something cannot come from nothing on its own

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

Postby Hugh » Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:26 pm

irockyou wrote:Are you with Hugh or me... your post is very confusing.. :?

From what I understand, the first hypothesis is that the universe is ever-existing the way I defined it. The second is that the universe created itself from absolute nothingness, to which moonlord replies is "bogus".

Previously, where he said he agrees with you was in reference to your disbelief in a God, which he shaved off the need for with Occam's Razor.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Nick » Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:59 pm

Ohhh... OK. I can live with that as well, then.

Personally, I think all of the ideas are totally insane; an infinite universe? Hardly. Something from nothing? Nope. God? Occam's razor.

If only there was fourth possibility that made sense.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Hugh » Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:04 pm

irockyou wrote:Personally, I think all of the ideas are totally insane; an infinite universe? Hardly. Something from nothing? Nope. God? Occam's razor.

If only there was fourth possibility that made sense.

It's interesting to hear you say that something from nothing is a totally insane idea, and discard it with a "nope", an idea that you just spent all that time defending earlier in the thread.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Nick » Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:18 pm

I spent the thread defending it because I viewed it as the closest, most logical origin of the universe. I also enjoy playing devil's advocate :wink:.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby jinydu » Mon May 01, 2006 12:13 am

I would also like to add that the hypothesis that the universe is already infinitely old is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics... If the universe has already been around for an infinitely long time, its entropy would have already reached its maximum value.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Nick » Mon May 01, 2006 12:22 am

I'm not sure what Entropy is (I've heard of it), but it's already been decided that the only way an infinte universe could exist is if it was multiple big bangs; which implies that the universe as we know it existed a finite time ago, but that there were an infinite number of universes before that.

It would be impossible for the same universe to exist forever, because of the entropy thingy you mentioned, and the fact that the suns would have increased the temperature of the universe to their own temperature by now.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Hugh » Mon May 01, 2006 1:06 am

jinydu wrote:I would also like to add that the hypothesis that the universe is already infinitely old is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics... If the universe has already been around for an infinitely long time, its entropy would have already reached its maximum value.

For the purposes of this thread, "the universe" is simply defined as a "something" - in whatever form - that has always existed.

I'm interested to find out your thoughts Jinydu, on whether "something" - the universe - created itself from "absolute nothingness", or if you think that "something" has to have always existed in some form.

Also your thoughts on the possible existence of a creator God.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby jinydu » Mon May 01, 2006 2:32 am

I've never studied the Big Bang Theory before, so I can't say that I really understand it. But from what I've read, the current leading theory is that the Big Bang occured about 13.7 billion years ago and was the beginning of everything, including spacetime. So if my understanding is right, the universe does have a finite age and it did come from nothing (not even spacetime). However, I would like to stress that I'm not so sure about this because I have never seen the math behind it.

As for the existence of a creator God, I realize that there is no way to prove or disprove its existence. However, I'm leaning towards no: If such a thing existed, would it be compelled to obey the laws of nature? If yes, then it is not really powerful enough to deserve being called a god. If no, then the laws of nature fail to describe everything; that to me is unacceptably inelegant.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Mon May 01, 2006 3:05 am

An interesting read in its own right, but take a look at section 2.7.2 (page 17 of the PDF) which gives a general overview. This is a recent paper written February, '06.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Nick » Mon May 01, 2006 10:19 am

See Hugh, the only way your universe could work is if there were an infinite big bang/big crunchs before this. However, evidence now shows that the Universe will never crunch. If you can prove to me that a universe is bound to crunch some time or another, then I will believe in this "eternal" idea of yours.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby moonlord » Mon May 01, 2006 6:38 pm

Hypothesis, because none was prooved. Right now I incline towards Hugh's.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Hugh » Tue May 02, 2006 5:30 am

jinydu wrote:So if my understanding is right, the universe does have a finite age and it did come from nothing (not even spacetime). However, I would like to stress that I'm not so sure about this because I have never seen the math behind it.

I don't think you will ever see the math behind it. How can math show that something came from "absolute nothingness"? Mathematical and physical laws come into play once there is something to work with. If there is nothing, how can things follow those laws and appear from nowhere into nowhere making a somewhere?

If there were the laws to begin with, then there is something pre-existing. I'm talking about something coming from "absolute nothingness" here. Also, if there is no time, how can something occur in "absolute nothingness?"

Earlier you made reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Remember the First? Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

House, the paper you cited was an excellent read, covering a lot of different ideas. Section 6 - Start to the universe - is mostly applicable to our discussion.

From section 6.2; "No experimental test can determine the nature of any mechanisms that may be in operation in circumstances where even the concepts of cause and effect are suspect. This comes particularly to the fore in proposing ‘laws of initial conditions for the universe’ — for here we are apparently proposing a theory with only one object. Physics laws are by their nature supposed to cover more than one event, and are untestable if they do not do so."

From section 2.7.2; "to give a true theory of creation ex nihilo; such efforts however cannot truly “solve” the issue of creation, for they rely on some structures or other (e.g. the elaborate framework of quantum field theory and much of the standard model of particle physics) pre-existing the origin of the universe, and hence themselves requiring explanation."

That sums it up for me.

irockyou wrote:the only way your universe could work is if there were an infinite big bang/big crunchs before this.

Not neccessarily. All that has to work is that the "something" that makes up our universe, has always existed in some form, or that a creator God exists. The only way that your universe could work is if it created itself from absolute nothingness.
irockyou wrote:However, evidence now shows that the Universe will never crunch.

This is far from certain, and doesn't apply to the discussion.
irockyou wrote:If you can prove to me that a universe is bound to crunch some time or another, then I will believe in this "eternal" idea of yours.

If you understood more of what I was saying, you would see that this doesn't apply here.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Tue May 02, 2006 4:18 pm

I remembered Hawking mentined something that supports you, something about the laws of physics that predict that they will not be valid in the moment of the Big Bang.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Nick » Tue May 02, 2006 7:35 pm

moonlord wrote:I remembered Hawking mentined something that supports you, something about the laws of physics that predict that they will not be valid in the moment of the Big Bang.


Yeah, Hawking said the Relativity breaks down at (and near) a singularity. But I don't see how that supports Hugh, though...[/i]
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby jinydu » Tue May 02, 2006 9:34 pm

Hugh wrote:I don't think you will ever see the math behind it. How can math show that something came from "absolute nothingness"? Mathematical and physical laws come into play once there is something to work with. If there is nothing, how can things follow those laws and appear from nowhere into nowhere making a somewhere?

If there were the laws to begin with, then there is something pre-existing. I'm talking about something coming from "absolute nothingness" here. Also, if there is no time, how can something occur in "absolute nothingness?"


But surely, there is a mathematical theory behind the Big Bang; if all astronomers had was a description in terms of words and no math to back it up, the Big Bang surely wouldn't be taken seriously by physicists. I imagine there is some kind of function that describes the universe at times near the Big Bang. What happens if you try to substitute t = 0 or a negative value for t into that equation? I'm guessing that if I could see and understand the key equations behind the Big Bang Theory, I would be able to answer your questions.

Hugh wrote:Earlier you made reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Remember the First? Matter cannot be created or destroyed.


Actually, according to my chemistry professor, the First Law of Thermodynamics says that internal energy (defined as heat + work) is a path-independent state function. That is, if you want to calculate the change in internal energy of a system between an initial state and a final state, only the initial and final states matter; the "path" (i.e. intermediate states) don't matter.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Hugh » Tue May 02, 2006 10:37 pm

jinydu wrote:I'm guessing that if I could see and understand the key equations behind the Big Bang Theory, I would be able to answer your questions.

Be my guest. Look them up and explain how they show clearly that "something can come from absolute nothingness".
jinydu wrote:That is, if you want to calculate the change in internal energy of a system between an initial state and a final state, only the initial and final states matter; the "path" (i.e. intermediate states) don't matter.

Then how can you get a final state of something if the initial state is absolute zero?
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby jinydu » Wed May 03, 2006 12:36 am

Hugh wrote:Be my guest. Look them up and explain how they show clearly that "something can come from absolute nothingness".


I don't know where to find them; and even if I did, I probably still wouldn't understand them. I think they are likely to involve both General Relativity and quantum field theory, neither of which I have studied yet. But hopefully I will be able to understand within a few years.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Hugh » Wed May 03, 2006 12:57 am

jinydu wrote:But hopefully I will be able to understand within a few years.

Okay. Well for now, the scientists that do understand the formulas don't understand how it would be possible for the big bang to have occured without a pre-existing state of something.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Nick » Wed May 03, 2006 1:41 am

Hugh wrote:Okay. Well for now, the scientists that do understand the formulas don't understand how it would be possible for the big bang to have occured without a pre-existing state of something.


How do you know that? Do you know every scientist (that undertands the formulas) personally?

Stop being so biased, and be open minded. Anything is possible :wink:.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Hugh » Wed May 03, 2006 3:35 am

irockyou wrote:How do you know that? Do you know every scientist (that undertands the formulas) personally?

No. Do you know one that does understand the formulas that show how something can come from absolute nothingness?
irockyou wrote:Stop being so biased, and be open minded. Anything is possible :wink:.

May I suggest the same to you? :wink:
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Nick » Wed May 03, 2006 10:04 am

Hugh wrote:May I suggest the same to you? Wink


Certainly. :)
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby moonlord » Wed May 03, 2006 5:04 pm

You guys are on different wavelengths. We don't know which of you is right, but the fun part is that NONE knows. So, if neither of you knows a scientist to be sure (mathematically proven) of the valid hypothesis, it is principially wrong to adopt the "Who who's not against me is with me" position. You should both keep an open mind.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Hugh » Wed May 03, 2006 5:48 pm

moonlord wrote:You guys are on different wavelengths. We don't know which of you is right, but the fun part is that NONE knows. So, if neither of you knows a scientist to be sure (mathematically proven) of the valid hypothesis, it is principially wrong to adopt the "Who who's not against me is with me" position. You should both keep an open mind.

It's true that no one knows for sure moonlord, it's just that all the science we know currently points in the direction that something cannot come from nothing. :)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Wed May 03, 2006 6:33 pm

What do you mean by "science"?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Hugh » Wed May 03, 2006 6:41 pm

moonlord wrote:What do you mean by "science"?

Basically, science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

What it points to is that something cannot come from absolute nothingness. Is there any case that is known that it does?
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Wed May 03, 2006 7:28 pm

Except the explanation, all are OK. However, the theory is, as I already said, bogus. In fact, if it weren't, then we'd already know the truth, wouldn't we?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Nick » Wed May 03, 2006 8:42 pm

Hugh wrote:It's true that no one knows for sure moonlord, it's just that all the science we know currently points in the direction that something cannot come from nothing. :)


No, there isn't proof, but that doesn't mean you accept one and not the other. You can't rule anything out. Instead of pointing out the obvious, maybe you should actually find out what exactly the Big Bang means. According to Stephen Hawking (at hawking.org.uk), he has a one sentence definition for the Big Bang: "A singularity at the beginning of the Universe that explodes into the universe."

Notice how he says "the beginning" of the Universe, and therefore the beginning of time. Also, the quote I showed you (I think it's on page 2) clearly shows that he thinks the Universe and time started at the Big Bang. There is obviously a reason that he believes this way.

When someone starts a thread, the purpose is to share your belief and try to make others believe it as well, but so far I'm the only one that has been trying to share my belief. Maybe you should start too, eh?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby houserichichi » Thu May 04, 2006 2:12 am

Theory is just as important as experiment in science. If there was no theory then experiment would be random chance and luck at finding anything important. With a mathematical theory backing basic phenomena we are able to predict what "should" happen. It's the experimental evidence that then verifies the theory. Conversely, you can have lots of experimental evidence that can't be explained so the theorists develop some mathematical framework/understanding. Both are terribly valuable tools, neither of which can be used properly without the other.

Can we even begin to imagine what "absolute nothing" really is? Not really. Could a singularity have just suddenly appeared for no apparent reason? I couldn't say. I assume the physics (for lack of a better term) in absolute nothing aren't the same as what we have here. In fact, our physics is based on matter and its derivatives. Since there would be no matter in absolute nothing I really can't find a logical explanation why something couldn't just pop up...but of course I'm assuming what we assume as trivial in our universe may not apply in "absolute nothing". We're not working in the same kind of "space" that we normally do our thinking in so the rules we're used to might not apply.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Hugh » Thu May 04, 2006 3:51 am

houserichichi wrote:I assume the physics (for lack of a better term) in absolute nothing aren't the same as what we have here....We're not working in the same kind of "space" that we normally do our thinking in so the rules we're used to might not apply.

In "absolute nothingness", there is no physics, space or rules of any kind at all.
irockyou wrote:According to Stephen Hawking (at hawking.org.uk), he has a one sentence definition for the Big Bang: "A singularity at the beginning of the Universe that explodes into the universe."

A singularity is not "absolute nothingness".

You value quotes from Stephen Hawking so here's a quote from A Brief History in Time: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (p. 140-1)"

There is a quote that agrees with what I'm saying. Either there was a creator, or the universe has no beginning or end, it just is.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby jinydu » Thu May 04, 2006 5:59 am

One of the points which I perhaps failed to make to make clear is that English descriptions such as "beginning of time" and "came from nothing" might just be crude attempts to water down a precise mathematical statement. As I have said many times before in this forum, you haven't really understood a physics theory until you've understood the mathematics behind it.

I think it has been claimed that mathematics couldn't possibly describe a state where nothing, not even spacetime, exists. But I can see that this is not necessarily true.

The following is just a guess of mine; again, I've never seen the real (i.e. not watered down) Big Bang Theory, so this could be totally wrong:

I already know that according to General Relativity, the prescence of energy causes the metric of spacetime to change. What if the Big Bang theory is just an application of General Relativity? Maybe, as you rewind the clock back towards the Big Bang, the metric "approaches infinity" (whatever that means) at every point. And maybe, if you try to substitute a negative value in for t, the metric becomes undefined or imaginary, or something else that is physically impossible; this would explain why scientists say nothing, not even spacetime exists before the Big Bang. This is analogous to the way in which Special Relativity (at least, as far as I learned it at university) rules out faster than light travel: trying to plug in a speed faster than the speed of light into the time dilation formula produces an imaginary answer, which is physically impossible.

Again, the last paragraph is just a wild guess (it could be totally wrong, and the Big Bang Theory is in reality something completely different); but I hope to have made the point that the mathematics behind the Big Bang theory could provide an answer to all of your questions.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests