Nothing from Something?

[Tht1Gy!]

Didn't Einstein sy something like that ? Matter and energy are interchangeable, so some form of spiritual energy could have given rise to matter.

He said something about the matter/energy thing. Dunno about the "spiritual energy".
I like the idea that he did. First time I've heard that bit.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Who says that the big bang was the start of the universe ?

Depends on your definition of Universe. If you think of the Universe as everything we can see, then that universe started with the Big Bang. If you think of the universe as more than just that which started with the Big Bang, that is beyond or before the Big Bang so to speak, then I agree with you that the Big Bang didn't start that universe. However, the point is that scientists seem to claim that the Big Bang started with an infinitesimally small point of energy. Now, did that point have no size or some very very tiny size? It would seem to me that even the point that started the Big Bang must have had some size, because it existed. This is similar to the argument that zero must have some size (however tiny) just to be able to claim it exists.

 

[Enmos]

Depends on your definition of Universe. If you think of the Universe as everything we can see, then that universe started with the Big Bang. If you think of the universe as more than just that which started with the Big Bang, that is beyond or before the Big Bang so to speak, then I agree with you that the Big Bang didn't start that universe. However, the point is that scientists seem to claim that the Big Bang started with an infinitesimally small point of energy. Now, did that point have no size or some very very tiny size? It would seem to me that even the point that started the Big Bang must have had some size, because it existed. This is similar to the argument that zero must have some size (however tiny) just to be able to claim it exists.

No it may have been very small but it existed. But the laws of physics don't hold until point t=0 so we simply don't know.
All we now for sure is that something always existed. How you define something or what form it had doesn't matter much until we have the ability to describe it.

 

[John J. Bannan]

No it may have been very small but it existed. But the laws of physics don't hold until point t=0 so we simply don't know.
All we now for sure is that something always existed. How you define something or what form it had doesn't matter much until we have the ability to describe it.

How do you know for sure that something always existed?

 

[Enmos]

How do you know for sure that something always existed?

Because there is no reason to assume otherwise.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

All we know for sure is that something always existed...

I'm gonna have to agree with the OP, and say "We don't know that."
We definitly don't know it for sure.
It's a reasonable assumtion,...that something always existed... but "know"?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Because there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Well, sure there is. If the Big Bang started it all, and there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there is very good reason to believe something did not always exist. In fact, given the complete lack of evidence of anything existing prior to the Big Bang, the evidence strongly suggests somethingness did not always exist. Of course, I don't agree with any of that, because I think there must have been something that caused the Big Bang. But, still . . . there is good reason not to believe somethingness always existed.

 

[Enmos]

Well, sure there is. If

the Big Bang started it all,

Assumption. We simply don't know.

and there was nothing before the Big Bang,

Ditto.

then there is very good reason to believe something did not always exist.

If the previous two assumptions are true, I agree you would have a point.

In fact, given the complete lack of evidence of anything existing prior to the Big Bang, the evidence strongly suggests somethingness did not always exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is equally no evidence that there was nothing before the big bang.

Of course, I don't agree with any of that, because I think there must have been something that caused the Big Bang. But, still . . . there is good reason not to believe somethingness always existed.

Huh ? I don't follow. You seem to contradict yourself here..

 

[John J. Bannan]

Assumption. We simply don't know.


Ditto.


If the previous two assumptions are true, I agree you would have a point.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is equally no evidence that there was nothing before the big bang.


Huh ? I don't follow. You seem to contradict yourself here..

OK, then you can't be sure that somethingness always existed - can you?
I am just playing devil's advocate here. I do tend to favor the existence of somethingness eternally - but only for the reason that nothingness is eternal, and somethingness was probably derived therefrom.

 

[Enmos]

OK, then you can't be sure that somethingness always existed - can you?
I am just playing devil's advocate here. I do tend to favor the existence of somethingness eternally - but only for the reason that nothingness is eternal, and somethingness was probably derived therefrom.

There is no logical basis to assume that there wasn't always something.
But I cannot be completely sure. But I'm as sure of it as I am about Gods existence (and I'm an atheist).

 

[Myles]

OK, then you can't be sure that somethingness always existed - can you?
I am just playing devil's advocate here. I do tend to favor the existence of somethingness eternally - but only for the reason that nothingness is eternal, and somethingness was probably derived therefrom.

I was beginning to follow your line of thought but now you've thrown me.

You say you favour the existence of somethingness eternally. Then you say nothingness is eternal and somethingness was derived from it. This would suggest that nothingness preceded somethingness and leaves us with the problem of explaining how somethingness arose. Did it happen because of some external force which, itself, would also have to have existed eternally or we would get an infinite regress. I can handle an infinite regress of nothingness because there is nothing to change but surely an infinite regress of somethingness would suggest change over time unless it can be established that there was only nothingness before t=0, which I would not rule out as a possibility. Now we have to consider whether a putative force acted simultaneously or repeatedly over time.

I'm getting out of my depth here but something is telling me that there is a god after all. I confess to having been in denial..

 

[John J. Bannan]

I was beginning to follow your line of thought but now you've thrown me.

You say you favour the existence of somethingness eternally. Then you say nothingness is eternal and somethingness was derived from it. This would suggest that nothingness preceded somethingness and leaves us with the problem of explaining how somethingness arose. Did it happen because of some external force which, itself, would also have to have existed eternally or we would get an infinite regress. I can handle an infinite regress of nothingness because there is nothing to change but surely an infinite regress of somethingness would suggest change over time unless it can be established that there was only nothingness before t=0, which I would not rule out as a possibility. Now we have to consider whether a putative force acted simultaneously or repeatedly over time.

I'm getting out of my depth here but something is telling me that there is a god after all. I confess to having been in denial..

Sorry, I am not saying nothingness preceded somethingness. I am saying that somethingness is like snow falling from nothingness, but a snow fall that has always existed. Imagine an eternal vapor cloud that has been eternally cold enough to eternally snow. So, it's always been snowing, even though the vapor cloud is responsible for the snow. In other words, nothingness has always existed, and always been altering its form to a lesser extent into matter. Clear enough?

 

[Myles]

Sorry, I am not saying nothingness preceded somethingness. I am saying that somethingness is like snow falling from nothingness, but a snow fall that has always existed. Imagine an eternal vapor cloud that has been eternally cold enough to eternally snow. So, it's always been snowing, even though the vapor cloud is responsible for the snow. In other words, nothingness has always existed, and always been altering its form to a lesser extent into matter. Clear enough?

To be honest I don't quite understand. Give me some time to think through what exactly your metaphor is telling us.

 

[Enmos]

To be honest I don't quite understand. Give me some time to think through what exactly your metaphor is telling us.

From the other thread "Something from nothing?":

And I also said that somethingness was a subset of nothingness. Did you miss that? And I have repeatedly said that somethingness is a form of nothingness. As an analogy, water will always be H2O. But, it can also rain down as snow under the right conditions. Somethingness is like the snow of multiple nothingnesses. It's snow and different than the water vapor it comes from. However, both snow and water vapor are still H2O. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to say snow is water vapor. But, it wouldn't be incorrect to say that snow and water vapor are both comprised of H2O, and thus are the same thing. Get it now?

 

[Myles]

From the other thread "Something from nothing?":

I don't think it'sd as simple as that or he would have said so. I feel the metaphor is telling me something but I cannot quite grasp it. I am a slow thinker, so I shall sleep on it.

Are you not being a bit hasty ? Maybe you should set some quiet time aside and reflect on the metaphor, yourself.

 

[Enmos]

I don't think it'sd as simple as that or he would have said so. I feel the metaphor is telling me something but I cannot quite grasp it. I am a slow thinker, so I shall sleep on it.

Are you not being a bit hasty ? Maybe you should set some quiet time aside and reflect on the metaphor, yourself.

I will.. :m:

 

[Tht1Gy!]

This thread has given me much cause for thought.
The whole "nothingness begat something" is not new to me (very eastern) I've read it before a few times. I thought I understood it. Somehow, tho I've never applied it to the big bang and all.
This has blown my mind. Very