Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Jun 20, 2013.
Please delete: double post.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
1. Where did matter come out from? Did it start off in the same quantity and will eternally remain in the same quantity?
2. Is it possible to have spacetime without any matter to occupy it?
Nothing exists because it is a state.
Just because it is a "state" doesn't mean that it exists. States are only intellectual descriptions of the nature of things. If a particle is in a excited state it doesn't mean that it is a state that makes it excited, a state is only a intellectual description of the nature of something.
Your two questions (and this is according to science):
1) Matter comes from energy, we don't know where energy comes from. It started out with a definitive amount of energy, that will always remain, in the beginning that energy wasn't in the form of matter.
2) Yes, it is possible to have space without matter, but it isn't possible to have space without energy.
The idea of matter being continuously created out of nothing may appear crazy at first. However, as Hoyle was quick to point out, no one knew where matter had appeared from in the big bang cosmology, either. The only difference, he explained, was that in the big bang scenario all the matter was created in one explosive beginning, while in the steady state model matter has been created at a constant rate throughout an infinite time and is still being created at the same rate today. Hoyle contended that the concept of continuous creation of matter (when put in the context of a specific theory) was much more attractive than creation of the universe in the remote past, since the latter implied that observable effects had arisen from “causes unknown to science.”
Yes, but the fact that we can logically conceive of the existence of nothing as a state as opposed to a thing means we can logically deduce its very existence as a necessity.
It's confirmed. Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations:
Nothing Exists as Non-occupied Space( Irrelevant to word state )
Fork, the word "state" is mostly irrelevant to grasping the simple concepts of non-occupied and occupied space.
'Energy' is a generalized term/word and has may subcatagorical forms. Many or most times that those in the know, use the word energy what they really mean to say, is Electro-magnetic radiation.
The 'Energy' in E = mc^2 is primarily refering to EMRadiation, tha, is dissasociative in contradistinction to associative fermionic matter or collections thereof along with bosons as associative atoms.
Scientist and the words they use are still often used incorrectly ex scientist and common people still use the word radioactivity for ionizing radiation particles and neither have not to do with radios in radioactivity. The list goes on and on but energy is one of the most commonly used as generalized term and mostly non-descriptive of what is really being referenced.
Energy = physical ergo physical/energy are like synonyms for anyone who believes in refining our definitions to find a more pure/refined truth.
Fermionic matter and bosonic forces is the first and primary subcatagorization of physical/energy.
We live in a finite physical/energy Universe, that is embraced from beyond first by quasi-physical gravity--- because ultra-micro ---,
and 2nd by macro-micro infinite non-occupied space.
Non-occupied space is a true vacuum beyond ultra-thin buffer-zone called gravitational spacetime.
Gravitational spacetimes is a membrane network of ultra-micro relationships that surround all quantum particles and surrounds our finite Universe in whole.
The easy way to visualize this as collective set of quantum particles enveloped by geodesic membrane that is tangentally interreconnected to the membrane of all gravitational geodesics surrounding all quantum particles.
Ex here is texticon visulaization of this relatively simple concept of gravitional membrane--- ()()() --- through out Universe emrbacing every quantum particle and embracing our finite Universe
The dots are used for formatting purposes only and not to be considered as a field. many use dots to represent a field of EMRadiation or etc....
Non-occupied space is a true vacuum and not a field of anything-- thing here being physical/energy ----.
This is simple stuff and common sense for any who follow a structural and systemic integrity understanding of Universe.
"Nothing exists because it is a state."
A state of what?
In the universe, which is everything that exists, there is no place where there is nothing.
Therefore nothing, or nothingness does not exist.
You aren't thinking that empty space is nothing are you?
Intergalactic space has about 1 atom per cubic metre, but it isn't nothing, it's space.
Nothing means nothing. No time, no dimension, no matter. Nothing.
It is possible that the universe could have arose from pure potential or nothing. We know for a fact that it is not a thing. But if we can logically come up with a description of nothing then it may exist as a logical necessity. Nothing cannot be observed that is why you see literally nothing when you observe it. It was a logically supporting argument to rr6 and it turns out that it supports the proposition that nothing is real quite well.
Yeah "in" is the key word here. "In" as inside a finite universe--- aka occupied space ---ergo what is outside of a finite Universe is non-occupied space.
the key word here is "everything" i.e. when "thing" is the sum total--- ergo finite total ---of all physical/energy, then when is outside ergo beyond that finite sum-total set of phyiscal/engertic stuff, is non-occupied space of true nothingness.
If Universe can be equated to a finite box then all you have to do, is think outside the box to grasp non-occupied space.
Therefore those who do not believe we live in a finite Universe/occupied space, are left with only one option and that is a macro-micro infinite Universe/occupied space. Those people who believe that really have no understanding of the words strucutral or systemic integrity. imho
There are some here that think that empty space is not nothing. A true empty space is nothing. The interplanetary, intergalactic intercluster space is full of physical/energy/stuff ergo only appears as superficially as empty. It is not.
Yeah, outside/beyond our finite Universe. We do not live in a Universe/occupied space of infinite physical/energy/stuff.
The size of our known finite Universe is only barely graspable, with visual aids-- charts ---to compare such enormous size scales.
And infinite Universe/occupied space is beyond graspablility/comprehension. An infinite Universe/occupied space inherent causes the human brain to think that there is some source 'out there' that keeps creating this new energy eternally so as to meet the requirements of the word 'infinite' occupied space.
Such concepts as infinity are in contradistinction to words of finite integrity, structural integrity, systemic integrity finite integrity.
The only infinite is non-occupied space, and the concept of infinite. imho
Think outside of the finite gravitational spacetime container and there, we will find a tangental truth to the finite Universe.
"U"niverse is inclusive of both occupied space and non-occupied space. Simple not complex concepts to grasp. imho
I am one of those people who think that empty space is not nothing. Nothing should have no observable properties and since empty space can be observed then it is not nothing.
However, I do suppose that a true vaccum of empty space could possibly be an example of nothing.
Multiple Bubble-like universe's( (o)(O)(o) etc....still finite
This above can also be used to visualize ideas of multiple bubble-like universe's.
..(O)(o)(O)....i.e. even if we have our one known universe + some finite set of other bubble-like universe's they still sum-total to a finite set labeled as Universe and what makes them one whole finite Universe is gravitational spacetime that connects then irrespective of how far appart they may exist. Gravitational spacetime cohere's any mulitple universe's if they exist.
As always, the key words are as follows;
01) non-occupied space, ergo infinite, nothingness, true emptiness, true void, pure space
02) occupied space are finite, structural, systemic, integrity, tainted space, aberrated space
01) non-occupied space, ergo infinite, nothingness, true emptiness, true void, pure space
Simple not complex. imho
"There are some here that think that empty space is not nothing. A true empty space is nothing. "
We are only arguing about definitions then.
If I accept for a moment the position that empty space is nothing,
then I accept that there is such a thing as nothing.
I'm with the Captain, and others, on this. All you people who say that absolute nothingness can exist are walking talking contradictions of the highest order.
Nothingness isn't anything. There is no it. And if there's no it, then there's no existence.
Space is something. Even abstracted to the point where it contains no particles, or even energy, it's still a container. Why? Because you're saying so, just by calling it "space".
The only sort of nothingness that isn't really nothing is the sort of scientific nothingness proposed by Laurence Krauss and a few others. In fact they even admit that they're not talking about absolute nothingness in the philosophical sense of the word.
There is a big difference between existing in memory (human recollection) and physical\actual existence. Look at it this way, i take a photograph of an apple then eat the apple. The apple is gone only the photograph exists as tangible proof and my intangible memory of the apple. Now all i have is a photograph (existence) and my memory which is not as reliable as a physical photograph or maybe even people would choose to not believe me that the apple actually ever existed.
Of course humans have the added bonus of intellectual (however we may perceive this) existence continuing after physical existence. Not always a good thing
Are you saying that we cannot conceive or attribute properties to nothingness? As in there are no words in the english language that can describe it? Because I would disagree.
Nothingness can be described just as something can. They are polar opposites.
Not legitimately, no, because if you're saying that there are properties, then you're not talking about absolute nothingness. This is at the heart of the ongoing debate between the philosophical community and people like Krauss over the definition of nothing. His nothing is "unstable", which explains why we ended up with something, but instability is a property, so while he might be talking about the closest thing to nothingness that physics can tackle, it's clearly not the idealized concept of nothingness that philosophers have been referencing throughout the ages.
"And I guess most importantly that the question why is there something rather than nothing is really a scientific question, not a religious or philosophical question, because both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.
In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting. And what I wanted to do was use the hook of this question, which I think as I say has provoked religious people, as well as scientists, to encourage people to try and understand the amazing universe that we actually live in." - Krauss
So what Krauss and others have done is to redefine nothing as something that is only meaningful within the context of physics. And I would agree that it is only meaningful in the context of physics because that's the only context in which it is actually anything at all.
Neil deGrasse Tyson had it right when he reviewed Krauss' book:
“Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void -- a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss.”
And in case anyone is interested in some of the more colorful history of this debate, this is a good start: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623
Nothing is like something by virtue of its ability to be logically described. Other than that they are not alike for one is a thing and the other is not. However, I do contend with Neil de Grasse Tyson's statement that nothing is something, a state as opposed to a thing in this case.
Separate names with a comma.