God and Nothing seems to be equivalent

Not at all. Nothing doesn't have to live. When there is nothing, nothing is everything. If nothing has conciousness then that nothing can effect the particals around it. Nothing takes shape, so it can manipulate anything. Nothing has always existed. If there is nothing to observe life, then isn't life nothing?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was a theory by Stephen Hawkins that gravity could be seen as negative energy and thus all energy in the universe is zero if we take that into account. What Is the Total Energy In the Universe?, I don't know how stable the theory is though, but I know that Stephen Hawking understands these concepts fairly well and I guess he has his reasons for thinking that way. If the theory has since then been overruled then it would be nice if you showed me.

From what I can gather the EM field is created by the photons and not the other way around. As is explained here:

`` According to our present understanding, the electromagnetic field itself is produced by photons, which in turn result from a local gauge symmetry and the laws of quantum field theory (see the Second quantization and Gauge boson sections below).´´ Wiki - Photon

I also read that the energy required for the creation of the virtual particles are greater than what is available, but that the short lifespan that they have allows them to be created anyway, in accordance to the Uncertainty Principle of time-energy. However, I couldn't find a good source on the net and I don't remember where I've read it, hopefully you might remember it better or know what it meant. Basically I don't care if it is the particles that come from nothing or if it is the energy, as long as it is a random event then it is something from nothing, or rather something uncaused. So it's not the particles themselves, it is whatever is uncaused, or actually any random event, in which random means that it is completely spontanious.

In other words, if this virtual particles popping in/out from existence isn't correct, that it actually pops in/out of the EM field (which then can describe their creation sufficiently without the use of energy from nothing) then I have to find something else that is indeed coming from nothing.

You have to understand my confusion when it comes to this, cause all this time scientists have operated by the idea that the particles do come from nothing, and also that it might be a explanation of the creation of the universe from nothing (which would then be real nothing as spacetime was also created by the same process), Stephen Hawking had such a theory. Obviously as there isn't even spacetime then this would satisfy the idea of 'nothing' as devoid of anything and everything. In the view of the particle which doesn't exist it is also devoid of anything and everything (which of course doesn't mean anything to the particle, but still).

I don't think so, I would rather think it was a pun on the mind-body problem, they knew that I meant the mind but gave that responce to illustrate that the mind is a part of the body. If not enough care is taken to read and understand what I meant then it's easy to just throw a pun or something as a responce. This is obviously not something that should be encouraged but I failed to forsee that reaction, of course I might be wrong too, that they really thought I meant that the body was disappearing into nothing when we die, but as I said before, that would be completely ridiculous and not a interpretation that I would need to cater for.

I try to use clear, concise and objective words and phrases, however there is no way that I can do that at all times. I would have to have some kind of mental illness to do that at all times. Instead I have to rely on the fact that people can interpret synonyms in context and find the correct intention. This is not something that is strange, we do that in our daily lives and it is a interpretation that has to be done when dealing with synonyms.

Yes, yet completely subjective. This is exactly the reason why objective reality is yet unproven - it must always pass through the subjective to mean anything to us.

It does help me understand it better; still I think it was very vague of scientists to describe a particle to come from nothing when it is merely a materialisation of the EM field. Rather I would have them say that it comes from the EM field.

Do they come at random or is there a process that causes their creation?

Also, is the energy present in the EM field to account for the energy required for them to materialise? I read that the energy required was too big, but that they were allowed to be created anyway because they existed for only a fraction of the planck unit (planck time?).

It might make it nothing, in which the spacetime of the area wouldn't only be empty but be nothing. It depends on if spacetime is defined by the particles/fields or not. I've read that the structure of spacetime is that of a particle.

Yes, but if the fluctuation is completely spontanious then it implies that it is random. If it is completely random (no hidden variables/etc.) then it implies that it is uncaused, something that is uncaused can be described as a event coming from nothing.

Nothing can also mean that something specific is not there. If there is nothing in a room, then we don't mean that the room is some kind of black-hole of nothingness, rather we mean that something specific is not there, like furniture or objects. I don't think that there is such a clear distinction between nothing and non-existence. Either way, if something doesn't exist (which existed before) and it hasn't simply moved or transformed into something else, then to that something there is no existence, as such "Anything and everything is not there" is the subjective aspect to such a object, while "Something specific is not there" is the objective aspect to it (such as we see it).

Truth in the case of information is that information uncorrupted, while truth in the case of most other things can be said to be what exists and what is real. In the case of something coming from nothing there can be no corruption or change of the true state of something, and hence it must be the truth that comes from nothing, if such a thing could ever come from such a state. Everything else can be influenced by the parameters that creates it. Nothing has no such parameters.

Nothing obviously has no limit either, if it can be shown that in some way something can come from nothing, then something must always come from nothing. It can't be a single event. At least I feel intuitively that it must be that way.

Yes it did. Some questions did arise though and I don't feel that my idea has no merit for this time being. I don't say this to anger you in any way, but I won't easily abandon any idea, and I think that this is a good thing cause I do have other ways to achieve my idea if this particle thing proves out wrong.

Ok, I would rather see it in a different way though. That supersymmetry is that stuff when it is frozen, and the interaction melts it. There is more entropy in heat than in cold, and supersymmetry (in my view) should require a high order rather than high chaos.

Somebody told me that nothing has no entropy, it was a long way back when I, like you, argued against nothing, so does that mean infinite order? Perhaps yet another argument for the seemingly equivalence to God and nothing.

Perhaps I should tell you that I don't really believe that Nothing is really Nothing. I rather believe that there is some kind of a reality of possibilities that is the fundamental cornerstone and where the universe came from and where any spontanious event comes from. As time can be seen as moving infinitely fast in nothing (it encompasses eternity in a single moment - or even in no moment at all) any possibility could happen there, and it could be manifested in reality if the laws of that reality allows it.

I know that this might be hard to follow though for the reasonable mind, obviously there ain't such a thing as time in nothing. BUT if you follow me in this thought experiment I could show more clearly what I mean; in relation to the world, any possibility that could have come from nothing can happen anywhere in the world. Such as a mind, if we really become nothing, then if somebody are born a billion years after we die, with exactly the same configuration that would allow us to live again, then we would live again and it wouldn't be like we sat around in Nothing for a billion years waiting for that configuration, but it would be instantanious. As such time in the world moves infinitely fast in relation to Nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Basic things, whether particles or energy, of course, could other source that it a thing (no infinite regress), and so that is a vote for the no-thing of noting, as there seem to be no other candidates.

The paradox is that nothing has no properties, and so it isn't even there.

As hinted, perhaps a total lack of anything could be more like a realm of the law of no law, something like a potential, but now we are back to something, I guess.

At any rate, something has to give, or nothing has to, for in thinking of them as we do, then we still have a paradox.

What gives?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If something indeed can come from nothing, then Nothing has to give and be replaced by some kind of world of possibilities, or world of potential existence, where the circumstances of the physical world may make this potential real in some cases.

 

So you're just trying to find a rational way to say ''God doesn't exist''.

There is no such thing as ''nothing'' outside of being in relation to something.
We cannot imagine ''nothing'', and we cannot think about ''nothing''.
Unless it is in relation to something.

God MUST exist, otherwise we would not be talking about it.
The question is, how is God percieved. We cannot percieve of ''nothing'' so
to say God is nothing is simply foolishness. We can percieve of ''nothing'' in relation to something, so God could NOT exist, because we see the material world, and not God. This then begs the question. What is God? And this is where we're at.

jan.

 

@Jan --

So the FSM and the Giant Space Duck also must exist? If they didn't then I couldn't talk about them. In fact, by that logic Narnia and Middle Earth must exist as well, should I turn to Tolkien for life lessons?

 

No, I'm not. I've found similarities between God and what would be Nothing if Nothing could have existence.

Exactly, that is why I always imagine Nothing in relation to Something.

That isn't true though. There is no requirement that what we talk about MUST exist.

We commonly perceive God as beyond our understanding, as present everywhere and can see it all. Nothing is present nowhere, which is much the same as being present everywhere, because if something should start to exist from Nothing then this Nowhere becomes Anywhere, as such Nowhere is Everywhere. If you follow my reasoning then you might see that it resembles God. I'm not saying that it IS God or that God IS Nothing, but if I would say that, then it wouldn't be God that is Nothing, but Nothing that is God.

If only that is where we're at... but no, that's not where we're at, even those that believe in God (like me) will from time to time doubt His existence. Without doubt there is no belief, without doubt there is fact. Without fact & doubt is delusion. Believe, but do it honestly.

 

Stop acting like a twit.
You know I meant discuss the existence of.

jan.

 

@Jan --

Not acting like a twit. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid debating tactic, you might want to get used to it if you intend to keep using such ridiculous arguments.

 

Bollocks! You're just wasting time.
There are no discussion here on FSM's or GSD's.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Say we had a wave tank with wave generators at each end. What we will do is generated equal and opposite waves so the waves from each source overlap and cancel in the middle. What this would do is create a still spot in the middle of the tank, due to canceling waves, even though wave energy is passing through. There is energy in this apparent stillness.

To make the energy appear, all we need to do is place a partition in the stillness. This will disrupt the two waves from canceling, causing the energy in the waves to appear out of the stillness. The spiritual person know how to create the partition in the stillness. The unbeliever only sees the stillness and lacks the faith to believe he can release the energy in the stillness with the proper petition.

 

Cyperium,

How can nothing have existence if nothing can only exist in relation to something?

What I mean is, God must exist in some format.
The flying spagetti monster exists, in a component sense.

Can you think of anything that doesn't actually exist in any sense?

I don't get how you equate...''Nothing is present nowhere, which is much the same as being present everywhere''.

If there are times when you ''doubt His existence'', what is it that restores
your belief?

Any doubt I have, is doubt in me, not in God's existence.
What is the point of having doubt in His existence? I'd be better off just
going about my everyday life without giving any thought to God.

In fact, if I think about it there are alot of times I do live my life that way.
At those moments, God does not exist for me. This is why religion is important. It helps us to think about God all the time, and of course coming on sciforums does it's bit in helping me, and others (though they may be atheist) think alot about God.

That's gotta be good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Obviously Nothing can't have existence, but IF it could then it would act as if it was anywhere in the universe at any time. Could be that completely random events is a manifestation from Nothing, that Nothing isn't entirely stable but can according to principles of reality sometimes give rise to real phenomena.

In some way everything exists. We can't know if the FSM exists in it's own reality or only as a fantasy. It can be that it can gain existence by the beliefs of many too. No one knows the foundations of existence. God does have a higher probability as notions of God or gods seem to exist independently of influences by cultures and cultures that are seperated often have notions of a God or gods.

I showed you how I equate it, by making it mean that if something indeed COULD come from Nothing then it would appear anywhere in the universe. Hence Nowhere means "No special place" and hence is much the same as Everywhere.

Trust is what restores my belief, trust in myself and trust in God.

I think so too. Just don't let them put you down, some people just can't understand how someone can believe in something unproven and dedicate their lives for it, this can give them reason to try to ridicule and hate you (as a kind of tough love from their side), they may have the best of intentions but they are selfish.

 

This is good—possibility—and since it is a fundamental state it would have no direction imposed on it. Could be truly random, if there is such a thing, but I suppose the causeless would have to be. Stuff appears, everywhere, all the time, then, and goes away as well.

At higher and higher levels of complexity, then, eventually, even higher alien beings could evolve, higher than us, but these would not be Gods since they would not be fundamental happenings.

 

Oh, I see. You took a theory and mistakenly claimed it as fact. The theory might be correct if our universe is a closed system (but nobody presently knows if this is the case). Several models of reality posit that our universe is not closed (ex. in m-theory gravitons would permeate our universe from the bulk).

As you hopefully noted in the link I provided (as your response further down implied), a field is an abstraction of strength of force. It is a property of space-time (to the best of human knowledge) and is everywhere space-time is. A particle results in more field strength; however, the particle is still a ripple in field.

It means that the default energy potential for any point of empty space-time is not enough for the positive energy particle to have more energy than the negative one (and both are very very low energy to boot). If you can vibrate a mirror really really fast (close to the speed of light), those positive energy virtual particles will be infused with extra kinetic energy from the mirror. The result is that when the negative energy particle hits them, they will still have enough positive energy to persist and therefore become persistent (i.e. non-virtual) particles.

Again, your response to my link below implies that you were able to correctly move beyond this. All fields in space-time jiggle. It's the jiggling that causes the field disturbances that we call virtual particles.

To date, an absence of anything / everything (i.e. nothing) appears to be nothing more than a human idea that has no correspondence in actual reality. In fact, every model of reality / the universe that I am aware of has no state where everything / anything is absent. I can see from your verbiage that you are searching for *something* from *nothing*, but that concept doesn't appear to have any correspondence with actual reality.

I understand your confusion (even with Hawking). The reason is because everyone and their sister likes to throw around the word "nothing" without clarification as to whether they mean absolute nothing (i.e. absence of everything / anything) or relative (i.e. absence of a specific something). Take the phrase "There is nothing in the glass". That is relative nothing. It typically means there is an absence of liquid in the glass but does not mean there is an absence of everything / anything in the glass. The way the word nothing is thrown around in physics leaves people (who are by default very theistical/belief oriented) that absolute *nothing* is real. This is because they have no way of knowing that relative nothing is being used (they don't know what the container is or what the specific something missing from the container is).

And yet people assigned that rediculous interpretation to your assertion. No matter how much you try to defend your intent, the result was the result and nothing will change that.

As much as we may do this in casual daily life, it's greatly minimized in science in engineering, and for good reason.

I wouldn't say it's completely subjective (quite the contrary). If you want to prove objective reality, inject yourself with a healthy dose of anesthesia. You will be able to turn off your consciousness like a light. Being able to use *what you believe* to be external reality to consistently turn of your ability to perceive demonstrates that that external reality is real (i.e. it is objective reality).

Excellent, and I think that scientists should probably strike the word "nothing" from their vocabulary

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Fields naturally jiggle around (for whatever reason). That jiggling causes the disturbances that we call virtual particles.

Yep.

It's the energy required to make the fields jiggle. It's a very small amount and the disturbances in the fields clear fast (as you have noted).

If you take an area of space-time and remove all energy from it, you still have space-time (i.e. 4 dimensions). 4-dimensions are *somthing*, not *nothing*. Some theories posit that space-time has the structure of a particle, but nobody knows if those particular theories are correct.

Hopefully, you now realize that the fluctuations are caused by the fields jiggling around.

Yes, that is the relative definition of nothing and it is synonymous with the word "empty".

As you have hopefully understood by this point, virtual particles are disturbances in fields caused by fields jiggling (as they naturally do). It's not spotaenous creation and I have demonstrated that this notion corresponds to actual reality via that last link that I sent you. That is truth, a correspondence between what's in a mind and actual reality. On a side-note I can't find any definitions of truth in information theory that are defined as "uncorrupted information". You are also ascribing lots of properties and behaviors to *nothing* (the absolute kind) and yet there is no known instance of actual *nothing* (absence of everything and anything) being real.

Whever your idea is, I don't think that you are ever going to find a real *nothing* (let alone *something* coming from it).

You can view it that way; however, it would be incorrect. Supersymmetry is the state of non-frozen stuff (i.e. it's identical stuff without any hint of differentiation).

To make that assertion means that *nothing* is real. Unfortunately; there is no evidence (not even a hint) that *nothing* is in fact real. But yes, a non-existent state of reality would not have any entropy (much like a non-existent life form... such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn).

Then you should use paragraphs (like the ones above) to describe what you mean and not try to hijack words that already have specific meanings.

What you are describing is no different than having an identical twin. A twin's consciousness is unique to that twin in space-time.

 

Though there is little if any empirical evidence for this model. There are some ideas about what could be evidence.

 

Correct.

 

Sorry for the delay in replies, I don't have a internet connection at home and have to use it while visiting a relative.

Many theories are mistakenly claimed as facts. The only difference is that some are more plausible than others. My point is that even though the total energy could be zero, it would still have existence. I thought that it was a generally accepted idea that the total energy of the universe was zero, hence something that I qualified (perhaps mistakenly) as "knowledge". It's hard to keep up with all the theories.

Yes, I understand what fields are, I just didn't understand that it related to the virtual particles in such a way that it created them from the field. I thought the field was always created by the particles, since they carry the forces, and not the other way around.

I heard of this vibrating mirror thingy...and guess what, they still described it as "particles coming from nothing", they never learn do they?

What causes the jiggling?

Then I guess you weren't aware of Stephen Hawkings model then? He states that everything came from a state of pure nothing, such that it is absent from everything and anything, including space and time.

This is what he said (amongst other things), from his book "The Grand Design":
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

So there are theories that real nothing (the one without space/time, or anything else for that matter) was the state that brought about the universe.

"Nothing" is a word that can both mean "empty" and can mean "absence of anything/everything", it has to be seen in context, unfortunately the context implied that the particle became non-existent, hence that it "vanished" from existence, I had never seen any mention that it transformed to and from a field. Why they almost never say that is beyond me, but might be because QFT is a incomplete theory, which has to use "hand-crafted" techniques to avoid infinities.

Well, Enmos did understand what I meant, he agreed that "we didn't exist", though added "but the matter that made us up did". So generally I think people did understand what I meant and I later clarified what I meant because I saw that it could be interpreted differently. Though I still think it should have been clear. If we want to push it though, we could say that the exact definition of "you" if we are to take away everything that is essentially "not you" is your awareness, because without your awareness there wouldn't be anything defining 'you', and the body would be just as any other body.

If you ask anyone "do you believe that we exist after we die?", then you can be certain that they do understand what you mean. It was in context that the meaning had to be interpreted, and there is no reason to believe that you meant the body.

Trust me, there are words with several meanings in science too, it's a general flaw of language, perhaps it's just a way to minimise the number of words to make the number tolerable, if we had to invent a exact word for everything then we would probably have tenfold as many words, I know that science tries to be as exact as possible, but only to a certain limit and explanations of theories and maths are often made using ordinary words when that is possible.

There's also a risk that if we use too many words that the ordinary people can't relate to we minimise societies understanding of what's going on in science. This is generally a flaw of science, I think.

I would also like to remind you that we are in a discussion forum were not only scientists can participate, and I like to use ordinary/common words as much as possible even though a explanation of what I mean might be required later on.

It would still only be what I *believe* to be the external reality. Because any knowledge of it is completely subjective, can you be objectively aware of the external reality?

Yes, indeed. If particles become 'nothing' then I can't interpret it that they become 'empty'. If they want to use the kind of relative nothing that you talk about then they have to use it relative to something. Hence that the space that the particle occupied has become empty. But that's not true either, because the particle has returned to the field.

"For whatever reason" is not good enough though. If it is completely random then it's still something from 'nothing'.

So the energy required for the fields to jiggle just isn't there? You understand that this would actually be energy from nothing then? Or do you believe that there are hidden variables to account for the energy needed to make them jiggle?

I should also say that the 'uncertainty principle of energy-time' states that the shorter timespan that is measured the more uncertain is the amount of energy that could be present during that time. Which is why that amount of energy (to account for the jiggles) could briefly exist as long as it only exists for a short period.

But the jiggles is uncaused according to current theories?

The uncertainty principle of position and momentum does imply it though, cause space-time in this view has the structure of all the properties of the particle reset to zero. Which means that it is well-defined and therefor must have a uncertainty as to wether the properties really are zero, so that we can't measure it's position and momentum to such a great degree.

Yes, but it doesn't take away the notion that something could come from nothing though, cause what are the "fields jiggling around" caused by?

Not completely synonym, because when they say that a particle becomes 'nothing', then they don't mean that the particle becomes 'empty'. There is not a 1 to 1 correspondence. They should have said (if they meant nothing as in 'empty') that the space that the particle previously occupied as now become nothing - but that seems to be a stretch too.

How come they 'naturally' do this?

Then why do they say 'spontanious'? Even in well-regarded scientific magazines and in scientific papers they say that they are created 'sponaniously'. Is this yet another blunder from their side? Is it a way to appeal to the crowd?

Nothing is a word that has no correspondence to reality (if taken literally), we use it to illustrate something that can't be imagined, words can be like that sometimes. It's like black is the absence of light. Naturally we can't describe visually the absence of light in any other way than the color black, it is still useful though. Nothing is often not taken in the literal sense that way, but fundamentally that is what it means.

If something is purely random, then that is *something* coming from *nothing*.

It's just more natural for me to think of frozen stuff as avoid of differentiation. Unfrozen stuff is always changing and by the nature of it should offer much more differentiation.

I'm trying to find *nothing* not because I suspect that it is real, but because I suspect that if we find it then it actually wouldn't be *nothing* but something, and I like to study the behaviour of this *something* that seems to us to be *nothing*. Do you understand my intent with this?

Truth doesn't have a specific meaning, it has many meanings depending on context (as do many other words).

A "identical" twin is not really identical, their DNA is identical upon inception but later becomes diverse as 'spontanious' mutations happen due to cellular processes and radiation. The "identical" twins therefor has small but significant alterations. Are you implying that our awareness is a function of space-time itself and not the physical properties of the body, or that it needs to be in this specific space and time, and cannot be in any other? What is the justification for such a view?

If a exactly identical body was born and developed until it resembled our brains as much as when we were born, then we wouldn't be that body? Is it space-time that holds the fact that we must be in this particular body? What property of spacetime would hold that information?

 

Instead of looking for God outside, has anyone ever thought about looking for god, within? Within has the best matrix. For example, if you went to a museum, a good work of art can affect you. This induction will not be the same for all people. How can it be that the same exact sensory input, does not create the exact same affect on all people? This has to do with something inside not outside within the object. The diverse number of ideas and explanations for God, or for God is not, all come from inside.

Relative to God inside, the human imagination is a good place to begin the search. What can occur in the imagination, as it impacts consciousness, is not limited by the laws of reality. I can fly to the moon flapping my arms in my imagination. There is no limits, jus like the concept of God.

The imagination is an unique organic matrix in which consciousness is free from the laws of natural. In this matrix the work of art can be different for all since it frees us from the uniform cause and effect of sensory input.

What people don't understand is all the diversity we say and believe is at least partially filtered through that imagination matrix where both cause and effect and probability break down. This matrix is the only material place that has the potential to express a god concept. Matter is too limited outside the neural matrix of the imagination.

 

Organic material contains as far as i know Carbon. Wich means it is at least built on natural substance. Reality is a standard, who will tell us that becoming insane is a bad thing? Maybe the mind in insane state will be capable of allot more if controlled. Not to mention the "drugs" that gow naturally in nature, they can change your imagination far beyond anything. They also change your perspective. So that would also be a natural imput. A god concept would be the one that created all that your talking about, at least in most religions.

On the subject.
What is nothing? Even though we say we know.... we dont.. no one does... Nothing does not exist. Empty space? It is still filled with some sort of atom. No one has ever seen nothing. I do not believe god exists, so yes for me god is nothing, and nothing for me is not particles or anything. Its nothing. No one can imagine nothing. Nothing cannot be felt or seen as its nothing. Get where im going?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!