time and altering the a priori specific Implicate in any way would destroy Determinism, IMO. But I might be lacking in complete understanding of Bohm's arguments.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  16. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Write-4U: You likely have a more in-depth understanding of Bohm's ideas regarding Implicate and Explicate. My understanding is that there exist BOTH Implicate and Explicate attributes within reality. IMO, they co-exist simultaneously - there are Implicate aspects coeval with Explicate aspects. We more easily detect (observe) the latter (Explicate) attributes because of determinative interactions. The former (Implicate) attributes include what some refer to as 'hidden variables' - that are (IMO) hidden because Implicate interactions are difficult to dicern utilizing Explicate observational tools. IMO, Implicate attributes permeate the Explicate domain. I guess if one were to retreat several years, the then-accepted concept of an 'ether' might be considered an Implicate property - NOT saying ether IS - just inferring pre-Bohm in the post-Bohm condition. I agree with you regarding chronological progression and determinism; both Implicate and Explicate appear (to me!) to be intricately interwoven and chronologically inseparable. Thanks for your constructive discussions!
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
    Write4U likes this.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,566
    I completely agree with you. I believe we basically stated the same thing in slightly different wording, from our perspective (English is my second language)

    p.s. Thank you for that encouraging compliment. Coming from you, I feel honored.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  18. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
    I do not find arguments misusing words & misleading people to be worthwhile. I find them absurd.

    WHY write a book titled A Universe From Nothing which is not about a universe from NOTHING??? It is inane if not insane. The only sense I can guess from it is he needed money & did not have a better book in him.

    Something from nothing is worse than God did it.

    <>
     
    Yazata likes this.
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    I'm guessing you haven't actually read the book.
     
  20. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
    Try another guess.

    <>
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    You understand his point and the only thing you disagree with is the title. How's that?
     
  22. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
    I do not understand how you come to that conclusion.
    Maybe the same way you concluded I did not test the absurd birthday claim as I said I did.

    <>
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    So now you contest the mathematics of probability?
     

Share This Page