A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

river said:
How does NO-thing exist ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Richard Townsend said:
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.
Click to expand...

Intellect , understands , nothing to something is not possible .
 
Richard Townsend said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Richard Townsend said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, Richard!
 
The physicist George F. R. Ellis, when asked whether Krauss has "solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing", noted that the "belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy .. "Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence)"
Click to expand...
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:
Seattle said:
Why do you guys have so much problem with "something from nothing"?

It's a possible explanation on the part of Krauss.
Click to expand...

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.

What is he supposed to call his version of "nothing". It's just a word or concept.
Click to expand...

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.

My understanding of "quantum fluctuation" as a possible explanation is that it's something inherent in nature and not something that can be "removed" in all of the various discussions of "nothing".
Click to expand...

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:
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!
 
Yazata said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
karenmansker said:
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!
Click to expand...
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:
Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
karenmansker said:
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!
Click to expand...
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:
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.

<>
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
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.

<>
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you haven't actually read the book.
 
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.

<>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top